In an Oct. 30, 2012, file photo, former Vice President Walter Mondale, a former Minnesota senator, gestures while speaking at a Students for Obama rally at the University of Minnesota McNamara Alumni Center in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, File
I enjoyed my visit with Walter Mondale’s brotherRobert Lester Mondale and his wife Rosemary on April 14, 1996 at his cabin in Fredricktown, Missouri , and my visit was very enjoyable and informative. Mr. Mondale had the distinction of being the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos in 1933, 1973 and 2003.
Ricky Gervais act outs atheist bewilderment and frustration in the face of nice Christian nonsense
Carl Sagan – Parents
Carl Sagan said that he missed his parents terribly and he wished he could believe in the afterlife but he was not convinced because of the lack of proof. I had the opportunity to correspond back and forth with Carl Sagan. I presented him evidence that the Bible was true and there was an afterlife, but he would not accept the evidence.
Today I want to take another approach to the issue of the afterlife and that is the pure and simple fact that without an enforcement factor people can do what they want in this life and get away with it. This is a big glaring weakness in the Humanist Manifestos that have been published so far. All three of them do not recognize the existence of God who is our final judge. (I am not claiming that this is evidence that points to an afterlife, but this post will demonstrate that atheists many times have not thought through the full ramifications of their philosophy of life.)
I had the unique opportunity to discuss this very issue with Robert Lester Mondale and his wife Rosemary on April 14, 1996 at his cabin in Fredricktown, Missouri , and my visit was very enjoyable and informative. Mr. Mondale had the distinction of being the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos in 1933, 1973 and 2003. I asked him which signers of Humanist Manifesto Number One did he know well and he said that Raymond B. Bragg, and Edwin H. Wilsonand him were known as “the three young radicals of the group.” Harold P. Marley used to have a cabin near his and they used to take long walks together, but Marley’s wife got a job in Hot Springs, Arkansas and they moved down there.
Roy Wood Sellars was a popular professor of philosophy that he knew. I asked if he knew John Dewey and he said he did not, but Dewey did contact him one time to ask him some questions about an article he had written, but Mondale could not recall anything else about that.
Mondale told me some stories about his neighbors and we got to talking about some of his church members when he was an Unitarian pastor. Once during the 1930’s he was told by one of his wealthier Jewish members that he shouldn’t continue to be critical of the Nazis. This member had just come back from Germany and according to him Hitler had done a great job of getting the economy moving and things were good.
Of course, just a few years later after World War II was over Mondale discovered on a second hand basis what exactly had happened over there when he visited with a Lutheran pastor friend who had just returned from Germany. This Lutheran preacher was one of the first to be allowed in after the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, and he told Mondale what level of devastation and destruction of innocent lives went on inside these camps. As Mondale listened to his friend he could feel his own face turning pale.
I asked, “If those Nazis escaped to Brazil or Argentina and lived out their lives in peace would they face judgment after they died?”
Mondale responded, “I don’t think there is anything after death.”
I told Mr. Mondale that there is sense in me that says justice will be given eventually and God will judge those Nazis even if they evade punishment here on earth. I did point out that in Ecclesiastes 4:1 Solomon did note that without God in the picture the scales may not be balanced in this life and power could reign, but at the same time the Bible teaches that all must face the ultimate Judge.
Then I asked him if he got to watch the O.J. Simpson trial and he said that he did and he thought that the prosecution had plenty of evidence too. Again I asked Mr. Mondale the same question concerning O.J. and he responded, “I don’t think there is a God that will intervene and I don’t believe in the afterlife.”
Dan Guinn posted on his blog at http://www.francisschaefferstudies.org concerning the Nazis and evolution: As Schaeffer points out, “…these ideas helped produce an even more far-reaching yet logical conclusion: the Nazi movement in Germany. Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), leader of the Gestapo, stated that the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest. The result was the gas chambers. Hitler stated numerous times that Christianity and its notion of charity should be “replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness.” Surely many factors were involved in the rise of National Socialism in Germany. For example, the Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society. After World War I came political and economic chaos and a flood of moral permissiveness in Germany. Thus, many factors created the situation. But in that setting the theory of the survival of the fittest sanctioned what occurred. ”
Francis Schaeffer notes that this idea ties into today when we are actually talking about making infanticide legal in some academic settings. Look at what these three humanist scholars have written:
Peter Singer, who recently was seated in an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying “… no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”
Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, was on this very subject of the Nazis that Lester Mondale and I discussed on that day in 1996 at Mondale’s cabin in Missouri. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah’s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie and continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life. CAN A MATERIALIST OR A HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE GIVE JUDAH ONE REASON WHY HE SHOULDN’T HAVE HIS MISTRESS KILLED?
The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)
Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)
On the April 13, 2014 episode of THE GOOD WIFE called “The Materialist,” Alicia in a custody case asks the father Professor Mercer some questions about his own academic publications. She reads from his book that he is a “materialist and he believes that “free-will is just an illusion,” and we are all just products of the physical world and that includes our thoughts and emotions and there is no basis for calling anything right or wrong. Sounds like to me the good professor would agree wholeheartedly with the humanist Abigail Ann Martin’s assertion concerning Hitler’s morality too! Jean-Paul Sartre noted, “No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.”
Christians agree with Judah ‘s father that “The eyes of God are always upon us.” Proverbs 5:21 asserts, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths.” Revelation 20:12 states, “…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books” (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality. Judah inherited the Jewish ethical values of the Ten Commandments from his father, but, through years of life as a skeptic, his standards had been lowered. Finally, we discover that Judah ‘s secular version of morality does not resemble his father’s biblically-based morality.
Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS forces unbelievers to grapple with the logical conclusions of a purely secular morality, and the secularist has no basis for asserting that Judah is wrong.
Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, “When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?” (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, “Finding Common Ground,” September 14, 1993)
Josef Mengele tortured and murdered many Jews and then lived the rest of his long life out in South America in peace. Will he ever face judgment for his actions?
The ironic thing is that at the end of our visit I that pointed out to Mr. Mondale that Paul Kurtz had said in light of the horrible events in World War II that Kurtz witnessed himself in the death camps (Kurtz entered a death camp as an U.S. Soldier to liberate it) that it was obvious that Humanist Manifesto I was way too optimistic and it was necessary to come up with another one. I thought that might encourage Mr. Mondale to comment further on our earlier conversion concerning evil deeds, but he just said, “That doesn’t surprise me that Kurtz would say something like that.”
The second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and world war had made the first seem “far too optimistic”, and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.
R. Lester Mondale of Fredricktown, Missouri died on August 19, 2003, he was ninety-nine years old. Mondale was the last living signer of Humanist Manifesto I (he was the youngest to sign in 1933). He was also the only person to sign all three manifestos.
An AHA member perhaps since the organization’s founding, he received the AHA’s Humanist Pioneer award in 1973 and the Humanist Founder award in 2001. Mondale became a Unitarian minister after being raised a Methodist.
He was very active with the American Humanist Association, the American Ethical Union and served as president of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists in the 60’s and 70’s. Humanists Vice President Sarah Oelberg says that Mondale’s death marks “truly the end of an era” and AHA Director of Planned Giving Bette Chambers calls him “a great man, a great Humanist.”
Lester is survived by his wife, Rosemary, and four daughters: Karen Mondale of St. Louis, Missouri; Julia Jensen of St. Cloud, Minnesota; Tarrie Swenstad of Odin, Minnesota; and Ellen Mondale of Bethesda, Maryland. Also surviving him are his three brothers: Walter Mondale, former vice president of the United States, Pete Mondale, and Morton Mondale. Lester Mondale was also a proud grandparent of seven and a great-grandparent.
The Mondale siblings: Lester, Walter, Mort, Pete, and Clifford and Eleanor Archer (adopted sister); credit: University of Minnesota Law Library Archives
______________ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known spokesperson […]
______________ William Lane Craig versus Eddie Tabash Debate Uploaded on Feb 6, 2012 Secular Humanism versus Christianity, Lawyer versus Theologian. Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig debates humanist atheist lawyer Eddie Tabash at Pepperdine University, February 8, 1999. Visithttp://www.Infidels.org and http://www.WilliamLaneCraig.com ________________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel […]
_______________________ Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 Debate – William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist? Uploaded on Jan 27, 2011 April 4, 2009 – Craig […]
_________________ Antony Flew – World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God Uploaded on Nov 28, 2008 Has Science Discovered God? A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his Theology and Falsification, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most widely […]
_____________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his […]
___________________ This is the finest article yet I have read that traces Antony Flew’s long path from atheism to theism. How Anthony Flew – Flew to God Among the world’s atheists there was hardly any with the intellectual stature of Anthony Flew. He was a contemporary with C.S. Lewis and has been a thorn in […]
Making Sense of Faith and Science Uploaded on May 16, 2008 Dr. H. Fritz Schaefer confronts the assertion that one cannot believe in God and be a credible scientist. He explains that the theistic world view of Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell was instrumental in the rise of modern science itself. Presented […]
Discussion (2 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas ______________ Atheist Lawrence Krauss loses debate to wiser Christian Published on Sep 13, 2013 http://www.reasonablefaith.org More of this here The Bible and Science (Part 02) The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Scientific Evidence) (Henry Schaefer, PhD) Published on Jun 11, 2012 Scientist Dr. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer gives a lecture […]
Conversation with John Barrow Published on Jun 16, 2012 Templeton Prize 2006, Gifford Lectures 1988 British Academy, 1 June 2012 _______ Many Christians are involved in science and John D. Barrow is one of the leaders of science today. Here is his bio: John D Barrow John D. Barrow was born in London in […]
____________ Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 ___________ __________ Antony Flew, “I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the MONKEY […]
Given the tendency of politicians to buy votes with other people’s money, I’m especially impressed by his frugality. He followed my Golden Rule about 90 years before I ever proposed the concept.
Let’s further investigate his performance.
Larry Reed of the Foundation for Economic Education has two must-read articles about Coolidge’s track record.
First, to illustrate Coolidge’s admirable philosophy of fiscal restraint, he shares these key passages from his 1925 inauguration.
I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.…The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy…The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. …They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees…. I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. …The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.
Magnificent.
And you should also see what he said in 1926, when celebrating the 150th anniversary of America’s independence.
Larry Reed also debunked the silly notion that Coolidge was responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s.
So-called “progressives” tell us that Calvin Coolidge was a bad president because the Great Depression started just months after he left office. …Should Coolidge get any of the blame for the Great Depression? The Federal Reserve’s expansion of money and credit in the 1920s certainly set the country up for at least a mild fall, but that wasn’t Coolidge’s fault.He saw the Fed as the “independent” entity it was supposed to be and didn’t meddle with it. At least once he expressed concern that the Fed might be fostering a bubble but he otherwise didn’t make a stink about it. “Not my bailiwick,” he believed. We can legitimately say that Coolidge should have criticized the Fed’s easy money policy more loudly. …In any event, far worse than the Fed’s inflation was its deflation, which didn’t begin in earnest until the final weeks of the Coolidge administration. …Every good economist concedes that erratic monetary policy at the Fed was at least a minor cause of the 1920s boom and surely a major cause of the 1930s bust. You can’t blame that on Coolidge.
If you want more information about the Fed’s role in causing economic turmoil, I recommend this video presentation from George Selgin.
Larry’s column points out that both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt then imposed policies that lengthened and deepened the downturn.
Markets were, in fact, making a comeback in the spring of 1930 and unemployment had not yet hit double digits. Not until June 1930, when Congress and President Hoover raised tariffs and triggered an international trade war, did recession cascade into depression. Two years later, they flattened just about everybody who was still standing by doubling the income tax. …Franklin Roosevelt…then delivered…absurd interventions kept the economy in depression for another seven years.
What especially tragic about the Great Depression is that Warren Harding showed, just a decade earlier, how to quickly put an end to a deep downturn.
I’ll close with by emphasizing this quote from Coolidge’s inaugural address. Every supporter of limited government should withhold support from any politician who is unable to echo this sentiment today.
National Affairs Campaign Address on Religious Liberty (Abridged)
delivered 22 August 1980, Dallas, Texas
______________
RonaldReagan
National Affairs Campaign Address on Religious Liberty (Abridged)
delivered 22 August 1980, Dallas, Texas
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
Our two good governors who are here; Dr. Criswell, Reverend Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen here on the platform; and you, ladies and gentlemen:
You know, a few days ago, I addressed a group in Chicago and received their endorsement for my candidacy. Now, I know this is a non-partisan gathering, and so I know that you can’t endorse me, but I only brought that up because I want you to know that I endorse you and what you’re doing.
Since the start of my presidential campaign, I and many others have felt a new vitality in American politics — a fresh sense of purpose, a deeper feeling of commitment is giving new energy and new direction to our public life. You are the reason. Religious America is awakening perhaps just in time for our country’s sake. I’ve seen the impact of your dedication. I know the sincerity of your intent, and I’m deeply honored to be with you here tonight. You know, I’m told that throughout history, man has adopted about four billion laws. It’s always seemed to me, however, that in all that time and with all those laws, we haven’t improved by one iota on the Ten Commandments.
Today, you and I are meeting at a time when traditional Judeo-Christian values based on the moral teaching of religion are undergoing what is perhaps their most serious challenge in our nation’s history. Nowhere is the challenge to traditional values more pronounced or more dangerous than in the area of public policy debate. So it’s fitting that the topic of our meeting should be national affairs, for it is precisely in the affairs of our nation where the challenge to those values is the greatest.
In recent years, we’ve seen a new and cynical attack on the part of those who would seek to remove from our public policy debate the voice of traditional morality. This tactic seeks not only to discredit traditional moral teachings, but also to exclude them from public debate by intimidation and name-calling, as we were so eloquently told a short time ago.1 We have all heard a charge that whenever those with traditional religious values seek to contribute to public policy, they’re attempting to impose their views on others. We’re told that any public policy approach incorporating traditional values is out of bounds.
This is a matter that transcends partisan politics. It demands the attention of every American regardless of party. If we have come to a time in the United States when the attempt to see traditional moral values reflected in public policy leaves one open to irresponsible charges, then the structure of our free society is under attack and the foundation of our freedom is threatened.
Under the pretense of separation of Church and State, religious beliefs cannot be advocated in many of our public institutions — but atheism can. You know, I’ve often had a fantasy: I’ve thought of serving an atheist a delicious gourmet dinner and then asking he or she whether they believed there was a cook.
When I hear the First Amendment used as a reason to keep traditional moral values away from policy making, I’m shocked. The First Amendment was written not to protect the people and their laws from religious values, but to protect those values from government tyranny. This is what Madison meantwhen he drafted the Constitution and that precious First Amendment. This is what the state legislatures meant when they ratified it. And this is what a long line of Supreme Court decisions have meant. But over the last two or three decades, the federal government seems to have forgotten both that old time religion and that old time Constitution.
[At at this juncture, video editing truncates a substantial amount of content; see Research Note #1 below for additional speech content as prepared for delivery.]
In our own country, we can get our house back in order. The drugs that ravage the young, the street crimes that terrorize the elderly, these are not necessary parts of life. Despite some — Despite some intolerable court decisions, we do not have to forever tolerate the pornography that defaces our neighborhoods, or — or the permissiveness that permeates our schools. We can break the yolk of poverty by unleashing America’s economic power for growth and expansion, not by making anyone the perpetual ward of the State. We can cherish our aged, helping families to care for one another rather than driving their members into impersonal dependence upon government programs and government institutions.
When I made the decision to seek the presidency, I quoted one of those early colonists who landed on the Massachusetts shore, telling the little band with him that the eyes of all mankind were on them and that they could be as a shining “city upon a hill.” Well the eyes of all mankind are still upon us, pleading with us to keep our rendezvous with destiny, to give hope to all who yearn for freedom and cherish human dignity. We have God’s promise that if we turn to him and ask his help, we shall have it. With his help, we can still become that shining city upon a hill.
I’ve always believed that every b[l]essing brings with it a responsibility, a responsibility to use that blessing wisely, to share it generously, and to preserve it for those who come after us. If we believe God has blessed America with liberty, then we have not just a right to vote, but a duty to vote. We — We have not just the freedom to work in campaigns and run for office and comment on public affairs, we have a responsibility as you’ve already been told — again, so eloquently tonight — to do so. That is the only way to preserve our blessings – extend them to others and hand them on to our children.
If you do not speak your mind and cast your ballots, then who will speak and work for the ideals we cherish? Who will vote to protect the American family and respect its interest in the formulation of public policy? Who, if not you and millions more like you, will vote to defend the defenseless and the weak, the very young, the poor, and the very old? When you stand up for your values, when you assert your civil rights to vote and to participate fully in government, you’re defending our true heritage of religious liberty. You’re standing in the tradition of Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and all the other dissenters who established for us the rights of religious conscience.
Much has changed since the Constitution guaranteed all Americans their religious liberty, but some things must never change. The perils our country faces today and will face in the 1980s seem unprecedented in their scope and consequences; but our response to them can be the response of men and women in any era who seek divine guidance in the policies of their government and the promulgation of their laws. When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, they were told that their government and laws must be models to other nations, showing to the world the wisdom and mercy of their God. To us, as to the ancient People of The Promise, there is given an opportunity: a chance to make our laws and government not only a model to mankind, but a testament to the wisdom and mercy of God. Let it be said of us — Let it be said of us, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
May I close on a personal note? I was asked once in a press interview what book I would choose if I were shipwrecked on an island and could have only one book for the rest of my life. I replied that I knew of only one book that could be read and re-read and continue to be a challenge: The Bible, The Old and New Testaments. I can only add to that, my friends, that I continue to look to the Scriptures today for fulfillment and for guidance. And indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single Book.
I — But I just take just one more moment of your time. And maybe here I’m telling a little story that you perhaps have already seen. I don’t know how it is being circulated. I only know that it came into my hands by way of a friend. It was a card, a single paragraph on that card, author unknown.
But the author was telling the story of a dream the author had had, a dream of walking on the beach beside the Lord, while all the scenes of his lifetime flashed in the heavens above, leaving the two pairs of footprints in the sand. And then as the final scene of his life was on the sky, he turned around and looked back at the path on the beach. And he saw that every once in a while, there was only one set of footprints. And he said that every time the one set of footprints came at the time when the scene in the sky was of — of a terribly troublesome and despairing time in his life.
And he said,
Lord, you said that if I would follow you you would walk beside me; that I would always have your help. Why is it that in the times I needed you most, you left me and I see only one set of footprints?
And the Lord said,
My precious child, I would never leave you in your time of trouble. When you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
1 James Robison delivered an address at this gathering immediately prior to Mr. Reagan. Video of that address may be found here.
Research Note 2: Special thanks to Joseph Slife for suggesting this speech and for timely assistance in locating source materials for the transcript above.
Page Updated: 2/2/20
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Inno…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below:
_____________
Milton and Rose Friedman pictured with Ronald Reagan:
My heroes in 1980 were the economist Milton Friedman, the doctor C. Everett Koop, the politician Ronald Reagan, the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, the evangelist Billy Graham, and my pastor Adrian Rogers. I have been amazed at how many of these men knew each other.
I only had once chance to correspond with Milton Friedman and he quickly answered my letter. It was a question concerning my favorite christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer. I had read inthe 1981 printing of The Tapestry: the Life and Times of Francis and Edith Schaeffer on page 644 that Edith mentioned “that the KUP SHOW (ran byIrv Kupcinet ) in Chicago, a talk show Francis was on twice, once with the economist Milton Friedman, whith whom he still has a good correspondence.” I asked in a letter in the late 1990’s if Friedman remembered the content of any of that correspondence and he said he did not. Although I had an immense appreciation for Milton Friedman’s economic views sadly he took his agnostic views with him till his death in 2004.
JUDY GARLAND IRV KUPCINET Kup’s Show 1967
Published on Dec 3, 2013
1969 edit of Judy Garland’s 1967 appearance on Chicago based “Kup’s Show.”
_________________________________
The closest connection I have had to Francis Schaeffer personally was that my mother once met his good friend Audrey W. Johnson (1907-84) who was the founder of BIBLE STUDY FELLOWSHIP. My mother worked for Maryann Frazier who was the longtime Bible Study Fellowship teacher in Memphis.
Miss Johnson showed Mrs Frazier a picture of her hugging Francis and Edith Schaeffer and since she was taller than both of them she called them “my two small friends.”
__________
Dr. C. Everett Koop was picked by Ronald Reagan to be Surgeon General (pictured below)
___________
__________________
After being elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Adrian Rogers met with Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
____
________________
This was the average sanctuary crowd when I was growing up at Bellevue Baptist in Memphis. Now take what you see and multiply it by three, because they had three morning services. This photo was taken sometime in the early 1980’s
___________________
On 3-16-15 I found the first linkbetween my spiritual heroes: Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer!!!!! In this article below I read these words:
“If Schaeffer had still been alive, we would have had him come,” Richard Land said. He noted that Schaeffer was “close” to Adrian Rogers and “admired” by Bailey Smith, two conservative SBC presidents. Edith Schaeffer and Patterson’s wife Dorothy were close friends and travelled together in the early 1980s speaking on the importance of the home.
My family joined Bellevue Baptist in 1975 and every summer our pastor Adrian Rogers would come back from the annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in June and he would share on the following Wednesday night about some of the troubling things that were happening in the Southern Baptist Seminaries because of the leftward swing in the theology. I knew that this was a big issue with him and I knew that Francis Schaeffer had fought the same battle in his seminary days 40 years earlier. HOWEVER, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY KNEW IT EACH OTHER AT THIS TIME IN THE 1970’S!!!!!!!
The same time in the 1970’s and 1980’s that I was a member of Bellevue Baptist in Memphis where Adrian Rogers was pastor, I also was a student at Evangelical Christian School from the 5th grade to the 12th grade where I was introduced to the books and films of Francis Schaeffer. At ECS my favorite teacher was Mark Brink who actually played both film series to us (WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? and HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?) during our senior year and believe it or not after I graduated I would come back and join some of his future classes when the film was playing again because I couldn’t get enough of Schaeffer’s film series!!!!
During this time I was amazed at how many prominent figures in the world found their way into the works of both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and I wondered what it would be like if these individuals were exposed to the Bible and the gospel. Therefore, over 20 years ago I began sending the messages of Adrian Rogers and portions of the works of Francis Schaeffer to many of the secular figures that they mentioned in their works. Let me give you some examples and tell you about some lessons that I have learned.
I have learned several things about atheists in the last 20 years while I have been corresponding with them. FIRST, they know in their hearts that God exists and they can’t live as if God doesn’t exist, but they will still search in some way in their life for a greater meaning. SECOND, many atheists will take time out of their busy lives to examine the evidence that I present to them. THIRD, there is hope that they will change their views.
Let’s go over again a few points I made at the first of this post. My FIRST point is backed up by Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). I have discussed this many times on my blog and even have interacted with many atheists from CSICOP in the past. (I first heard this from my pastor Adrian Rogers back in the 1980’s.)
My SECOND point is that many atheists will take the time to consider the evidence that I have presented to them and will respond. The late Adrian Rogers was my pastor at Bellevue Baptist when I grew up and I sent his sermon on evolution and another on the accuracy of the Bible to many atheists to listen to and many of them did. I also sent many of the arguments from Francis Schaeffer also.
Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names included are Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-), Brian Charlesworth (1945-), Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010), Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-), Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-).
THIRD, there is hope that an atheist will reconsider his or her position after examining more evidence. Twenty years I had the opportunity to correspond with two individuals that were regarded as two of the most famous atheists of the 20th Century, Antony Flew and Carl Sagan. I had read the books and seen the films of the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer and he had discussed the works of both of these men. I sent both of these gentlemen philosophical arguments from Schaeffer in these letters and in the first letter I sent a cassette tape of my pastor’s sermon IS THE BIBLE TRUE? You may have noticed in the news a few years that Antony Flew actually became a theist in 2004 and remained one until his death in 2010. Carl Sagan remained a skeptic until his dying day in 1996.Antony Flew wrote me back several times and in the June 1, 1994 letter he commented, “Thank you for sending me the IS THE BIBLE TRUE? tape to which I have just listened with great interest and, I trust, profit.” I later sent him Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution too. The ironic thing is back in 2008 I visited the Bellevue Baptist Book Store and bought the book There Is A God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by Antony Flew, and it is in this same store that I bought the message by Adrian Rogers in 1994 that I sent to Antony Flew. Although Antony Flew did not make a public profession of faith he did admit that the evidence for God’s existence was overwhelming to him in the last decade of his life. His experience has been used in a powerful way to tell others about Christ. Let me point out that while on airplane when I was reading this book a gentleman asked me about the book. I was glad to tell him the whole story about Adrian Rogers’ two messages that I sent to Dr. Flew and I gave him CD’s of the messages which I carry with me always. Then at McDonald’s at the Airport, a worker at McDonald’s asked me about the book and I gave him the same two messages from Adrian Rogers too.
Francis Schaeffer’s words would be quoted in many of these letters that I would send to famous skeptics and I would always include audio messages from Adrian Rogers. Perhaps Schaeffer’s most effective argument was concerning Romans 1 and how a person could say that he didn’t believe that the world had a purpose or meaning but he could not live that way in the world that God created and with the conscience that every person is born with.
Google “Adrian Rogers Francis Schaeffer” and the first 8 things that come up will be my blog posts concerning effort to reach these atheists. These two great men proved that the scriptures Hebrews 4:12 and Isaiah 55:11 are true, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” and “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”
I noticed from audio tapes in the 1960’s that Francis Schaeffer was a close friends with former Southern Baptist Seminary Professor Clark Pinnock from New Orleans. My friend Sherwood Haisty actually got to hear Clark Pinnock speak in 1999 although Dr. Pinnock did take a liberal shift later in his life.
NASHVILLE (BP) — The late Francis Schaeffer was known to pick up the phone during the early years of the Southern Baptist Convention’s conservative resurgence. Paige Patterson knew to expect a call from Schaeffer around Christmas with the question, “You’re not growing weary in well-doing are you?”
Francis Schaeffer & the SBC
Patterson, a leader in the movement to return the SBC to a high view of Scripture, would reply, “No, Dr. Schaeffer. I’m under fire, but I’m doing fine. And I’m trusting the Lord and proceeding on.”
To some it may seem strange that an international Presbyterian apologist and analyst of pop culture would take such interest in a Baptist controversy over biblical inerrancy.
But to Schaeffer it made perfect sense.
He believed churches were acquiescing to the world, abandoning their belief that the Bible is without error in everything it said. A watered-down theology left the SBC with decreased power to battle cultural evils. To Schaeffer the convention was the last major American denomination with hope for reversing this “great evangelical disaster,” as he put it.
Thirty years after Schaeffer’s death, Baptist leaders still remember how he took time from his speaking, writing and filmmaking schedule to quietly encourage Patterson; Paul Pressler, a judge from Texas with whom Patterson worked closely during the conservative resurgence; Adrian Rogers, a Memphis pastor who served three terms SBC president; and others.
By the early 1990s, conservatives had elected an unbroken string of convention presidents and moved in position to shift the balance of power on all convention boards and committees from the theologically moderate establishment. But at the time of Schaeffer’s annual calls, the outcome of the controversy was still in doubt.
“I strongly suspect that he was afraid I would not hold strong,” Patterson, now president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, told Baptist Press. “He had seen so many people fold up under pressure that he assumed we probably would too. So he would call and ask for a report.”
A worldwide ministry
Schaeffer was born in 1912 in Germantown, Pa., and was saved at age 18 through a combination of personal Bible reading and attending a tent revival meeting. Within months of his conversion he felt called to vocational ministry and eventually enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he studied New Testament under J. Gresham Machen and apologetics under Cornelius Val Til.
Schaeffer withdrew from Westminster before he graduated to attend the more fundamentalist-leaning Faith Theological Seminary in Wilmington, Del. In keeping with early 20th-century fundamentalism, Schaeffer emphasized separation from the world and personal holiness. Among the practices he opposed were theater attendance and dancing. Schaeffer retained his fundamentalist commitments through 10 years of pastoring in the U.S. and then service as a Presbyterian missionary in Europe.
In the early 1950s, however, a crisis of faith led Schaeffer and his wife Edith to begin engaging culture with the Gospel rather than shunning it. They founded a retreat center in Switzerland called L’Abri — French for “the shelter” — where he studied culture from a Christian perspective and engaged young people with the claims of Christ.
L’Abri grew and was featured in TIME magazine in 1960. Soon Schaeffer emerged as a popular author and speaker, explaining how western civilization had departed from a Judeo-Christian worldview and setting forth Christianity as the only solution to societal ills.
Schaeffer “wakened the cultural consciousness of the evangelical community,” Bruce Little, director of the Francis Schaeffer Collection at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, told BP. The Schaeffer Collection includes all of the apologist’s personal papers and has been digitized by the North Carolina seminary.
“He thought that man’s dilemma was that man was fighting against the evil of the day, but he wasn’t winning,” Little, who also serves as senior professor of philosophy at Southeastern, said. “Schaeffer thought the answer to this is found in the Scriptures.”
From a Christian worldview perspective, Schaeffer wrote and spoke about such topics as the environment, abortion, art, literature, music, intellectual history and denominational decline. In the 1970s and 1980s, audiences packed auditoriums across America to hear him speak. He died of cancer in 1984.
Southern Baptist connections
Schaeffer’s interest in engaging culture made him particularly appealing to Southern Baptist conservatives. He helped provide them with a “battle plan” to fight cultural evils and what they perceived as theological drift in their denomination, Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, told BP.
“The one thing I heard growing up in Southern Baptist churches that was just plain wrong went something like this,” Land, former president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said. “We’re Southern Baptist. That means we don’t get involved in anything controversial. We just preach the Gospel.”
As a corrective to that notion, Schaeffer “made it very clear to us that the Bible is true seven days a week, 24 hours a day and its truth is to be applied to every area of life,” Land said.
Along with theologian Carl F.H. Henry, Schaeffer was the key intellectual influence on leaders of the conservative resurgence, Land said. When conservatives started to be elected as the executives of Baptist institutions, Henry spoke at Land’s inauguration at the Christian Life Commission (the ERLC’s precursor), R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky and Timothy George’s at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama.
“If Schaeffer had still been alive, we would have had him come,” Land said. He noted that Schaeffer was “close” to Rogers and “admired” by Bailey Smith, two conservative SBC presidents. Edith Schaeffer and Patterson’s wife Dorothy were close friends and travelled together in the early 1980s speaking on the importance of the home.
Clark Pinnock, a former New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor who mentored conservative resurgence leaders before taking a leftward theological turn in his own thinking, served on Schaeffer’s staff at L’Abri.
Another Southern Baptist to feel Schaeffer’s personal influence was James Parker, professor of worldview and culture at Southern Seminary. After reading works by Schaeffer and spending two months at L’Abri during his doctoral studies at Basel University in Switzerland, Parker decided he wanted to open a center for evangelism and discipleship like Schaeffer’s.
In 1992 Parker founded the Trinity Institute, a nonprofit study and retreat center near Waco, Texas, where he tutors individuals in the Christian faith and hosts conferences exploring the integration of Christianity to all areas of life.
Schaeffer was “a paradigm for the engagement of the mind for the faith, and so that was quite inspirational and encouraging to me,” Parker told BP.
Pro-life issues
The pro-life cause was one area in which Schaeffer strongly influenced evangelicals, including Southern Baptists. With his book and accompanying film series “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” — coauthored with C. Everett Koop, who went on to become U.S. surgeon general — Schaeffer helped convince Southern Baptists that they had to protest abortion.
In a 1979 interview with BP editor Art Toalston, then-religion editor of the Jackson Daily News in Mississippi, Schaeffer said the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion was “completely arbitrary medically” in its assumption that “a human being is a person at one moment and not another.”
He added that the ruling “doesn’t conform to past rulings at all. It invalidated the abortion laws of almost every state in the union. In all these states, the people as a whole felt that abortion was wrong. But the Supreme Court says it’s right.
“Not having a Christian absolute that says the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong because it breaks the ethic God has revealed, people took what the law says to be right,” Schaeffer said.
Prominent Southern Baptist conservatives, including W.A. Criswell of First Baptist Church in Dallas and Carl Henry, were not always pro-life, Land explained, but shifted their views as they saw the massive loss of life caused by abortion — a tragedy that Schaeffer highlighted.
Whatever Happened to the Human Race? was and is “devastating” to the abortion movement, Land said. “How anybody can read that book and not be motivated to take part in pro-life marches is beyond me.”
Finishing well
Little of Southeastern Seminary understands firsthand why Schaeffer was so influential. He remembers listening to him speak at Liberty University in April 1984, the month before he died. By that time Schaeffer was so weak that he was living on milkshakes and sometimes had to be carried to speaking engagements on a stretcher.
During a question-and-answer session, one student “stood to his feet and said, ‘Dr. Schaeffer, it seems to me that the church is in the 10th round. It’s bloody. It’s beaten. It’s on its knees. Is there any hope we can win?'” Little recounted.
“I can see Schaeffer now,” Little continued. “He leaned forward, brought the mic to his mouth and said, ‘Son, if you do it to win, you’ve lost already.'” Whether they win or lose, Christians fight the culture wars, Schaeffer said, “because our risen Lord has commanded us.”
___________ What a blessing to be a member of Bellevue Baptist from 1975 to 1983 and participate in many of those years in the Bellevue Baptist Singing Christmas Tree. Jim Whitmire always did a great job of planning and directing and Adrian Rogers always did a super job with the short concise presentation of the […]
_______________________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: __________________ I sent William Provine a letter several months ago with a CD of the following message by Adrian Rogers and in the letter were several arguments from Schaeffer. Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Today I am sending out another […]
__________ Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God In the 1970’s and 1980’s I was a member of Bellevue Baptist in Memphis where Adrian Rogers was pastor and was a student at ECS from the 5th grade to the 12th grade where I was introduced to […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
Office of Barack and Michelle Obama P.O. Box 91000 Washington, DC 20066
Dear President Obama,
I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters.
There are several issues raised in your book that I would like to discuss with you such as the minimum wage law, the liberal press, the cause of 2007 financial meltdown, and especially your pro-choice (what I call pro-abortion) view which I strongly object to on both religious and scientific grounds, Two of the most impressive things in your book were your dedication to both the National Prayer Breakfast (which spoke at 8 times and your many visits to the sides of wounded warriors!!
I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it.
Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:
ONE AFTERNOON a couple of months after the Af-Pak announcement, I walked alone across the South Lawn—trailed by a military aide carrying the football and my veterans affairs staffer, Matt Flavin—to board the Marine One helicopter and make the brief flight to Maryland for the first of what would be regular visits to Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. On arrival, I was greeted by commanders of the facility, who gave me a quick overview of the number and condition of wounded warriors on-site before leading me through a maze of stairs, elevators, and corridors to the main patients’ ward. For the next hour, I proceeded from room to room, sanitizing my hands and donning scrubs and surgical gloves where necessary, stopping in the hallway to get some background on the recovering service member from hospital staffers before knocking softly on the door. Though patients at the hospitals came from every branch of the military, many who were there during my first few years in office were members of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps that patrolled the insurgent-dominated areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and had been injured by gunfire or IEDs. Almost all were male and working-class: whites from small rural towns or fading manufacturing hubs, Blacks and Hispanics from cities like Houston or Trenton, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders from California. Usually they had family members sitting with them—mostly parents, grandparents, and siblings, though if the service member was older, there would be a wife and kids too—toddlers squirming in laps, five-year-olds with toy cars, teenagers playing video games. As soon as I entered the room, everyone would shift around, smiling shyly, appearing not quite sure what to do. For me, this was one of the vagaries of the job, the fact that my presence reliably caused a disruption and a bout of nervousness among those I was meeting. I tried always to lighten the mood, doing what I could to put people at ease. Unless fully incapacitated, the service members would usually raise their bed upright, sometimes pulling themselves to a seated position by reaching for the sturdy metal handle on the bedpost. Several insisted on hopping out of bed, often balancing on their good leg to salute and shake my hand. I‘d ask them about their hometown and how long they’d been in the service. I’d ask them how they got their injury and how soon they might be starting rehab or be getting fitted for a prosthetic. We often talked sports, and some would ask me to sign a unit flag hung on the wall, and I’d give each service member a commemorative challenge coin. Then we’d all position ourselves around the bed as Pete Souza took pictures with his camera and with their phones, and Matt would give out business cards so they could call him personally at the White House if they needed anything at all. How those men inspired me! Their courage and determination, their insistence that they’d be back at it in no time, their general lack of fuss. It made so much of what passes for patriotism—the gaudy rituals at football games, the desultory flag waving at parades, the blather of politicians—seem empty and trite. The patients I met had nothing but praise for the hospital teams responsible for their treatment—the doctors, nurses, and orderlies, most of them service members themselves but some of them civilians, a surprising number of them foreign-born, originally from places like Nigeria, El Salvador, or the Philippines. Indeed, it was heartening to see how well these wounded warriors were cared for, beginning with the seamless, fast-moving chain that allowed a Marine injured in a dusty Afghan village to be medevaced to the closest base, stabilized, then transported to Germany and onward to Bethesda or Walter Reed for state-of-the-art surgery, all in a matter of days. Because of that system—a melding of advanced technology, logistical precision, and highly trained and dedicated people, the kind of thing that the U.S. military does better than any other organization on earth—many soldiers who would have died from similar wounds during the Vietnam era were now able to sit with me at their bedside, debating the merits of the Bears versus the Packers. Still, no level of precision or care could erase the brutal, life-changing nature of the injuries these men had suffered. Those who had lost a single leg, especially if the amputation was below the knee, often described themselves as being lucky. Double or even triple amputees were not uncommon, nor were severe cranial trauma, spinal injuries, disfiguring facial wounds, or the loss of eyesight, hearing, or any number of basic bodily functions. The service members I met were adamant that they had no regrets about sacrificing so much for their country and were understandably offended by anyone who viewed them with even a modicum of pity. Taking their cues from their wounded sons, the parents I met were careful to express only the certainty of their child’s recovery, along with their deep wells of pride. And yet each time I entered a room, each time I shook a hand, I could not ignore how incredibly young most of these service members were, many of them barely out of high school. I couldn’t help but notice the rims of anguish around the eyes of the parents, who themselves were often younger than me. I wouldn’t forget the barely suppressed anger in the voice of a father I met at one point, as he explained that his handsome son, who lay before us likely paralyzed for life, was celebrating his twenty-first birthday that day, or the vacant expression on the face of a young mother who sat with a baby cheerfully gurgling in her arms, pondering a life with a husband who was probably going to survive but would no longer be capable of conscious thought. Later, toward the end of my presidency, The New York Times would run an article about my visits to the military hospitals. In it, a national security official from a previous administration opined that the practice, no matter how well intentioned, was not something a commander in chief should do—that visits with the wounded inevitably clouded a president’s capacity to make clear-eyed, strategic decisions. I was tempted to call that man and explain that I was never more clear-eyed than on the flights back from Walter Reed and Bethesda. Clear about the true costs of war, and who bore those costs. Clear about war’s folly, the sorry tales we humans collectively store in our heads and pass on from generation to generation—abstractions that fan hate and justify cruelty and force even the righteous among us to participate in carnage. Clear that by virtue of my office, I could not avoid responsibility for lives lost or shattered, even if I somehow justified my decisions by what I perceived to be some larger good. Looking through the helicopter window at the tidy green landscape below, I thought about Lincoln during the Civil War, his habit of wandering through makeshift infirmaries not so far from where we were flying, talking softly to soldiers who lay on flimsy cots, bereft of antiseptics to stanch infections or drugs to manage pain, the stench of gangrene everywhere, the clattering and wheezing of impending death. I wondered how Lincoln had managed it, what prayers he said afterward. He must have known it was a necessary penance. A penance I, too, had to pay.
I—
I really enjoyed this article below about your visits to the soldiers!
Obama’s sacred duty: Visiting the wounded at Walter Reed
Published Nov 29, 2016
BETHESDA, Md. — President Barack Obama stood outside the room, rubbed sanitizer on his hands, set his face into a smile and knocked on the door.
No one answered. He looked at the hospital floor polished to a sheen and knocked again. Still no answer. So Obama turned the knob and gently pushed his way inside.
“Hello? Jeremy, what’s going on?” Maj. Jeremy Haynes remembers the president saying as he came into his room at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center two years ago.
It was the first of several visits the president paid Haynes, an Army officer who was told he would never walk, feel below his waist or have children again after his spine was hit by a Taliban bullet in Afghanistan. The visits, Haynes said, “were truly inspiring to me” and gave him hope for the life ahead of him.
On Tuesday, for his 23rd and probably last time as president, Obama will helicopter to the military hospital to spend another afternoon with the wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq. The visit is likely to unfold much as Haynes and hospital officials described the ones the president paid to him.
Obama will arrive at the hospital in suburban Maryland on Marine One with a minimum of ceremony, having memorized the names of the wounded he will visit from a list he received the night before. At a side entrance to the hospital, a military aide will update him on their conditions. If he visits those still hospitalized, he will climb the stairs to 4 West and 4 Center, known as the soldiers ward. After greeting the doctors and nurses on duty, he will begin his rounds with a knock. If instead he visits the physical therapy center, he will wander one giant room filled with exercise machines and patients learning to live without limbs.
For Obama, who has served as a wartime commander longer than any of his predecessors, meeting with the wounded and their families is among the most sacred duties of his presidency. He rarely talks about his trips to Walter Reed, but his aides say that they have affected him deeply.
David Axelrod, Obama’s longtime political aide, said the president often returned to the White House from Walter Reed, first when it was in Washington and later after it had merged with Bethesda Naval Hospital, in a somber mood. After one such trip, he recalled, Obama described a young woman attending to her newlywed husband, whose body was shattered and head terribly wounded
“‘You want to be upbeat and encouraging,’ I remember him saying,” Axelrod said. “‘But they’re just kids starting out, and I looked at his wife’s face and you could see her struggling with what this would mean for the rest of their lives. It’s really hard.’ “
• • •
In his first two years in office, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan raged and there were many wounded, Obama’s trips to Walter Reed were three- and four-hour slogs during which he donned fresh hospital gowns and gloves outside every fifth room to see patients clinging to life days or weeks after being blown apart. He returned to the White House visibly drained, aides said.
More recently, he has done push-ups and other exercises with newly minted civilians who, instead of struggling to live, are trying to find ways of coping without arms, legs or equilibrium months and years after being wounded.
“The first term, our visits would last for hours because there would be 25, 50, 75 folks that we’d be seeing, going room to room, many with devastating injuries,” Michelle Obama, who has made her own trips to Walter Reed, said recently. “And now, today, just last week he went to visit, and he was there for 30 minutes because there are fewer of our men and women who are being injured in war.”
The afternoon excursions from the White House are in many ways the counterpoint to Barack Obama’s 15 trips offering condolences after mass shootings, when he has openly grieved with families, tears on his face. At Walter Reed, his goal has been to thank and uplift the wounded and their families, whose sacrifices he sees as almost holy and among whom expressions of grief are often unwelcome.
“If you are coming into this room with sorrow or to feel sorry for my wounds, go elsewhere,” read one handwritten sign outside a soldier’s door, now framed and installed on the soldiers ward.
• • •
Reggie Love, a former aide to Obama who accompanied him on nearly all of his trips to military hospitals in the first three years of the administration, said the president was good at reading the rooms he entered. Not everyone wanted an upbeat message.
“Sometimes the people he met didn’t have any questions for him or really anything to say,” Love said. “Sometimes, they just needed a hug.”
Some of the soldiers whom Obama has visited are more grievously wounded than those seen by any modern president, as improved technology has saved people who even five years ago would have died on the battlefield. The shock of repeatedly seeing such devastating injuries can affect someone’s psyche far more than flag-draped coffins, psychologists say.
“Every time I visit Walter Reed, every time I visit Bethesda, I’m reminded of the wages of war,” Obama said at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 2011.
Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary, wrote in his memoir Duty that seeing the wounded and attending funerals took such an emotional toll that he had to resign. Critics see another effect. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has become increasingly unwilling to commit troops to wars in places like Libya, Syria and Iraq.
The visits end with Obama’s signing unit flags, books and anything else presented to him, and with a photographer taking group and paired shots. Sometimes families ask to have photos taken with their own cellphones, which Obama hands over to his photographer.
• • •
In June, Obama visited the hospital’s physical therapy room, where amputees learn to walk again. One double-amputee gave Obama a push-up challenge, and Obama promptly shed his suit jacket, dropped to the floor and reeled off more than 20. Still wearing dress shoes, he joined another in jumping onto a 30-inch box.
“I can’t even put into words how impressed I was,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Terry, known as Jae, an amputee whose photo of doing lunges with Obama is among his most treasured possessions. “I will remember that day until I die.”
Not every severely wounded patient at Walter Reed meets the president. Some miss him by chance. A few refuse because they disagree with the president’s politics.
But even some of the president’s critics say his presence ennobled their injuries and made them feel part of a larger plan.
As he buckled his two stumps into prosthetic legs at the hospital one day recently, Edward Klein, known as Flip, a now retired Army major, acknowledged that “I wasn’t a big fan of his politically.”
But, he added: “Meeting the president added a feeling of legitimacy and recognition for what I did.”
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com
Lt. Cmdr. John Terry doing lunges with President Obama at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Commander Terry, who provided the image, said, “I will remember that day until I die.”
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 pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)
America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)
3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Living in the Material World is notable for the uncompromising lyrical content of its songs, reflecting Harrison’s struggle for spiritual enlightenment against his status as a superstar, as well as for what many commentators consider to be the finest guitar and vocal performances of his career. In contrast with All Things Must Pass, Harrison scaled down the production for Material World, using a core group of musicians comprising Nicky Hopkins, Gary Wright, Klaus Voormann and Jim Keltner. Ringo Starr, John Barham and Indian musician Zakir Hussain were among the album’s other contributors.
Upon release, Rolling Stone described it as a “pop classic”, a work that “stands alone as an article of faith, miraculous in its radiance”.[1] Most contemporary reviewers consider Living in the Material World to be a worthy successor to All Things Must Pass, even if it inevitably falls short of Harrison’s grand opus. Author Simon Leng refers to the album as a “forgotten blockbuster”, representing “the close of an age, the last offering of the Beatles‘ London era”.[2]EMI reissued the album in 2006, in remastered form with bonus tracks, and released a deluxe-edition CD/DVD set that included film clips of four songs.
George Harrison‘s 1971–72 humanitarian aid project for the new nation of Bangladesh had left him an international hero,[4][5][6] but also exhausted and frustrated in his efforts to ensure that the money raised would find its way to those in need.[7][8] Rather than record a follow-up to his acclaimed 1970 triple album, All Things Must Pass, Harrison put his solo career on hold for over a year following the two Concert for Bangladesh shows,[9][10] held at Madison Square Garden, New York, in August 1971.[11] In an interview with Disc and Music Echo magazine in December that year, pianist Nicky Hopkins spoke of having just attended the New York sessions for John Lennon‘s “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” single, where Harrison had played them “about two or three hours” worth of new songs, adding: “They were really incredible.”[12] Hopkins suggested that work on Harrison’s next solo album was to begin in January or February at his new home studio at Friar Park,[12] but any such plan was undone by Harrison’s commitment to the Bangladesh relief project.[13][nb 1] While he found time during the last few months of 1971 to produce singles for Ringo Starr and Apple Records protégés Lon & Derrek Van Eaton, and to help promote the Ravi Shankar documentary Raga,[18][19] Harrison’s next project in the role of music producer was not until August 1972, when Cilla Black recorded his composition “When Every Song Is Sung“.[20]
Throughout this period, Harrison’s devotion to Hindu spirituality – particularly to Krishna consciousness via his friendship with A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada[21] – reached new heights.[22][23] As Harrison admitted, his adherence to his spiritual path was not necessarily consistent.[24][25] His wife, Pattie Boyd, and their friend Chris O’Dell would joke that it was hard to tell whether he was dipping into his ever-present Japa Yoga prayer bag or “the coke bag”.[26] This duality has been noted by Harrison biographers Simon Leng and Alan Clayson: on one hand, Harrison earned himself the nickname “His Lectureship” during his prolonged periods of fervid devotion;[27] on the other, he participated in bawdy London sessions for the likes of Bobby Keys‘ eponymous solo album and what Leng terms Harry Nilsson‘s “thoroughly nasty” “You’re Breakin’ My Heart“, both recorded in the first half of 1972.[19][28] Similarly, Harrison’s passion for high-performance cars saw him lose his driver’s licence for the second time in a year after crashing his Mercedes into a roundabout at 90 miles an hour, on 28 February, with Boyd in the passenger seat.[29][30][nb 2]
In August 1972, with the Concert for Bangladesh documentary film having finally been released worldwide, Harrison set off alone for a driving holiday in Europe,[15] during which he chanted the Hare Krishna mantra nonstop for a whole day, he later claimed.[32][33]Religious academic Joshua Greene, a Hare Krishna devotee, has described this trip as Harrison’s “preparation” for recording the Living in the Material World album.[33][nb 3]
All Things Must Pass might be better, but those songs [on Living in the Material World] are incredible … You can hear from the LP what his aim was; he definitely had a message he wanted to get across.[44]
Both “The Lord Loves the One” and the album’s title track were directly inspired by Prabhupada’s teachings.[45][46] Greene writes of Harrison adapting a passage from the Bhagavad Gita into his lyrics for “Living in the Material World” and adds: “Some of the songs distilled spiritual concepts into phrases so elegant they resembled Vedic sutras: short codes that contain volumes of meaning.”[47] On “Give Me Love”, Harrison blended the Hindu bhajan style (or devotional song) with Western gospel music, repeating the formula of his 1970–71 international hit “My Sweet Lord“.[48] In his 1980 autobiography, I Me Mine, he describes the song as “a prayer and personal statement between me, the Lord, and whoever likes it”.[49]
Whereas Harrison’s Krishna devotionals on All Things Must Pass had been uplifting celebrations of faith,[50] his latest compositions betrayed a more austere quality,[44]partly as a result of the Bangladesh experience.[51] His musical arranger, John Barham, would later suggest that a spiritual “crisis” might have been the cause;[44] other observers have pointed to Harrison’s failing marriage to Boyd.[14][52][nb 4]Leng writes of his frame of mind at this time: “while George Harrison was bursting with musical confidence, Living in the Material World found him in roughly the same place that John Lennon was when he wrote ‘Help!‘ – shocked by the rush of overwhelming success and desperately wondering where it left him.”[54]
Other song themes addressed the Beatles‘ legacy,[55] either in direct references to the band’s history – in the case of “Living in the Material World” and “Sue Me, Sue You Blues“[56][57] – or in Harrison’s stated desire to live in the present, free of his former identity, in the case of “The Light That Has Lighted the World“, “Who Can See It” and “Be Here Now“.[58] The lyrics to “Who Can See It” reflect Harrison’s disenchantment with his previous, junior status to former bandmates Lennon and Paul McCartney,[59] while “Sue Me, Sue You Blues” was his comment on McCartney’s 1971 High Court action to dissolve the band as a business entity.[60] In line with Prabhupada’s teachings, all such pursuits of fame, wealth or position meant nothing in Harrison’s 1972 world-view.[61] Author Gary Tillery writes of Material World‘s lyrical content: “The album expresses his impressions of the mundane and the spiritual worlds and the importance of ignoring the lures of the everyday world and remaining focused on the eternal verities.”[62] Even in seemingly conventional love songs such as “That Is All” and “Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long“,[63] Harrison appeared to be addressing his deity as much as any human partner.[64] Musically, the latter composition reflects the influence of Brill Building songwriters of the early 1960s,[65] while Harrison sings of a love delivered “like it came from above“.[55]
Harrison donated his copyright for nine of the eleven songs on Living in the Material World, together with the non-album B-side “Miss O’Dell”,[66] to his Material World Charitable Foundation.[67][nb 5] The latter initiative was set up in reaction to the tax issues that had hindered his relief effort for the Bangladeshi refugees,[68][70] and ensured a perpetual stream of income, through ongoing publishing royalties, for dispersal to the charities of his choice.[71]
After the grand, Wall of Sound production of All Things Must Pass,[72] Harrison wanted a more understated sound this time around, to “liberate” the songs, as he later put it.[73][74] He had intended to co-produce with Phil Spector as before,[75] although the latter’s erratic behaviour and alcohol consumption[76] ensured that, once sessions were under way in October 1972, Harrison was the project’s sole producer.[77] Spector received a credit for “Try Some, Buy Some”, however,[78] since Harrison used the same 1971 recording, featuring musicians such as Leon Russell, Jim Gordon, Pete Ham and Barham,[79] that they had made for Ronnie Spector’s abandoned solo album.[80]
A release date was planned for January or February 1973, with the album title rumoured to be The Light That Has Lighted the World.[75] Within a month, the title was announced as The Magic Is Here Again,[81][82] with an erroneous report in Rolling Stone magazine claiming that Eric Clapton was co-producing and that the album was set for release on 20 December 1972.[77]
Phil was never there … I’d go along the roof at The Inn on the Park [hotel] in London and climb in his window yelling, “Come on! We’re supposed to be making a record.” … [Then] he used to have eighteen cherry brandies before he could get himself down to the studio.[83]
– Harrison discussing Phil Spector‘s early involvement on the album
In another contrast with his 1970 triple album, Harrison engaged a small core group of musicians to support him on Living in the Material World.[84][85]Gary Wright and Klaus Voormann returned, on keyboards and bass, respectively, and John Barham again provided orchestral arrangements.[77] They were joined by Jim Keltner, who had impressed at the 1971 Bangladesh concerts,[86]and Nicky Hopkins,[77] whose musical link to Harrison went back to the 1968 Jackie Lomax single “Sour Milk Sea“.[85] Ringo Starr also contributed to the album, when his burgeoning film career allowed,[87] and Jim Horn, another musician from the Concert for Bangladesh band, supplied horns and flutes.[77] The recording engineer was Phil McDonald, who had worked in the same role on All Things Must Pass.[88]
Apple Studio, where Harrison recorded part of Living in the Material World
All the rhythm and lead guitar parts were performed by Harrison alone[89] – the ex-Beatle stepping out from the “looming shadow” of Clapton for the first time, Leng has noted.[90] Most of the basic tracks were recorded with Harrison on acoustic guitar; only “Living in the Material World”, “Who Can See It” and “That Is All” featured electric rhythm parts, those for the latter two songs adopting the same Leslie-toned sound found on much of the Beatles’ Abbey Road (1969).[59][91] Ham and his Badfinger bandmate Tom Evans augmented the line-up on 4 and 11 October,[38] although their playing would not find its way onto the released album.[92]
The sessions took place partly at Apple Studio in London, but mostly at Harrison’s home studio, FPSHOT, according to Voormann.[77][93][nb 6] Apple Studio, together with its Savile Row, London W1 address, would receive a prominent credit on the Living in the Material World record sleeve, as a further sign of Harrison’s championing of the Beatles-owned recording facility.[93][97] At the weekends during these autumn months, Hopkins recorded his own solo album, The Tin Man Was a Dreamer (1973), at Apple,[85] with contributions from Harrison, Voormann and Horn.[98][99] Voormann has described the mood at the Friar Park sessions as “intimate, quiet, friendly” and in stark contrast to the sessions he, Harrison and Hopkins had attended at Lennon’s home in 1971, for the Imagine album.[95] Keltner recalls Harrison as having been focused and “at his peak physically” throughout the recording of Living in the Material World,[100] having given up smoking and taken to using Hindu prayer beads.[101]
After hosting a visit by Bob Dylan and his wife Sara at Friar Park,[106] Harrison resumed work on the album in January 1973, at Apple.[107] “Sue Me, Sue You Blues”, which he had originally given to Jesse Ed Davis to record in 1971,[38] was taped at this point.[108] The lyrics’ courtroom theme had a new relevance in early 1973,[109] as he, Lennon and Starr looked to sever all legal ties with manager Allen Klein, who had been the prime cause for McCartney’s earlier litigation.[110][nb 8]
For the rest of January and through February, extensive overdubs were carried out on the album’s basic tracks[75] – comprising vocals, percussion, Harrison’s slide guitar parts and Horn’s contributions. “Living in the Material World” received significant attention during this last phase of the album production, with sitar, flute and Zakir Hussain‘s tabla being added to fill the song’s two “spiritual sky” sections.[77][nb 9] The resulting contrast between the main, Western rock portion and the Indian-style middle eights emphasised Harrison’s struggle between physical-world temptations and his spiritual goals.[115][116] The Indian instrumentation overdubbed on this track and “Be Here Now” also marked a rare return to the genre for Harrison,[117] recalling his work with the Beatles over 1966–68 and his first solo album, Wonderwall Music (1968).[118]
Barham’s orchestra and choir were the final items to be recorded, on “The Day the World Gets ‘Round”, “Who Can See It” and “That Is All”,[119] in early March.[77] With production on the album completed, Harrison flew to Los Angeles for Beatles-related business meetings[120] and to begin work on Shankar and Starr’s respective albums, Shankar Family & Friends (1974) and Ringo (1973).[54]
As he had done with All Things Must Pass and The Concert for Bangladesh, Harrison entrusted the album’s art design to Tom Wilkes,[121] and the latter’s new business partner, Craig Baun.[122][123] The gatefold and lyric insert sleeves for Living in the Material World were much commented-on at the time of release, Stephen Holden of Rolling Stone describing the record as “beautifully-packaged with symbolic hand-print covers and the dedication, ‘All Glories to Sri Krsna'”,[1] while author Nicholas Schaffner likewise admired the “color representations of the Hindu scriptures“,[81] in the form of a painting from a Prabhupada-published edition of the Bhagavad Gita.[73][124] Reproduced on the lyric insert sheet (on the back of which was a red Om symbol with yellow surround, on a black background),[125] this painting features Krishna with Arjuna, the legendary archer and warrior, in a chariot, being pulled by the enchanted seven-headed horse Uchchaihshravas.[121] With the album arriving at the height of the glam or glitter rock musical trend,[126] Clayson writes of this image: “a British teenager might have still dug the gear worn by Krishna in his chariot … Androgynous in beaded kaftan, jewelled fez and peacock feather, and strikingly pretty, the Supreme Personality of Godhead was not unlike some of the new breed of theatrical British chartbusters.”[127]
For the album’s striking front-cover image, Wilkes used a Kirlian photograph of Harrison’s hand holding a Hindu medallion.[128] The photo was taken at UCLA‘s parapsychology department, as was the shot used on the back cover, where Harrison instead holds three US coins: a couple of quarters and a silver dollar.[121]
The gatefold’s inner left panel, opposite the album’s production credits,[125] showed Harrison and his fellow musicians – Starr, Horn, Voormann, Hopkins, Keltner and Wright – at a long table, laden with food and wine.[121][129] A deliberate parody of da Vinci‘s The Last Supper,[130] the picture was taken in California at the mock-Tudor home of entertainment lawyer Abe Somers, by Hollywood glamour photographer Ken Marcus.[121][nb 10] As with the US coinage used on the back cover, various details in the photo represent what Harrison termed the “gross” aspects[131] of life in the material world.[121] Clayson has speculated about the symbolism and hidden messages within the photo: whether the nurse with a pram, set back from and to the left of the table, was a reference to Boyd’s inability to conceive a child; and the empty, distant wheelchair in memory of Harrison’s late mother.[129] Theologian Dale Allison observes the anti-Catholic sentiment within this inner-gatefold photo, following on from Harrison’s lyrics to his 1970 song “Awaiting on You All“.[130] Harrison is dressed as a priest, all in black, sporting an Old Westsix-shooter – “a slam at the perceived materialism and violence of the Roman church”, Allison writes.[130]
On the back cover, underneath the second hand-print design, text provides details of the fictitious Jim Keltner Fan Club,[132] information on which was available by sending a “stamped undressed elephant” – for: self-addressed envelope – to a Los Angeles postal address.[125] This detail was an affectionate thank-you to the popular drummer (Starr would repeat the gesture on his album later in the year), as well as a light-hearted dig – in its use of “wing” symbols, like those in Wings‘ logo[125] – at McCartney, who had recently launched a fan club for his new band.[121][132]
Due to the extended recording period, Living in the Material World was issued at the end of a busy Apple release schedule, with April and May 1973 having already been set aside for the Beatles compilations 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 and for Paul McCartney & Wings’ second album, Red Rose Speedway.[132][133] Schaffner recorded in his book The Beatles Forever: “For a while there … album charts were reminiscent of the golden age of Beatlemania.”[134] Preceding Harrison’s long-awaited release was the acoustic single “Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)”,[135] which became his second number 1 hit in the United States.[136] This was accompanied by a billboard and print advertising campaign,[137][138]including a three-panel poster combining the album’s front and back covers, and an Apple publicity photo showing Harrison, now free of the heavy beard familiar from the All Things Must Pass–Concert for Bangladesh era,[139] with his hand outstretched, mirroring Wilkes’ album cover image.[134][140]
Living in the Material World was issued on 30 May 1973 in America (with Apple catalogue number SMAS 3410) and on 22 June in Britain (as Apple PAS 10006).[141] It enjoyed immediate commercial success,[142] entering the Billboard 200 at number 11 and hitting number 1 in its second week, on 23 June, demoting Wings’ album in the process.[143]Material World spent five weeks atop the US charts, having been awarded a gold disc by the RIAA within two days of release, for advance orders.[144][145] In the UK, the album peaked at number 2, held from the top position by the soundtrack to Starr’s movie That’ll Be the Day.[146] Despite high sales initially, its follow-on success was limited by what Leng terms the “anomalous” decision to cancel the release of a second US single, “Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long”.[147]
With Living in the Material World, Harrison achieved the Billboard double for a second time when “Give Me Love” hit the top position during the album’s stay at number 1[73] – the only one of his former bandmates to have done it even once being McCartney, with the recent “My Love” and Red Rose Speedway.[145][148] Harrison carried out no supporting promotion for Material World; “pre-recorded tapes” were issued to BBC Radio 1 and played repeatedly on the show Radio One Club, but his only public appearance in Britain was to accompany Prabhupada on a religious procession through central London, on 8 July.[149] According to author Bill Harry, the album sold over 3 million copies worldwide.[150]
Living in the Material World is a profoundly seductive record. Harrison’s rapt dedication infuses his musicality so completely that the album stands alone as an article of faith, miraculous in its radiance.[1]
Leng describes Living the Material World as “one of the most keenly anticipated discs of the decade” and its unveiling “a major event”.[151] Among expectant music critics, Stephen Holden began his highly favourable[115][152] review in Rolling Stone with the words “At last it’s here”, before hailing the new Harrison album as a “pop classic” and a “profoundly seductive record”.[1] “Happily, the album is not just a commercial event,” he wrote, “it is the most concise, universally conceived work by a former Beatle since John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band.”[1]Billboard magazine noted the twin themes found throughout the album – “the Beatles and their mish-mash” versus a “spiritual undercoat” – and described Harrison’s vocals as “first-rate”.[153][154]
Two weeks ahead of the UK release date, Melody Maker published a full-page “exclusive preview” of Material World by its New York correspondent, Michael Watts.[155] The latter wrote that “the most strikingly immediate impression left by the album” concerned its lyrics, which, although “solemn and pious” at times, were “more interesting” thematically than those on All Things Must Pass, such that Material World was “as personal, in its own way, as anything that Lennon has done”.[156] While describing the pared-down production as “good artistic judgement in view of the nature of the lyrics”, Watts concluded: “Harrison has always struck me before as simply a writer of very classy pop songs; now he stands as something more than an entertainer. Now he’s being honest.”[156]
While Holden had opined that, of all the four Beatles, Harrison had inherited “the most precious” legacy – namely, “the spiritual aura that the group accumulated, beginning with the White Album“[1] – other reviewers objected to the overt religiosity of Living in the Material World.[157][158] This was particularly so in Britain,[100][129] where by summer 1973, author Bob Woffinden later wrote, “the Beatle bubble had undoubtedly burst” and for each of the former bandmates, his individual “pedestal” was now “an exposed, rather than a comfortable, place to be”.[159]
It’s also breathtakingly unoriginal and – lyrically at least – turgid, repetitive and so damn holy I could scream.[160]
In the NME, Tony Tyler began his review by stating that he had long idolised Harrison as “the finest packaged object since frozen pizza”, but he had changed his opinion dramatically in recent years; after the “dire, ennui-making” All Things Must Pass, Tyler continued, “the unworthiness of my heretical thoughts smote home around the time of the Bangla Desh concerts.”[161] Tyler dismissed Material World with the description: “[It’s] pleasant, competent, vaguely dull and inoffensive. It’s also breathtakingly unoriginal and – lyrically at least – turgid, repetitive and so damn holy I could scream.”[161] The reviewer concluded: “I have no doubt whatever it’ll sell like hot tracts and that George’ll donate all the profits to starving Bengalis and make me feel like the cynical heel I undoubtedly am.”[160][161] In their 1975 book The Beatles: An Illustrated Record, Tyler and co-author Roy Carr bemoaned Harrison’s “didactically imposing [of] said Holy Memoirs upon innocent record-collectors” and declared the album’s spiritual theme “almost as offensive in its own way” as Lennon and Yoko Ono‘s political radicalism on Some Time in New York City (1972).[162]
They feel threatened when you talk about something that isn’t just “be-bop-a-lula”. And if you say the words “God” or “Lord”, it makes some people’s hair curl.[129]
– Harrison to Melody Maker in September 1971, pre-empting criticism of his lyrics on Material World[157]
According to New Zealand music critic Graham Reid, a contemporary Australian review remarked on the album’s religiosity: “oftentimes the music is a more truthful guide to the sense of the lyrics than the words themselves. Harrison is not a great wordsmith but he is a superb musician. Everything flows, everything interweaves. His melodies are so superb they take care of everything …”[57] Like Holden, Nicholas Schaffner approved of the singer’s gesture in donating his publishing royalties to the Material World Charitable Foundation and praised the album’s “exquisite musical underpinnings”.[81] Although the “transcendent dogma” was not always to his taste, Schaffner recognised that in Living in the Material World, Harrison had “devised a luxuriant rock devotional designed to transform his fans’ stereo equipment into a temple”.[163]
Aside from the album’s lyrical themes, its production and musicianship were widely praised, Schaffner noting: “Surely Phil Spector never had a more attentive pupil.”[67] Carr and Tyler lauded Harrison’s “superb and accomplished slide-guitar breaks”,[162] and the solos on “Give Me Love”, “The Lord Loves the One”, “The Light That Has Lighted the World” and “Living in the Material World” have each been identified as exemplary and among the finest of Harrison’s career.[89][90][164][165] In his book The Beatles Apart (1981), Woffinden wrote: “Those who carped at the lyrics, or at Harrison himself, missed a great deal of the music, much of which was exceptionally fine.”[78] Woffinden described the album as “a very good one”, Harrison’s “only mistake” being that he had waited so long before following up his successes over 1970–71.[166]
In the decades following its release, Living in the Material World gained a reputation as “a forgotten blockbuster” – a term used by Simon Leng[22] and echoed by commentators such as Robert Rodriguez[176] and AllMusic‘s Bruce Eder.[89] The latter describes Harrison’s 1973 album as “an underrated minor masterpiece” that “represent[s] his solo playing and songwriting at something of a peak”.[89] John Metzger of The Music Box refers to Material World as “the most underrated and overlooked album of [Harrison]’s career”, adding that it “coalesces around its songs … and the Zen-like beauty that emanates from Harrison’s hymns to a higher power inevitably becomes subtly affecting.”[171]
Writing in Rolling Stone in 2002, Greg Kot found the album “drearily monochromatic” compared to its predecessor,[177] and to PopMatters‘ Zeth Lundy, it suffers from “a more anonymous tract” next to the “cathedral-grade significance” of All Things Must Pass.[174] Reviewing Harrison’s solo career for Goldmine magazine in 2002, Dave Thompson considered the 1973 album to be the equal of All Things Must Pass, reasoning: “While history insists that Living in the Material World could not help but be eclipsed by its gargantuan forebear, with the two albums in the CD player and the ‘shuffle’ function mixing them up, it’s difficult to play favourites.”[178]
In his review of the 2006 remastered release, for Q magazine, Tom Doyle praised the album’s ballads, such as “The Light That Has Lighted the World” and “Be Here Now”, and suggested that “the distance of time helps to reveal its varied charms”.[179]Mojo‘s Mat Snow wrote of “this long overdue reissue” being “worth it alone for four wonderful songs”, including “Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long” and “The Day the World Gets ‘Round”, and concluded: “The rest is Hari Georgeson at his most preachy, but it’s never less than musical and often light on its feet.”[170] In another 2006 review, for the Vintage Rock website, Shawn Perry wrote of Material World being “more restrained and immediate without the wall of sound whitewash of its predecessor, but its flow and elegance are unmistakable”. Perry admired Harrison’s slide guitar playing and rated the album an “underrated, classic record”.[180] Writing for Uncut in 2008, David Cavanagh described Material World as “a bit full-on, religion-wise” but “the album to play if you want musicianship at its best”.[181]
Reviewing the 2014 reissue, Blogcritics‘ Chaz Lipp writes that “this chart-topping classic is, in terms of production, arguably preferable to its predecessor”, adding: “The sinewy ‘Sue Me, Sue You Blues,’ galloping title track, and soaring ‘Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long’ rank right alongside Harrison’s best work.”[182] Alex Franquelli of PopMatters refers to it as “a worthy successor” to All Things Must Pass and an album that “raises the bar of social awareness that had only been touched on lightly in the previous release”. Franquelli concludes: “It is a work that enjoys a more elaborate dynamic development, where layers are kept together by Harrison’s clever work behind the mixing desk.”[183] In another 2014 review, for Classic Rock, Paul Trynka writes: “All these years on, it’s his most overtly spiritual album that sparkles today … The well-known songs, such as ‘Sue Me, Sue You Blues’ (dedicated to the rapacious Allen Klein), stand up well, but it’s the more restrained tracks – ‘Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long’, ‘Who Can See It’ – that entrance: gorgeous pop songs, all the more forceful for their restraint.” Trynka goes on to describe “Be Here Now” as the album’s “towering achievement” and “a masterpiece”.[184][185]
Among Beatles biographers, Alan Clayson approves of Material World‘s “self-production criterion closer to the style of George Martin“, after the “looser abundance” of All Things Must Pass.[186] Within the more restrained surroundings, Clayson adds, Harrison laid claim to the title “king of rock ‘n’ roll slide guitar”, in addition to giving perhaps his “most magnificent [vocal] performance on record” on “Who Can See It”.[164] Rodriguez also approves of a production aesthetic that allows instruments to “sparkle” and “breathing space” for his melodies, and rates Harrison’s guitar playing as “stellar” throughout.[187] Peter Lavezzoli describes the album as “a soulful collection of songs that feature some of Harrison’s finest singing, particularly the gorgeous Roy Orbison-esque ballad ‘Who Can See It'”.[158]
Leng has named Living in the Material World as his personal favourite of all of Harrison’s solo albums.[188] According to Leng, with its combination of a defiant “protest” song in “The Day the World Gets ‘Round”, the anti-stardom “The Lord Loves the One”, and “perfect pop confections” in “Give Me Love” and “Don’t Let Me Wait Too Long”, Living in the Material World was the last album to capture the same clear-sighted, utopian spirit that characterised the 1960s.[189] Eder likewise welcomes Material World‘s bold idealism, saying: “Even in the summer of 1973, after years of war and strife and disillusionment, some of us were still sort of looking – to borrow a phrase from a Lennon–McCartney song – or hoping to get from them something like ‘the word’ that would make us free. And George, God love him, had the temerity to actually oblige …”[89]
While solo works by Lennon, McCartney and Starr had all been remastered as part of repackaging campaigns during the 1990s and early 21st century, Harrison’s Living in the Material World was “neglected over the years”, author Bruce Spizer wrote in 2005, an “unfortunate” situation considering the quality of its songs.[77] On 25 September 2006, EMI reissued the album in the UK, on CD and in a deluxe CD/DVD package,[190] with Capitol Records‘ US release following the next day.[191] The remastered Material World featured two additional tracks,[192] neither of which had previously been available on an album:[193] “Deep Blue” and “Miss O’Dell”, popular B-sides, respectively, to the 1971 non-album single “Bangla Desh” and “Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)”.[174] The CD/DVD edition contained a 40-page full colour booklet[190] that included extra photos from the inner-gatefold shoot (taken by Mal Evans and Barry Feinstein), liner notes by Kevin Howlett, and Harrison’s handwritten lyrics and comments on the songs, reproduced from I Me Mine.[194]
The DVD featured a concert performance of “Give Me Love”, recorded during Harrison’s 1991 Japanese tour with Eric Clapton,[191] and previously unreleased versions of “Miss O’Dell” and “Sue Me, Sue You Blues” set to a slideshow of archival film.[190] The final selection consisted of the album’s title track playing over 1973 footage[190] of the LP being audio-tested and packaged prior to shipment.[171] While Zeth Lundy found that the deluxe edition “bestows lavish attention upon a record that may not exactly deserve it”, with the DVD “an unnecessary bonus”,[174] Shawn Perry considered the supplementary disc to be possibly the “pièce de résistance” of the 2006 reissue, and concluded: “this package is a beautiful tribute to the late and great guitarist any Beatles and Harrison fan will cherish.”[180]
Living in the Material World was remastered again for inclusion in the Harrison box set The Apple Years 1968–75, issued in September 2014.[195] Also available as a separate CD, the reissue reproduces Howlett’s 2006 essay and adds “Bangla Desh” as a third bonus track, after “Deep Blue” and “Miss O’Dell”.[196] In his preview of the 2014 reissues, for Rolling Stone, David Fricke pairs Material World with All Things Must Pass as representing “the heart of the [box] set”.[197] Disc eight of The Apple Years includes the four items featured on the 2006 deluxe edition DVD.[196]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 8 Rolling Stones – Hoo Doo Blues Blue & Lonesome is the album any Rolling Stones fan would have wished for – review 9 Comments Evergreen: The Rolling Stones perform in Cuba earlier this year CREDIT: REX FEATURES Neil McCormick, music critic 22 NOVEMBER 2016 • 12:19PM The Rolling […]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 7 Rolling Stones – Everybody Knows About My Good Thing The Rolling Stones Alexis Petridis’s album of the week The Rolling Stones: Blue & Lonesome review – more alive than they’ve sounded for years 4/5stars Mick Jagger’s voice and harmonica drive an album of blues covers that returns […]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 6 Rolling Stones – Just Like I Treat You Music Review: ‘Blue & Lonesome’ by the Rolling Stones By Gregory Katz | AP November 29 The Rolling Stones, “Blue & Lonesome” (Interscope) It shouldn’t be a surprise, really, but still it’s a bit startling to hear just how well […]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 5 Rolling Stones – Everybody Knows About My Good Thing Review: The Rolling Stones make blues magic on ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Maeve McDermott , USATODAY6:07 p.m. EST November 30, 2016 (Photo: Frazer Harrison, Getty Images) Before the Rolling Stones were rock icons, before its members turned into sex […]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 4 Rolling Stones – Little Rain Rolling Stones, ‘Blue & Lonesome’: Album Review By Michael Gallucci November 30, 2016 1:34 PM Read More: Rolling Stones, ‘Blue & Lonesome’: Album Review | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rolling-stones-blue-lonesome-review/?trackback=tsmclip The Rolling Stones were never really a thinking band. A shrewd one, for sure, […]
MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 3 The Rolling Stones Mick Jagger chats about new album “Blue & Lonesome” on BBC Breakfast 02 Dec 2016 Rolling Stones – I Gotta Go Rolling Stones – ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Review Barry Nicolson 12:52 pm – Dec 2, 2016 57shares The Stones sound their youngest […]
_____________ Carpenters Close To You Karen Carpenter’s tragic story Karen Carpenter’s velvet voice charmed millions in the 70s… but behind the wholesome image she was in turmoil. Desperate to look slim on stage – and above all desperate to please the domineering mother who preferred her brother – she became the first celebrity victim of […]
carpenters -We’ve Only Just Begun The Carpenters – Yesterday Once More (INCLUDES LYRICS) The Carpenters – There’s a kind of hush The Carpenters – Greatest Hits Related posts: MUSIC MONDAY Paul McCartney Mull Of Kintyre November 13, 2016 – 10:29 am Paul McCartney Mull Of Kintyre-Original Video-HQ Uploaded on Nov 25, 2011 Paul McCartney Mull Of […]
The ‘quiet’ Beatle was driven by spiritual pursuit while living in the material world
Dave Urbanski | posted 5/01/2012 | Christianity Today
After the Beatles broke up and went their separate ways, George Harrison fretted about transitioning to a solo career—but that anxiety was often quelled by a deep, inner faith.
“I’d be going through some private nightmare,” he tells longtime friend Ravi Shankar in George Harrison: Living in the Material World, newly released to DVD. Harrison would wonder how he could possibly enter a Krishna temple in such a frenzied, depressed state: “But then I’d go, and I’d always walk out of there thinking, ‘Oh, thank you Lord.’”
It’s just one of many insights into the “quiet” Beatle’s intense spiritual search in the compelling, cradle-to-grave documentary by Martin Scorsese. The 3½-hour film aired on HBO last fall.
Harrison may have kept a lower profile than fellow Beatles John and Paul (and even Ringo), but his inner world was anything but static. Harrison’s spiritual quest tellingly commenced during the Fab Four’s apogee (when all the fame and fortune wasn’t bringing him peace) and continued in some respects for the rest of his days.
While Scorsese’s film does a splendid job underscoring how greatly Harrison’s spiritual journey informed his uncommon convictions about life, death, and the soul, more than half of it focuses on the well-trod territory of George’s early life through the Beatles’ breakup.
Since I eagerly gobble up new stuff about the Liverpool lads whenever I can, I don’t mind that all. And even though Scorsese fills the screen with a bevy of George’s personal photos, some rare footage, and new interviews with the likes of McCartney, Ringo, and Eric Clapton, much of the doc’s first half could have been shortened and positioned to set up Harrison’s far more compelling post-Beatle life.
In fairness, though, one fact about Harrison’s late-Beatles career was worth keeping in the film: His admitted anxiety during this period wasn’t about what he’d do if the band broke up, without the other three to lean on. Rather, Harrison had stockpiled tons of songs (the Lennon-McCartney team left little room for George’s tunes), and he grew distressed that as the wounded quartet plodded on, his growing catalog might never see the light of day.
Harrison didn’t dread the Beatles’ looming breakup—he couldn’t wait for it to happen. He knew it would turn him loose emotionally, mentally, personally, and musically. And as the film points out, Harrison was already well on his way toward spiritual freedom as he defined it. But like most of us who embrace faith in some form, George had his ups and downs—like those “private nightmares” noted above, followed by a spiritual peace.
Having sworn off LSD, Harrison notes that meditation and chanting became alternate paths toward consciousness shifting and getting in greater touch with the soul. Mukunda Goswami, a friend and fellow Hare Krishna disciple, says Harrison wanted to get the Hare Krishna mantra recorded and released as a 45-rpm single in the summer of 1969 because he “wanted to get across what he believed through a medium he was familiar with.” Harrison and his brethren didn’t think anything would come of the single, but it became a hit, appearing high in the English charts—as well as during intermissions at the Isle of Wight festival and a huge Manchester United soccer match, thousands of fans singing along to the familiar two-word chant.
‘A lotta people are gonna hate me’
It’s surprising to learn that Harrison was initially reluctant to record “My Sweet Lord” for his debut solo effort, the acclaimed 1970 triple album All Things Must Pass. “It’s really committing myself to something,” Harrison says of the tune and its prominent use of the Hare Krishna mantra. “There’s gonna be a lotta people who are really gonna hate me. Because people fear the unknown, you see. The point was that I was sticking my neck out on the chopping block.”
But producer Phil Spector—who also worked on the Beatles’ Let It Be—insisted not only that “My Sweet Lord” make it to tape but also that it should be the album’s single. Spector says on film that he told Harrison it didn’t matter what “My Sweet Lord” was about—it was George’s most commercial track.
Spector also observes that Harrison lived out his beliefs, that there was “no salesmanship involved. It made you spiritual just being around him. It made you like those Krishnas, who could sometimes be the biggest pain in the necks in the world, running around with their robes and shaved heads and white powder all over their faces, scaring you half to death coming out of a dark studio, glowing.”
More than a few interviewees note Harrison’s determined, at times defiant, nature, most notably when it came to his main spiritual thrust: The ultimate goal of seeing his body, possessions, and the earth itself pass away to make room for whatever was next.
Still, after Harrison was diagnosed with cancer in 1997 and nearly murdered in his home by a deranged, knife-wielding intruder in 1999, he confessed to his wife Olivia that he still wasn’t where he wanted to be spiritually. “I better start letting go of this life,” she recalls George telling her. “I better start doing what I’ve been practicing to do my whole life so that I can leave my body the way I want to.”
When Harrison lost his battle with cancer on November 29, 2001, Olivia says “there was a profound experience that happened when he left his body. It was visible. Let’s just say that you wouldn’t need to light the room if you were trying to film it. He just lit the room.”
Admirable faith
How Harrison lived out his spirituality is admirable on many levels. As a Christian, I don’t share his beliefs and conclusions, but I can learn much from how he dispensed with the trappings of our earthly existence (figuratively at least; he left 100 million British pounds—or about $163 million US—to his heirs), how passionately he pursued his faith, and especially how he faced death.
Monty Python’s Eric Idle, a close friend of Harrison’s, resonated with how the musician viewed life and death. Idle, if you recall, composed and sang the famous ditty, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life,” which reflects a kind of throwaway perspective on death (and closed the controversial Python movie Life of Brian, which Harrison financed).
“Existence is kind of funny because of our temporality,” Idle says onscreen. “It’s all, ‘Here we are, going around pretending to be kings and emperors,’ and you’re gonna die. You’re in a box in a minute or two. So we are constantly undercut by our own physicalities, our own physical bodies, which let us down.”
By all accounts, Harrison didn’t fear his demise. Rather it appears he looked forward to it, spiritually rehearsing for that inevitable moment so he could give a great performance when the curtains parted—quite an amazing perspective from one who didn’t have or seek hope in Jesus.
It’s nevertheless reminiscent of Paul’s absent-from-the-body-present-with-the-Lord encouragement from 2 Corinthians 5, and so it compels me to ask how consistently the collective “we” of Christ’s church live out that hope.
Because after all the music and footage and interviews that reveal who Harrison really was, that’s the question still sticking in my head and heart. And it’s a good question—because I know I don’t live out that hope nearly enough.
George HarrisonSongwriter, guitar great, BeatleFebruary 25, 1943 – November 29, 2001
As we fondly remember the moment 50 years ago this week that the Beatles landed in American and performed on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” we’re also honoring each Beatle — and today we celebrate George Harrison’s 10 biggest Billboard hits, from his Beatle days to his thriving solo career through the 1970s and ’80s.
George Harrison may have been known as “the quiet Beatle,” but his nickname had little to do with his songwriting contributions. Throughout his time in the Fab Four, the guitarist developed his own songwriting talents despite the strength of the Lennon-McCartney partnership, penning classic tracks like “Here Comes the Sun” shortly before the band broke up. It was clear that Harrison had been bubbling with ideas all along when, in 1970, he released the triple album “All Things Must Pass,” which went platinum six times and spawned two singles on this very list.
This tally of Harrison’s 10 Biggest Billboard Hits is based on actual performance on the weekly Billboard Hot 100. Included are those singles he performed as a soloist, or wrote for himself (including the Beatles). Songs are ranked using an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at No. 100 earning the least.
10. “You” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 20 (1975)
_
“You,” the lead single off Harrison 1975 album “Extra Texture,” is known more for its extended saxophone solo than Harrison’s signature slide guitar, which doesn’t make an appearance on the track. It’s not so surprising when one considers that the music for “You” was originally recorded for Ronnie Spector — who never used it — during Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass” sessions (alongside co-producer Phil Spector, also Ronnie’s husband). When Harrison decided to use the upbeat song for himself, he added just a few simple lines about love and let the joyous instrumental jam speak for itself.
9. “Blow Away” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 16 (1979)
__
Amidst marital bliss and the birth of his son Dhani, Harrison kept things sweet and simple with his self-titled 1979 album. “Blow Away,” the first single off “George Harrison,” saw a Valentine’s Day ’79 release and soon reached No. 16 on the Hot 100. One of his more straight-forward pop songs, it was all about the weather, from its cloud-filled music video to its “sunshine after the rain” lyrics. Metaphorically, of course.
8. “Dark Horse” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 15 (1975)
__
A few years after the Fab Four dissolved, Harrison had transformed from the “Quiet Beatle” into the “Dark Horse.” It wasn’t just the name of Harrison’s 1975 single, but also the title of his ’74 album and his own record label. “Dark Horse” was ripe for puns: Harrison’s voice sounded quite hoarse on both the album and the single, which highlighted the flute and keyboard more than Harrison’s impressive guitar skills.
7. “What Is Life” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 10 (1971)
__
Harrison cheerily questioned the point of living without his love on this 1971 hit, which he originally penned for Billy Preston. George decided the song was a better fit for his triple album “All Things Must Pass,” however, and he was right: “What Is Life” made Harrison the first solo Beatle to score two Top 10s (“My Sweet Lord” being the first). Scads of “What Is Life” covers have appeared through the years — including a charting version from Olivia Newton-John — but the original has a special something (besides Harrison, of course): Eric Clapton on guitar.
6. “All Those Years Ago” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 2 (1981)
__
Shock and sadness reverberated through the music world following John Lennon’s December 1980 murder. His fellow Beatles mourned through song shortly after his death, banding together on this George Harrison-led tribute track, “All Those Years Ago.” While the song served as a single off Harrison’s album, “Somewhere in England,” McCartney played bass, Ringo got behind the kit, and George Martin produced, just like old times. Beatle fans took notice, sending it to No. 2 on the Hot 100 during the summer of ’81.
5. “For You Blue” – The Beatles
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1 (1970)
__
When Beatles classic “The Long and Winding Road” — penned by McCartney — hit No. 1 in 1970, it was a double A-sided single with the track that followed it on “Let It Be,” Harrison’s “For You Blue.” The songs couldn’t have been more different: While “Road” was a slow, sentimental song consisting of strings and piano, “For You Blue” was a jaunty, lap steel-led blues track. Harrison comments in the song’s bridge (as an encouragement to John Lennon, who’s playing the lap steel), “Go, Johnny, go!”
4. “Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1 (1973)
__
___
Post break-up, the Beatles (and co.) still kept it cozy with their back-to-back Hot 100 domination in the summer of ’73: George’s “Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on the Earth)” knocked Paul McCartney’s “My Love” off the top of the chart, only to be replaced by collaborator Billy Preston’s “Will It Go Round in Circles.” Harrison’s spiritual folk tune — complete with slide guitar solo — not only fared well on the Hot 100, but also the AC charts, leading the charge for Harrison’s 1973 album, “Living in the Material World.”
3. “Something” – The Beatles
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1 (1969)
___
___
While John and Paul were at each other’s throats, George Harrison was off on his own, quietly writing one of the Beatles’ most beloved love songs. Lennon and McCartney praised “Something” as one of Harrison’s best at the time (alongside “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”), and the fans agreed: “Something,” off “Abbey Road” though originally penned during “White Album” sessions, is the only Harrison-penned Beatles track to top the Hot 100 chart. As a single, the slow and sultry “Something” was paired with the down-and-dirty creep of “Come Together” in a double A-sided single.
2. “Got My Mind Set On You” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1 (1988)
__
With the success of his solo albums “All Things Must Pass,” “Living in the Material World” and “Dark Horse,” George Harrison was on quite the post-Beatles roll throughout the early 1970s. Yet his second biggest U.S. hit — a sax-heavy cover of Rudy Clark’s “Got My Mind Set On You” — came from his triumphant “comeback” of the late 1980s. The song, released in late ’87, hit No. 1 on the Hot 100 in 1988, fueling the success of Harrison’s “Cloud Nine” album. Both song and album proved such a fruitful collaboration between Harrison and ELO frontman Jeff Lynne, who co-produced, that the two stuck together to form — with the help of Tom Petty, Roy Orbison and Bob Dylan — the supergroup Traveling Wilburys later that year. Now that’s getting by with a little help from his friends.
1. “My Sweet Lord / Isn’t It A Pity” – George Harrison
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1 for four weeks (1970)
“My Sweet Lord” not only landed Harrison at the top of the Hot 100 for four weeks in 1970, but in legal hot water as well. Despite the decade-long lawsuit against Harrison that found the he’d unconsciously plagiarized the melody of The Chiffons-sung “He’s So Fine,” “My Sweet Lord” is pure Harrison, from the Krishna-praising lyrics to the slide guitar. And to think the song was originally written for Harrison’s good friend, Billy Preston. “My Sweet Lord,” which was released alongside “Isn’t It a Pity” in the States, served as the first single off Harrison’s legendary triple album, “All Things Must Pass.”
Moreover, this isn’t something that only happens in very rare instances. It’s so pervasive that in some years, bureaucrats actually steal more from people than burglars!
The silver lining to this dark cloud is that America’s best Supreme Court Justice wants to end this awful scam.
P.S. I’m tempted to create a Victims of Thuggery Hall of Fame. If so, Jerry Johnson will be a member along with these other people who have been abused by government.
P.P.P.S. Just like intrusive and ineffective money-laundering laws, wretched asset forfeiture laws are largely the result of the foolish War on Drugs. One bad policy generates another bad policy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
New York is ranked #50 in the Economic Freedom of North America.
New York is ranked #48 in the State Business Tax Climate Index.
New York is ranked #50 in the Freedom in the 50 States.
New York is next-to-last in measures of inbound migration.
New York is ranked #50 in the State Soft Tyranny Index.
The good news is that New York’s politicians seem to be aware of these rankings and are taking steps to change policy.
The bad news is that they want they apparently want to be in last place in every index, so they’re looking at a giant tax increase.
The Wall Street Journalopined on the potential tax increase yesterday.
…lawmakers in Albany should be shouting welcome home. Instead they’re eyeing big new tax increases that would give the state’s temporary refugees to Florida—or wherever—one more reason to stay away for good. …Here are some of the proposals… Impose graduated rates on millionaires, up to 11.85%. …Since New York City has its own income tax,running to 3.88%, the combined rate would be…a bigger bite than even California’s notorious 13.3% top tax, and don’t forget Uncle Sam’s 37% share. …The squeeze is worse when you add the new taxes President Biden wants. A second factor: In 2017 the federal deduction for state and local taxes was capped at $10,000, so New Yorkers will now really feel the pinch. As E.J. McMahon of the Empire Center for Public Policy writes: “The financial incentive for high earners to move themselves and their businesses from New York to states with low or no income taxes has never—ever—been higher than it already is.”
The potential deal also would increase the state’s capital gains tax and the state’s death tax, adding two more reasons for entrepreneurs and investors to escape.
Here are some more details from a story in the New York Timesby Luis Ferré-Sadurní and Jesse McKinley.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and New York State legislative leaders were nearing a budget agreement on Monday that would make New York City’s millionaires pay the highest personal income taxes in the nation… Under the proposed new tax rate, the city’s top earners could pay between 13.5 percent to 14.8 percent in state and city taxes,when combined with New York City’s top income tax rate of 3.88 percent — more than the top marginal income tax rate of 13.3 percent in California… Raising taxes on the rich in New York has been a top policy priority of the Democratic Party’s left flank… The business community has warned that raising income taxes could prompt millionaires who have left the state during the pandemic and are working remotely to make their move permanent, damaging the state’s tax base. Currently, the top 2 percent of the state’s highest earners pay about half of the state’s income taxes. …The corporate franchise tax rate would also increase to 7.25 percent from 6.5 percent.
There are two things to keep in mind about this looming tax increase.
Second, New York politicians are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax reform).
That second item is a big reason why so many taxpayers already have escaped New York and moved to states with better tax policy (most notably, Florida).
And even more will move if tax rates are increased, as expected.
Indeed, if the left’s dream agenda is adopted, I wouldn’t be surprised if every successful person left New York. In a columnfor the Wall Street Journal, Mark Kingdon warns about other tax hikes being considered, especially a wealth tax.
Legislators in Albany are considering two tax bills that could seriously damage the economic well-being and quality of life in New York for many years to come: a wealth tax and a stock transfer tax. …Should New York enact a 2% wealth tax, a wealthy New Yorker could wind up paying a 77% tax on short-term stock market profits. And that’s a conservative estimate: It assumes that stocks return 9% a year.If the return is 4.4% or less, the tax would be more than 100%. …65,000 families pay half of the city’s income taxes, and they won’t stay if the taxes become unreasonable… The trickle of wealthy émigrés out of New York has become a steady stream… It will be a flood if New York enacts a wealth tax with an associated tax on unrealized gains, which would lower, not raise, tax revenues, as those who leave take with them jobs and related services, such as legal and accounting. …The geese who have laid golden eggs for years see what is happening in Albany, and they’ll fly south to avoid being carved up.
The good news – at least relatively speaking – is that a wealth tax is highly unlikely.
But that a rather small silver lining on a very big dark cloud. The tax increases that will happen are more than enough to make the state even more hostile to private sector growth.
I’ll close with a few observations.
There are a few states that can get away with higher-than-average taxes because of special considerations. California, for instance, has climate and scenery. In the case of New York, it can get away with some bad policy because some people think of New York City as a one-of-a-kind place. But there’s a limit to how much those factors can be exploited, as both California and New York are now learning.
What politicians don’t realize (or don’t care about) is that people look at a range of factors when deciding where to live. This is especially true for successful entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners, who have both resources and knowledge to assess the costs and benefits of different locations. The problem for New York is that it looks bad on almost all policy metrics.
If the tax increases is enacted, expect to see a significant drop in taxable income as upper-income taxpayers either leave the state or figure out other ways of protecting their income. I don’t know if the state will be on the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer Curve, but it’s safe to assume that revenues over time will fall far short of projections. And it’s very safe to assume that the economic damage will easily offset any revenues that are collected.
This Kennedy descendant insists in her New York Times Book Review that “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” doesn’t offer “any actual instructions” for explosions. Pictured: The New York Times building seen on June 30, 2020, in New York City. (Photo: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images)
If the name Tatiana Schlossberg sounds like a brand for white privilege, you would be right. She’s not a top chef or fashion designer. She’s the 30-year-old daughter of Caroline Kennedy and Ed Schlossberg, the granddaughter of former President John F. Kennedy.
Like Maria Shriver at NBC News, Tatiana Schlossberg became an “objective journalist” for a while, covering the environment for The New York Times from 2014 to 2017.
When she wrote a book in 2019 called “Inconspicuous Consumption,” NBC put her on TV and pushed her to run for office. She deferred, saying she is a journalist … a political activist of a different stripe.
On Jan. 24, she reviewed three books on “environmental disaster” for The New York Times Book Review. One book had an especially provocative title: “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” by a far-left Swedish professor named Andreas Malm. It was published on Jan. 5 by Verso Books, which calls itself “the largest independent, radical publishing house in the English-speaking world.”
The Left has declared war on our culture, but we should never back down, nor compromise our principles. Learn more now >>
Verso’s promotional blurb for this latest version of a Unabomber treatise is really something.
“In this lyrical manifesto, noted climate scholar (and saboteur of SUV tires and coal mines) Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse,” it says. “We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop—with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.”
It seems intellectually incoherent for The New York Times to cheer social media platforms for squashing voices that promoted conspiracy theories about Donald Trump’s “landslide victory” because they might lead to violence … and then offer space to a book advocating property destruction.
Online, the Times promoted it with the headline “Three Books Offer New Ways to Think About Environmental Disaster.” When it comes to Big Energy (as opposed to Big Government), a few pipeline bombs offer “new ways to think,” an expansion of our ecological possibilities.
Schlossberg calls it “a compelling but frustrating treatise.” She says, “one of the most satisfying parts of his book comes when he brutally dispatches with ‘climate fatalists.’” (Perhaps when reviewing a book that endorses blowing stuff up, the words “brutally” and “dispatches” should be avoided.)
She loves how Malm writes that “climate fatalism is for those on top.” But here’s the poster girl for white privilege, a roving global correspondent born “on top,” promoting violence against energy companies, which provide jobs to Americans in flyover states much less privileged than she is.
This Kennedy descendant insists Malm doesn’t offer “any actual instructions” for explosions. She concludes, “the problem with violence, even if it’s meant only to destroy ‘fossil capital,’ is that ultimately it’s impossible to control.” That’s true.
Philosophically, one can ask whether it would be advisable or appropriate to publish a book titled “How to Blow Up a Book Publisher.” Did Verso Books ever consider that, or whether someone who’s hurt (or whose family members are killed) in a pipeline explosion could sue for damages?
And shouldn’t President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security broaden its focus on “domestic terrorism” from merely the far right to the far left? The left’s attempt to place the entire terrorism narrative on the right is completely undermined by its promotion of noxious books like this.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
A crowd of about 35,000 had gathered near the Washington Monument during a cold blustery Presidents Day weekend in the midst of an unusually mild winter to prod the Obama administration to take actions against climate change. The largest climate action rally in American history had been scheduled for noon on a Sunday, not exactly a time chosen with regular church-goers in mind”though, undoubtedly, for some present the environmental cause would be the closest thing to a religion in their lives.
I carried a sign that declared “Jesus is Pro-Planet” in 175-point type. I have no hesitation about the truth of the statement. Paul makes it clear in Colossians 1 that, through Christ, God is indeed reconciling to himself “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven,” and that this is good news for “every creature under heaven.”
As C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity , the true cosmic nature of Christ’s atonement is difficult for our inwardly focused minds to fathom but “there are strange, exciting hints in the Bible that when we are drawn in [to Christ], a great many other things in Nature will begin to come right.”
Francis Schaeffer made a similar point in his important Pollution and the Death of Man , a neglected manifesto for Evangelical environmentalism:
The blood of the Lamb will redeem man and nature together . . . . But Christians who believe the Bible are not simply called to say that “one day” there will be healing, but that by God’s grace, upon the basis of the work of Christ, substantial healing can be a reality here and now.
In 1970, Schaeffer spoke against the “greed and haste” that was destroying creation and called for the Church to be a “pilot plant” demonstrating the healing of man and nature. The failure to do so would, to Schaeffer, be both disobedient and bring the loss of a great evangelistic opportunity, with pantheism filling the vacuum as long as the Church practiced this “sub-Christianity.”
While Evangelical leaders enthusiastically embraced Schaeffer’s push to engage on abortion and other cultural issues in the 1980s, his words and actions about the darkness of environmental degradation and the beauty of nature have largely been forgotten. He agreed with the 1960s countercultural critique of a “plastic culture” with its overreliance on “the machine” of technology and a diminished concept of nature.
The counterculture’s diagnosis was largely correct , Schaeffer thought, but the favored prescription”implicit or explicit pantheism”reduced man to “no more than grass,” after which he feared that “impersonal technology will reign even more securely.”
Also problematic was the popular but “perverted” form of Christianity that embraced a type of Platonic dualism, focused exclusively on the soul and getting it to the higher state of Heaven. For such Christians, the realm of nature might, at best, serve as an apologetic tool, but it had no real intrinsic value to them or their version of God, despite his having proclaimed it “good” from the start.
Pollution and the Death of Man illustrates this point with the true story of a Christian institution run with its eyes solely on the sky. This austere school campus sits across a large ravine from what, despite its lushness, was derisively labeled as just a “hippie community” by the Christians. Schaeffer, after speaking at the school, visited the neighbors. He spoke with their leadership about ecological issues, saw the lovely fields, trees, gardens and even the site of their communal grape stomps.
Schaeffer realized that the Christians, with their unbiblical and cavalier attitude towards nature, were offering little to draw the sincere but lost pagans toward a true vision of creation and redemption. “When I stood on Christian ground and looked at the Bohemian people’s place,” wrote Schaeffer, “it was beautiful. Then I stood on pagan ground and looked at the Christian community and saw ugliness.” Schaeffer took it as a sad compliment when his hippie host said he was the first to come from “across the ravine” in such a manner.
Indeed, Schaeffer (who loved to hike the Alps and did not own a car after 1948) believed that only a return to orthodox Christianity could effectively bridge this chasm. He countered Platonic Christianity by emphasizing that all of creation, from the human body on down to a tree or a stone, has inherent value stemming from its association with the Creator. “What God has made, I, who am also a creature, must not despise.”
Schaeffer insisted that man is finite, as separated from the infinite God, as are our kin, the animals and the grass. But, lest we slide into pantheism, he also emphasized the separation from nature brought about by our special creation in the image of God. Here, the rest of creation lies below us, and in this regard we are much more than grass.
Maintaining these two truths in proper tension allows us to engage the environment with an appropriate respect for its order and worth. It is not a plaything, designed solely for our hedonistic enjoyment. We may use it, yes, but we should exercise dominion without utter destruction, always avoid disdain for what God has made, and delights in it independent of its utility to us. In practice, the Christian community should be a people that have learned “to say ‘Stop!’” and “refuse men the right to ravish our land, just as we refuse them the right to ravish our women.”
As I approached the D.C. throng calling for a “Stop!” of its own, I felt a bit as though I was taking the name of Jesus across a green ravine similar to the one Schaeffer walked. Looking over the crowd, I was reminded, though, that God has not been without his witnesses in this realm. The ringleader of the event, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, has regularly referenced his Methodist faith, and multiple Earth Flags”first created in 1969 by faithful believers John and Anna McConnell (who, incidentally, met with a little help from Richard John Neuhaus)”were taut in the stiff breeze.
Nevertheless, forty-three years after Schaeffer wrote his little treatise, plenty of pantheistic Mother Earth spirituality was on display as well as the secular humanism that Schaeffer famously warned against elsewhere. Unfortunately, the Evangelical Church did not step into the breach and much of its leadership instead now treats the small creation care movement as a theological leper, unclean because it engages with a green movement viewed as beyond redemption.
Yet the name of Jesus was surprisingly well received on the National Mall. I saw not one glare or frown; instead dozens of people made positive comments and requested photographs. A self-described agnostic hawking The Socialist Worker newspaper engaged with me about mankind’s relationship to God and closed by saying of Jesus with a smile, “Well, if he got you out here, he can’t be all bad.”
A small group of banner-wielding Evangelical college students, who allowed me to join them despite my relatively advanced years, also drew thanks from fellow believers in the crowd and inquiries from the curious. One secular liberal couple stood with us for quite a while asking questions about what it meant to be an Evangelical, honestly discussing their own negative associations of the term with George W. Bush and SUVs. They eventually were comfortable enough”in deliciously appropriate clichéd fashion” to share their granola bars, even with an openly pro-life Bush voter like me.
Plenty of work remains to be done, both to bandage God’s wounded creation and reach his most precious creatures. “ We’ve got the whole world in our hands,” a gaggle of green-clad marchers sang to a familiar Sunday School tune. “I think they’ve got the lyrics wrong,” I remarked with a wink to the students. We set about to sing the song correctly.
John Murdock works as a natural resources attorney in Washington, D.C., and is a member of The Falls Church Anglican in northern Virginia. He has written on environmental matters for numerous outlets including The New Atlantis.
_________ This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things that affect our culture today. The first post took a look at the foundations of our modern society today that were set by the Roman Democracy 2000 years ago and then it related it to the art we see today. […]
__________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________ This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things that affect our culture today. The first post took a look at the foundations of our modern society today that were set by the Roman Democracy 2000 years ago and […]
__________ This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things that affect our culture today. The first post took a look at the foundations of our modern society today that were set by the Roman Democracy 2000 years ago and then it related it to the art we see today. […]
___________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________ Series “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” traces Schaeffer’s comments on modern culture and can be found weekly onhttp://www.thedailyhatch.org !!!!! Paul Gauguin and his life questions! This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things that affect our culture today. The first post took […]
This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things that affect our culture today. The first post took a look at the foundations of our modern society today that were set by the Roman Democracy 2000 years ago and then it related it to the art we see today. The […]
____________________________________________ “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” can be found weekly onhttp://www.thedailyhatch.org ! Why Communism catches the attention of young people but never comes through!!! Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode 9 – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN This series of posts entitled “FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE” touches things […]
_____________ Jürgen Habermas Interview Uploaded on Feb 1, 2007 Rare video footage of Jurgen Habermas discussing some of his theories.http://soundcloud.com/st-hanshaugen Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer notes: At Berkeley the Free Speech Movement arose simultaneously with the hippie world of drugs. At first it was politically neither left nor right, but rather a […]
Bettina Aptheker pictured below: Moral Support: “One Dimensional Man” author Herbert Marcuse accompanies Bettina Aptheker, center, and Angela Davis’ mother, Sallye Davis, to Angela Davis’ 1972 trial in San Jose. Associated Press ___________________________________________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on […]
_____________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____ Elston Gunn- Ballad of A Thin Man, Live Sheffield 1966 Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 […]
______________ Just like tom thumb´s blues (no direction home) Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal […]
After being elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Adrian Rogers met with President Ronald Reagan.
After being elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Adrian Rogers met with President Ronald Reagan.
– King of Kings Lyric Video – Hillsong Worship
—
Adrian Rogers pictured below
________________
Today at Fellowship Bible church this song fit perfectly with the sermon today!
In the darkness we were waiting Without hope, without light ‘Til from Heaven You came running There was mercy in Your eyes To fulfill the law and prophets To a virgin came the word From a throne of endless glory To a cradle in the dirt
Praise the Father, praise the Son Praise the Spirit, three in one God of glory, Majesty Praise forever to the King of Kings
To reveal the kingdom coming And to reconcile the lost To redeem the whole creation You did not despise the cross For even in your suffering You saw to the other side Knowing this was our salvation Jesus for our sake you died
Praise the Father, praise the Son Praise the Spirit, three in one God of glory, Majesty Praise forever to the King of Kings
And the morning that You rose All of Heaven held its breath ‘Til that stone was moved for good For the Lamb had conquered death And the dead rose from their tombs And the angels stood in awe For the souls of all who’d come To the Father are restored
And the church of Christ was born Then the Spirit lit the flame Now this gospel truth of old Shall not kneel, shall not faint By His blood and in His name In His freedom I am free For the love of Jesus Christ Who has resurrected me
Praise the Father, praise the Son Praise the Spirit, three in one God of glory, Majesty Praise forever to the King of Kings
Today at Fellowship Bible Church, Justin spoke on Revelation 20.
Below is the best sermon I have ever heard on Revelation 20!
Adrian Rogers -The Final Judgment
A time is coming when all the dreams and schemes men have sold their souls for will turn to rust, mold and corruption. God will put the final period upon the final sentence, upon the final chapter in history. Then we will stand before the Lord. Join Adrian Rogers and discover—are you ready?
“It is my heart’s deepest desire that until Christ returns for His church, this ministry would continue to proclaim the truth of God’s Word and His life-giving, life-altering love on broadcasts throughout the world” – Adrian Rogers
The Great Judgment
Dr. Adrian Rogers
Revelation 20:11-15
I want to speak to you tonight on one of the most
serious subjects I know anything about and that is the
final judgment, the final judgment. Now, you need to
pay attention because one of these days, if you don’t
know the Lord Jesus Christ, you are going to come into
judgment. You have a date with Deity. You are going
to meet Jesus Christ.
I heard of a young minister one time who came to
a village town to be the pastor. In that village,
there was a man who was a skeptic, a scorner, an
agnostic, a pseudo intellectual. His favorite sport
was baiting preachers, teasing preachers, arguing with
preachers, ridiculing the Gospel. He could hardly
wait ’til the new minister came to town. One day they
met in the town square. This man, whose name was Burt
Alney, met the new minister and he said to him, I
understand you’re the new minister in town. Is that
correct? He said, Yes sir, I am. He said, Well I
want to tell you something, my name is Burt Alney.
And I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe the Bible
is the Word of God. I believe that heaven is mere
sentimentality. To believe in hell is a blunder and
foolishness. I believe that you’re a pious fraud and
an imposter, and I believe that all of the people who
go there to hear you preach are hypocrites. The young
minister looked at him and quoted a verse of
Scripture. He said, “It is appointed unto man once to
die, and after this the Judgment.” Alney said, Don’t
quote the Bible to me. He said, I don’t believe the
Bible. What do you have to say to that? The young
minister said, “It is appointed unto man once to die,
and after this the Judgment.” He said, That’s no
argument, don’t give me that, I said I don’t believe
that. He said, It is appointed unto man once to die,
and after this the Judgment. He said, That’s stupid.
I don’t think you know enough to argue. He said, “It
is appointed unto man once to die, after this the
Judgment.” It so infuriated Burt Alney that he
wheeled around, turned and walked away in disgust.
But later on Burt Alney gave this testimony. He said,
as I walked home that night, I walked over the bridge,
and as the creek was beneath me, the frogs in that
creek were saying, Judgment, Judgment, Judgment,
Judgment, Judgment. And what that man had said so
reverberated through my soul. “It is appointed unto
man once to die, and after this the judgment––that I
could not get it out of my heart and my mind until I
gave my heart to Jesus Christ. I pray God tonight
that this will etch itself upon your consciousness and
reverberate through your soul.
Listen to me my friend; one of the most solemn
facts I know is that one day, one day, every unsaved
man, woman, boy, and girl in this world will come to
Judgment. Now, the message that I’m going to give you
tonight is straight from the Word of God, and if you
have a Bible with you, you may keep it open there in
your lap. The very first thing we see as we speak
about the final Judgment, which really is a trial, is
a court, it is eternity’s court. The Supreme Judge of
the Universe is sitting there upon the bench. I want
you to notice that in every court trial there are
three parts. First of all there must be a judge, and
secondly there must be some defendants, and thirdly
there must be a judgment.
Now, the Bible tells us this is what is going to
happen. First of all I want you to notice the setting
of this whole thing. Look in verse 11, “And I saw a
great white throne.” Now, when the Bible says it’s
great, that speaks of the power of it. When the Bible
says it is white, that speaks of the purity of it.
When the Bible says it is a throne, that speaks of the
purpose of it, for this word throne is not the kind of
a throne that a king would sit upon. This kind of a
throne was a judgment bench. A person who stands
before this is not coming to worship a king.
Sometimes people say, Oh, pray for us all that one day
we’ll stand before thy great white throne. Don’t pray
that prayer for me please. And don’t pray it for you,
if you know what you are talking about. Those who
stand before this throne are standing there to be
judged.
And who is it that’s sitting upon this throne?
Look again here in the Word of God. “And him that sat
on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled
away.” Who is this person? Who is this judge that’s
sitting upon the throne? Well, I want to tell you who
the judge is not going to be. You’re not going to
judge yourself. The judge in that day is not going to
be your opinion of yourself. It’s not going to be
some friend. We all have friends who will write a
letter of recommendation for us. They don’t bear
false witness against us, they bear it for us, Amen?
They say all of these nice things, but your friends
are not going to be the judge. Your mother, your
father is not going to be the judge. My mother had a
way of overlooking all of the faults and foibles and
in me. But your mother is not going to be the judge.
Who is the judge? Who is the one who sits upon this
throne? The Bible says, “In him that sat upon the
throne, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled
away.” Who is this one? So awesome, so terrifying,
so fearful that even the heavens and the earth flee
from his presence. Are you ready for this? The judge
will be none other than Jesus Christ. Did you know
that? Jesus is the judge.
The Bible tells us in John the fifth chapter,
“The Father judgeth no man, but hath commiteth all
judgment unto His son.” Now that’s very important
because I want to tell you as surely as my name is
Adrian Rogers, as surely as I stand in this stadium,
as surely as there’s breath in my body, as surely as
there’s a God in heaven, you are going to meet Jesus
Christ. Everybody here is going to meet Jesus Christ.
Now, you may not walk down this aisle and give your
heart to Jesus, but in some church they’ll roll you
down the aisle perhaps after you are dead and some
preacher will preach your funeral, but your soul will
be in hell before the undertaker learns you are dead.
And dear friend, you will be drawn out of that place
called hell, that place that the Bible calls Hades,
and as we’re going to see in a moment, you will stand
face to face with Jesus Christ. Do you know what the
Bible says? The Bible says, “As I live saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to God. Every tongue shall
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God
the Father.” Now, that tells me that if you don’t
meet Jesus as Savior, you’ll meet Him as judge. If
you don’t meet Him in grace, you’ll meet Him in
judgment. But you have a date with Deity. You’re
going to meet Him as the Lamb. You’re going to meet
Him as the Lion. You’re going to meet Him as the
Savior, or you’re going to meet Him as the Judge, but
you’re going to meet Him.
Now listen, listen, this is the setting. There
is a great white throne. Now, who are the defendants?
Let’s continue to read. Look here in this passage of
scripture. The Bible says in verse 12, “And I saw
the dead, small and great stand before God, and the
books were opened. And another book was opened which
is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books according
to works.” Now, the Bible teaches that there’s a
summons that’s going to go out, and the dead are going
to be summonsed into this court. Who are these? Who
are these dead that are coming to the judgment? “I
saw the dead, small and great.” Well, listen, the big
shot, the great, the little shot, the small, the up
and out, the great, the down and out, the small, those
who are well known and those that nobody knows
anything about––all of these unsaved are going to
stand in the Judgment.
Now, let me tell you they are basically in four
categories of persons. Four types of people will
stand there to be judged, and I want you to listen
carefully to see if you’re in one of these four
categories. First of all, the out and out sinner will
be there, and I don’t think there are any like that
here tonight, but there may be. These are those who
hate God, who hate Christ, who hate the Bible. They
hate revivals. They hate preachers. They hate
churches. They spit on the cross. They ridicule the
blood. They shake their puny fists in the face of
God, boldly, braggingly, brazenly. They say, God, if
there be a God, you’re not big enough to make me serve
you. They hate God, and they despise what we’re doing
here tonight. Now, there are none like that here
tonight, unless you’ve come to make fun. And if you
have, may God have mercy upon your soul. But they
will be there. They will be there.
But I’ll tell you another category of persons who
will be there. These are not the out and out sinners,
they’re just the opposite. These are self-righteous
people. These are good people. These people go to
church from time to time. These people give their
money. These people have been baptized. These people
have gone to Sunday school. These people have
culture. They have manners. They think that the
Gospel is for the thief. They think the Gospel is for
the murderer. They think the Gospel is for the
pervert. They don’t think the Gospel is for them.
They don’t think they need to be saved. Jesus said,
“Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you
shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of heaven. “
Some people are going to hell because they drink, but
some people are going to hell because they never
drink. They think the Gospel is for the drunkard, but
not for them. They think they don’t need to be saved.
And when a preacher preaches a sermon like this,
they’ll stand in the invitation, they’ll look around
to see if any of those old sinners are going to go
down there and give their heart to Jesus Christ. I
told you the night before last, I’ll tell you again––
the worst form of badness is human goodness when that
human goodness becomes a substitute for the second
birth.
Now, mark it down. There is no sin greater than
self-righteousness that keeps you from going to Jesus
Christ. Most of the people in America are egomaniacs,
strutting to hell, thinking they’re too good to be
damned. There are about five billion people on planet
earth today. If you were to put those five billion
people in a single file, they would reach out around
the moon, circle around the moon a number of times and
come back to the earth and you still would not have
reached the end of that line. If you were to take a
golden cup and place it in the hand of all five
billion people and tell each one to deposit all of his
own personal goodness and righteousness that he
innately has in that cup, and then pass it on to the
next person, and on to the next, when that golden cup
got to the end of five billion persons, there would
not be enough righteousness in that cup to save one
boy or one girl. Do you understand what I am talking
about? God says that our righteousness is as filthy
rags in the sight of a holy God. Would to God, would
to God, would to God the Holy Spirit would show you
tonight, oh my friend, that your church membership
cannot save you, your keeping of the Ten Commandments
cannot save you. The Bible says, “If righteousness
come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.” Do you
know what that means? That means that if you could be
saved by your good works, Calvary was a blunder and
the blood of Jesus Christ was spilled rather than
shed. Christ died in vain.
I‘ll tell you a third category of person who will
be there. Not only, my dear friend, the out and out
sinner, not only the self-righteous person, but
there’s another category of persons who will be there,
and this is the procrastinators. They’re not out and
out sinners. They don’t hate God. And they’re not
self–righteous. They know they need to be saved.
Every time the Gospel is preached, they feel that tug,
they feel that quiver. Every time a preacher stands
up and says, Come to Jesus, there is something in them
that says, I ought to go. But the devil whispers in
their ear, and the devil intimidates them and
procrastination comes into their heart and they say,
Not tonight, not tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow. Oh, I
know we all know that we’re going to die, but do you
know what most of us think? Most of us have the idea
that somehow we’re going to live to be about ninety–
eight, and then we’re going to get a little cough and
then we’re going to go to the doctor. He’s going to
thump on us a little bit and he’s going to say, you’ve
got about four months to live. So then we’re going to
visit all of the grandchildren and the great–
grandchildren. And then we’re going to call all of
our loved ones in around the bed. And then we’re
going to put on our pajamas, and crawl up in the bed,
turn up our toes and die. That’s the way most of us
think we’re going to die. But I want to tell you,
dear friend, more people die with their street clothes
on than die with their pajamas on. Did you know that?
People die on their way home from church. In where I
used to preach, in another church, five people in
another city, five people were killed on their way
home from church.
I can remember Dorothy, another little lady.
Stood on the front steps of my church in Ft. Pierce, I
can see her in my mind’s eye now, that perky little
smile. And, Dorothy was a Christian, thank God, but
the principal is the same. Dorothy said to me as she
stood there, Pastor, that was a great sermon. I’ll
see you tonight. I can still hear it in my ears.
I’ll see you tonight, pastor. And as Dorothy went out
the five twenty causeway, and over the overpass going
over the Banana River, another car was coming up on
the wrong side of the hill, hit her head on. I doubt
that she ever even saw it. The next moment she was in
with Jesus. If that had happened to some of you,
you’d be in hell tonight. If going home that thing
happened to you, that next moment you’d be in hell.
The procrastinators, I say, are going to stand
there. I tell you, there are souls in hell who would
give a million worlds like this one to have the
opportunity to come to Jesus tonight. The Bible says,
“Today, if you’ll hear His voice, harden not your
heart.” The Bible says, “He that being often reproved
and hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed.”
God’s Word says, “Boast not thyself of tomorrow, for
thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” I tell
you I would not go without Jesus Christ twenty–four
hours for ten million dollars. I mean that with all
of my heart. If you were to put ten million dollars
on this platform and say, All you have to do is
renounce Christ, do without Christ for one day. Ten
million dollars for one day. God in heaven knows,
number one I would not deny Jesus for ten million
dollars. Number two, dear friend, I might die during
that twenty–four–hour period. The Bible says, “What
should it profit a man if he should gain the whole
world and lose his own soul. Or what should a man
give in exchange for his soul?”
Who is going to be there? “I saw the dead, small
and great standing before God.” I’ll tell you who
will be there. The out and out sinner will be there.
I’ll tell you who will be there, the self–righteous
person will be there. I’ll tell you who will be
there, the procrastinator will be there. And I’ll
tell you someone else who will be there. These are
church members who have gotten their name on the
church role, but they’ve never had their name in the
Lamb’s book of life. Church membership, whether
Bellevue kind or any other kind, has never saved
anybody. You ask some people, Are you a Christian?
They say, Well, I’m a member of the church. You ask,
When were you saved? Well, I was baptized at thus and
such a time. Friend, the church is not the way to
heaven. Jesus is the way to heaven.
Now, suppose when I came out here tonight to come
to this crusade, when I got ready, rather than coming,
I find a place that says Show Place Arena. I get up on
that sign and I sit down and I fold my hands and I sit
on that sign and you pass by and you say, Pastor,
that’s very interesting. What are you doing? And I
say, Well, I’m going to the crusade. You say, You’re
going to the crusade? Yes, yes. Well, well, well,
how’s that, pastor? Well, you see what it says here,
Show Place Arena. That’s what it says, and I’m on it,
so I’m going to the crusade. You say, Pastor, that’s
not the way to the Crusade, that’s just the sign that
points you to the way. The church is not the way to
heaven. The church is the sign that points you to the
way. Jesus is the way. Jesus, you say––everybody
knows that. Friend, everybody doesn’t know that.
You’d be surprised.
There’s some people in this building tonight, you
are members in good standing of some church, but I
want to remind you, so was Judas. He was a charter
member of the first church, and he was the treasurer,
and tonight he’s in hell. Are you saved? I’m not
asking if you’re a member of the church. Judas, are
you a member of the church? Yes, I am. I’m a charter
member. I’m a disciple, I’m an apostle, I’m the
treasurer of the church. Judas, have you ever been
born again? He’d have to answer no, and tonight he’s
in hell. There are four categories of persons who are
going to be judged.
Now, here’s the third and final thing I want you
to notice. We’ve talked, first of all about the
courtroom and the Judge, the great white throne and
Jesus is on it. Secondly, we’ve talked about the fact
that the dead, small and great, will stand there to be
judged. Now, the third and final thing I want you to
see tonight is the basis of the judgment. Every
judgment has three parts. First of all the evidence
is presented against you. Secondly, you have a chance
to make your defense. Thirdly, the verdict of the
court is given.
Now, let’s suppose that the end of time has come
and it is time for the resurrection of the unsaved
dead. The graves vomit up their shrieking, moaning,
groaning dead and they stand one by one to be judged,
that time when I told you about that you’re going to
meet Jesus Christ. There’s a Negro spiritual that
goes this way: I went to the Rock to hide my face,
and the rock cried out, no hiding place, no hiding
place. The heavens and the earth flee away. Every
rock, every cave, every building, every closet, it’s
gone. Just you and Jesus. You cursed His name behind
His back, I wonder if you’re going to curse Him to His
face now? You ridiculed Him now, I wonder if you’re
going to ridicule Him then? I am telling you, you
listen to me, the most sobering fact that I know is
that you’re going to stand before Jesus Christ.
“I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God. The sea gave up the dead which were in it.”
Listen, dear friend, death and hell delivered up the
dead which were in them, and they were judged, every
man. You see, when you die, your body goes to the
grave, but your soul goes to Hades, literally Hades,
that’s what it says. Death and Hell, in the Greek,
it’s death and Hades. It is the place where spirits
go before the resurrection. And your spirit is in
Hades, your body is in the grave.
He says here, “And death and hell gave up the dead which were in them…” Death has the body when your body dies, death comes after your body and carries it down to the grave to disintegration but there’s a part of you that doesn’t go to the grave; It goes to a place called Hell. It’s a translation of the Greek word Hades. It’s the place of the departed dead before the FINAL JUDGMENT. They go there to wait the judgment. You say, “Well, wait a minute. If they’re already in Hell why are they taken out of hell to be judged?”
That’s not the Lake of Fire, that’s Hades. They’re going to be cast into the Lake of Fire. You say, “What is the difference?”
Well, suppose a person commits a crime and he is indicted by the grand jury. He’s so dangerous that the judge will not grant bond. So he is put into the county jail, and he is held there until he is judged. He is taken out of that jail, judged, and put into the penitentiary. The Lake of Fire is the eternal penitentiary, but the death has the body and hell has the soul. That’s where people without Christ have died and their body in the grave, their soul being held there waiting until the Final Judgment. Well, why bring them out and judge them again? Because it’s not all over yet, as we’re going to see.
Hugh Hefner, who founded the Playboy empire, I’ll pray he’ll get saved. I hope he will. But if he doesn’t, when he dies he’ll go into a holding place and be taken out then to be judged. Why can’t he be judged now? Because it’s not finished yet. You see, he has corrupted those who will corrupt those, who will corrupt those, who will corrupt those, and on and on and on and on and that wicked influence will not stop until it has reached the shores of eternity. So God has to wait until it’s all over to bring these out of that holding place and say, NOW WE ARE GOING TO FACE THE RECORD. That is the Final Judgment friend, when all the facts are in.
But when the summons comes, death that has the body, and Hell that has the spirit will give them up. Your body will come from the grave. Your spirit will come from hell. And that spirit will be reincarnated, and in this case, reincarcerated in that body. From the Arctic wastes they will come. From the depths of the oceans they will come. From the jungles they will come. From graves that are millenniums old, and bodies that have turned to dust, they will come. Fresh corpses will rise again. I saw the dead, small and great. They will come. They will come. They will be raised.
You know, I have never ever been able to
understand why unsaved people come to church at Easter
to celebrate. I never can understand it. I’m glad
they come, because it gives me a chance to shoot them
full of the Gospel, but I could never understand why
an unsaved person would come to church on Easter. Do
you know what Easter is? Easter, my friend, if you
don’t get saved, is the day that seals your doom.
Don’t you know that?
Acts chapter 17 says that “God has appointed a
day in which He will judge the world in righteousness
by that man whom He hath ordained whereof He hath
given assurance unto all men in that He raised Him
from the dead.” Now, what does that mean? It means
the proof positive of the judgment is the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. You can’t hold court if the Judge is
dead. But furthermore, you can’t hold court if the
defendant isn’t there. What God is saying is this,
listen to me––the same God that raised Jesus Christ up
from that grave, listen, is the same God who’s going
to bring you into judgment. Listen. Death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them. Some people
get the idea that they can commit suicide and end it
all. You can’t do it. Let me tell you friend, you
cannot crawl up into the grave and hide from God. You
can’t pull the dirt over your face and hide from God.
Could you have your body cremated and have your ashes
scattered by the four winds of the earth, to the four
corners of the earth? The Spirit of Almighty God
would bring those ashes together, bring that dust
together, reincarnate into that body your soul, and
you will stand before Him, and you will be judged,
face to face with Jesus Christ. You’ve got a date
with Deity. “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to
God.”
Three parts to the Judgment. First of all, the
evidence will be presented against you. The Bible
says, “and the books were opened,” the books were
opened. God is keeping books. God has a record. God
has written down every deed, every thought, and every
word, every word. Did you know the Bible says every
idle word that men shall they give account thereof in
the Day of Judgment? Every filthy thing you ever
said, every lie you ever told, every lustful thought
you ever had, every dishonest deed you’ve ever done,
every proud act. All of it is recorded with a pen of
iron and rocks of lead and letters of flame. I want
to tell you, my friend, God is keeping the record.
There’s a camera right here taking a picture of me.
There’s a microphone and what I am saying is being
recorded and it can be played back and be heard later
I am telling you, my friend, just as surely what
you are thinking this very moment is being recorded.
Did you know that? I mean what you’re thinking this
very moment. Every thought that you have right now,
God is recording. Every word that you speak. Jesus
said, “That which is done in secret shall be shouted
from the house top.” God has the record, and when you
stand there, the case will be presented against you.
You will see your sins––sins that you’ll remember,
sins that you’ve forgotten. Things that you did in
Vietnam and Korea. Things you did in the back seat of
an automobile, or the back room of some business
place. All of those things are recorded. Every lie
you ever told. Every time you pinched a wrinkle into
your mother’s brow, every gray hair you gave your
father, every mocking sneering thing you did about
Jesus Christ––you will face that sin, my friend. There
will be a foul mountain of sins. And the most self–
righteous person in this world when he sees his sins
and the great sin of rejecting Jesus Christ, high
treason against heaven’s king. It will all be there,
and that will be the evidence presented against you.
And then you’ll have a chance to make your defense.
What will you say? Now, listen, let’s practice
right now. Let’s just suppose that you’re standing
there before Jesus Christ. I’m talking to those of
you who are not saved. And remember, remember friend,
this may be the last sermon you’ll ever hear. What
will you say? I know what some of you will say.
You’ll say, Well, I’ll just call out for mercy. There
won’t be any mercy. If you want mercy, you may have
If you want grace, you may have it. If you want
forgiveness, you may have it. But you must have it
now, you’ll not have it then. The Bible says, “It is
appointed unto man once to die, and after this the
Judgment.” The Bible doesn’t say anything about
salvation, forgiveness after death. As a matter of
fact, the Bible teaches that the only chance that you
have for salvation is in this life. And you will not
get mercy. Well you say, I’ll ask for justice. You
don’t need justice friend, you need mercy. Justice is
what you’re going to get. You’re going to be judged
according to your works.
You say, Well, then I’ll make an excuse. Well,
what will you say? I know what some of you are going
to say. You’re going to say, Well, Lord, I’ll tell
you why I wasn’t saved. I wasn’t saved because there
were so many hypocrites in the church. Why, I went to
Bellevue Baptist Church, and I saw someone singing in
the choir. And I knew that man. I knew his
lifestyle. I knew that woman. I knew the way she
lived. She’s a hypocrite. That’s why I wasn’t saved.
That’s why I wasn’t saved. And the Lord’s going to
say to you, I didn’t say believe on the hypocrite. I
said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt
be saved.”
I know what some of you are going to say. Well,
I wouldn’t go down there and confess Christ as my Lord
until I was sure I could live it. He’s going to say,
I didn’t say believe on yourself. I said, “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”
Well, I’ll tell you why I wasn’t saved. It was
Adrian Rogers. I went to hear him preach, and he
yelled and he screamed and he lifted his hand and he
pointed his finger and he talked about sin and all of
that, I didn’t like that kind of preaching. And He’ll
say, I didn’t say believe on the preacher. I said,
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be
saved.”
Well, I didn’t know which church to join. There
are so many churches. The Baptist church, the
Methodist church, the Presbyterian church, the Church
of God, the Church of Christ, the Episcopalian church,
Vegetarian church, I didn’t know which church to join.
So many churches. And He’ll say to you what I’m going
to say to you. I didn’t say believe on the church. I
said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt
be saved.”
Well, you say, I didn’t have time. I mean, I was
killed on that Wednesday night. I was in an
automobile accident. I died of a heart attack. I
died in my sleep. I didn’t have time. And He’ll say
to you, You had time that night when my servant Adrian
Rogers preached and prayed and plead with tears, when
he poured out his heart and begged you to come to
Jesus. You had time, that night, but you walked out
of that place without Jesus Christ. You had time.
I’ll tell you, my dear friend, that every excuse that
you can possibly think of will falter and fail and you
will bow your head and plea the only plea that you can
plea before a righteous God, and that is guilty.
Guilty of the crucifixion of the Son of God because,
my dear friend, your sins were the nails that nailed
Him to that cross and your hard heart the hammer that
drove those nails.
Now, you’ll have a chance, dear friend, to hear
the verdict of the court. Do you know what it is?
It’s right here in the Word of God. Now listen to it.
I want you to get serious. “And whosoever was not
found written in the Book of Life was cast into the
lake of fire, this is the second death.” May I be
serious with you? We live in a world now where people
are telling other people to go to hell. Hell is no
joke. If there is no hell, this Bible is a book of
blunders. If there is no hell, Jesus Christ is a
liar, for He had more to say about hell than any other
preacher in the Word of God. “Whosoever was not found
written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of
fire.” Every demon will be there to shriek and moan
and groan as they too are pulled down into that liquid
lake of fire, for hell is prepared for the devil and
his angels. God doesn’t want you to go to hell. I
don’t want you to go to hell. That’s the reason I’m
preaching this crusade. If you think I’m preaching it
for my health or if you think I’m preaching it because
I don’t have anything else to do, you’re wrong.
Friend, I’ve never been busier in my life. But the
reason I’m here tonight, and the reason I put this
prayer in this energy is I don’t want you to go to
hell. And God has lifted up some blockades to keep
you from going to hell. The song we’ve sung, the
scripture we preach, the prayers, the tears, they’re
God’s blockades on the road to hell. But above all
there’s a cross. Listen, for you to go to hell,
you’re going to have to climb over and trample beneath
your dirty feet the precious blood of Jesus, for the
cross is God’s blockade on the road to hell. Do you
know Jesus? Are you saved? I mean, are you
absolutely certain beyond the shadow of any doubt if
you died right now you would go hell?
I’m going to tell you a brief story and I’m going
to be finished. I heard this story years ago about
some men who were out on a prairie and the prairie had
caught fire. And there were winds of thirty and forty
and fifty miles an hour that were sweeping the fire
along. The men tried to outrun the fire and it became
evident they would never outrun the fire. One said to
the other one, we’re going to burn to death. We’re
going to perish. But the other man said, No, I know
what to do. And he reached into his pocket and took
out a book of matches. He struck a match and kneeled
down and set the grass on one side of him on fire.
And the wind caught that grass and began to burn this
way. Now the fire was burning this way, and now the
fire was coming this way. His friend said, You’re a
fool. He said, Now, we’re surrounded by fire. He
said, No. He said, I’m know what I’m doing. The
waited a moment. And then he said, Step over here on
the burned–off place, because the fire cannot come
where the fire has already been.
Are you listening to me? The fire of God’s
judgment fell at the cross of Calvary and that’s where
I’m standing tonight. Amen? And the fire can’t come
where it’s already been. Amen? You see, I settled my
case out of court. Amen? The fire cannot come where
it’s already been. And Jesus on the cross endured the
fires of God’s wrath and He took your judgment for
you. And the Bible says, “There’s therefore now no
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]
I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 1) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]
Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Great article by Adrian Rogers. What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God’s Word? I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the […]
Is there any evidence the Bible is true? Articles By PleaseConvinceMe Apologetics Radio The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy Jim Wallace A Simple Litmus Test There are many ways to verify the reliability of scripture from both internal evidences of transmission and agreement, to external confirmation through archeology and science. But perhaps the […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is […]
Here is some very convincing evidence that points to the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible Archeology consistently confirms the Bible! Archaeology and the Old Testament Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place […]
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Prince Philip | Funniest Moments And Greatest Gaffes Caught On Camera
Faith – The Crown (Netflix S3:E7
The Crown – Philip meets the astronauts
In the article below you will read how Prince Philip came up empty when he asked the astronauts the following question:
“There comes a time in life when one starts to evaluate what one’s accomplished, because of the positions I’ve ended up in, who I’ve become (who I married!) I haven’t been able to become the adventurer I wanted to…I want to know what your thoughts were…out there…’’
Their lame answers disappoint Philip. The astronauts are more interested and animated when asking him about how it feels to live in Buckingham Palace. He states,
“…they delivered as astronauts but failed as human beings.”
The astronauts failed to fill Philip’s desire for answers to the bigger spiritual and philosophical questions that, at times, ‘everyman’ struggles with. To find something to fill the ‘God-shaped hole,’ we all are created with as Aquinas says. We try to fill that hole with experiences, stuff, people, and relationships…everything but what it was designed to be filled with God.
“The Rolling Stones.” Remember them. They wrote this song “I can’t get no satisfaction.” And you know what they say after that phrase? “And I try and I try and I try.” I am not sure how deep most of their lyrics are, but they voice the cry of many people. “I can’t get no satisfaction and I try and I am trying and I am trying.”
Why do so many people throughout the world believe in God and an afterlife? Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible) Why is it that we try to find something to fill the ‘God-shaped hole?
Romans chapter 1:19-20:
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)
The Bible teaches we all know God exists and we will all survive beyond the grave! (This can even be seen in the Netflix series AFTER LIFE)
–
A still from ‘After Life’ that captures the vibe of the Tambury Gazette. (Twitter)
After Life on Netflix stars Ricky Gervais as a bereaved husband (Image: Netflix)
—-
Psychiatrist played by Paul Kaye seen below.
—
Ricky Gervais plays bereaved husband Tony Johnson in AFTER LIFE
Even Tony seems to feel this in episode 4 of the first season of AFTER LIFE (which is currently on NETFLIX) when Tony talks about being with his wife in the future.
Matt: Tony that doesn’t even make sense. You are a rational man. You don’t even believe in an afterlife.
Tony: I know she is nowhere. Alright. But get this through your head. I would rather be no where with her then somewhere without her.
(Below the journalism department of The Tambury Gazette on AFTER LIFE )
–
(PICTURED BELOW in AFTER LIFE Tony Johnson talks regularly with Anne on the bench at the graveyard next to their spouse head-stones)
No wonder Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography, “It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, for some extra mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand that message.”
Dave Hope and Kerry Livgren of the rock group KANSAS performed their song DUST IN THE WIND in 1978 when it made it into the top 10 and it basically put forth what King Solomon said in ECCLESIASTES that without God in the picture we are all DUST IN THE WIND in this life UNDER THE SUN, but in the chapter Solomon looks above the sun and finds the answer that had eluded Kerry Livgren and Prince Philip so long!!!
Philip returns to the men’s group at St. George’s Center again. He is more thoughtful and humble as he describes himself to the others,
Drip, doubt, disaffection, unease, discomfort – a jealous fascination with the achievements of the astronauts. My mother died recently. She saw something was amiss…a wonderful word, ‘amiss’, something is missing…faith. She saw it. ‘How’s your faith?’ she asked me. I’m here to admit to you that I’ve lost it. And without it, what is there? Loneliness, emptiness, anticlimax…going all the way to the moon to find nothing but haunting desolation. That is what faithlessness is, as opposed to finding wonder and exhilaration. The solution to our problems is not in science but bravery.
By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture in the final chapter of the book 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 written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular humanist man can not hope to find a lasting meaning to his life in a closed system without bringing God back into the picture. This is the same exact case withSolomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Three thousand years ago, Solomon took a look at life “under the sun” in his book of Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.”
Let me show you some inescapable conclusions if you choose to live without God in the picture. Solomon came to these same conclusions when he looked at life “under the sun.”
Death is the great equalizer (Eccl 3:20, “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”)
Chance and time have determined the past, and they will determine the future. (Ecclesiastes 9:11-13)
Power reigns in this life, and the scales are not balanced(Eccl 4:1)
Nothing in life gives true satisfaction without God including knowledge (1:16-18), ladies and liquor (2:1-3, 8, 10, 11), and great building projects (2:4-6, 18-20).
You can only find a lasting meaning to your life by looking above the sun and bring God back into the picture.
—
—
I have over 2 million views on my blog and one of the top posts that people have come to my blog to read is entitled WHAT IS THE BASIC MESSAGE OF ECCLESIASTES?
I ask your patience in advance as the basis of this piece is founded in my love for all things British. I search for all things Austen, Dickens, and smacking of royalty…don’t even get me going on Downton Abbey(2010-2016)! I happened upon The Crown(2016-present), the PBS miniseries, now on Netflix, which follows the appointment, coronation, and reign of Elizabeth II, the current monarch of Britain.
As a believer and follower of Jesus Christ, I don’t necessarily watch TV with the thought of themes of redemption, good vs. evil, or any other themes. I’m usually looking for some form of escapism from the mundane or a little entertainment. One episode of The Crown, however, particularly grabbed my attention, causing me to ponder the theme of ‘everyman’ in season 3, episode 7 entitled, “Moondust.”
It’s July of 1969, Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Colman) attends church at the chapel on the grounds of Windsor Castle, with her family and husband, Prince Philip (Tobias Menzies), dutifully in tow. Like a petulant teenager, on the walk to the chapel, Philp asks Elizabeth, ‘’Why do you do this? Week after week, like lemmings? What does it do for you, honestly?’’ She makes some off the cuff remark about keeping her focus on what really matters.
During the service, the elderly vicar (Clifford Rose) drones on and on. Again, Philip remarks, ‘’It’s not a sermon, it’s a general anesthetic!” Clearly, Philip is disenchanted with ‘religion’ as he observes with disdain and sarcasm.
I labeled Philip at this point as yet another rich, bored Royal, probably an elitist to boot.
Remarkably, Elizabeth seizes this opportunity to search for a new, younger ‘with it’ vicar or Dean of Windsor. She commissions her staff to find “a good fit for the job I’ve asked him to do.” The search begins.
Enter, Dean Robin Woods (Tim McMullan) , the new young vicar. The new vicar asks permission to use one of the many empty buildings on Windsor grounds to start a spiritual center for priests to come and recharge in a retreat setting. Philip gives his permission and is coerced by Vicar Woods to come and check out one of his sessions.
After listening to the assorted clergymen give their stories as to why they felt the need to attend the St. George’s House, Philip is appalled by the hopelessness in their attitudes. He snaps at them, “Sitting around talking won’t improve their situations. We are men of action, get up, and DO something.”
The Space Race
The late 1960s is the era of the Russian/American Space race. Who will get a man on the moon first? British TV commentary drones on and on, but Philip is mesmerized by the space shot coverage. His obsession with ‘’What is out there? What are the astronauts experiencing? And what is our place in the universe, the grand scheme of things?’’ seems to be the question ‘’everyman’’ contemplates from age to age.
Philip, a person of royalty, with all the education, wealth, privilege a man could desire, struggles with these fundamental questions, longings, and desires. During one scene, after Neil Armstrong’s Apollo Moon landing, Prince Philip co-pilots a commercial plane. He asks the pilot if he may take over control, which the pilot lets him. Philip cruises the plane to the upper limits of its altitude capacity, while the pilot strongly protests, to experience in some small way, what the astronauts experienced in space flight.
What is it there in the moon that thou should’ st move my heart so potently?
He goes on, “Now we know what the moon is – nothing, just dust, silence, and monochromatic rubble.” He picks up his Bible,
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy hands, the moon and stars that you set in place- what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that thou considers him? (Psalm 8:3)
An Audience with the Astronauts
Later, the astronauts tour England and have an audience with the Queen. Philip asks for a private meeting with the three astronauts, Neil Armstrong, (Henry Pettigrew) Michael Collins (Andrew Lee Potts), and Buzz Aldrin (Felix Scott). “Man to man, pilot to pilot’’ and is granted a fifteen-minute meeting. Philip ponders what profound questions he will ask and what answers they may give him, envisioning great philosophical discussion, no doubt.
The ‘everyman’ rises again. He tells the three astronauts, ‘’I identified with who you are…’’
His technical questions go out the window when they meet.
“There comes a time in life when one starts to evaluate what one’s accomplished, because of the positions I’ve ended up in, who I’ve become (who I married!) I haven’t been able to become the adventurer I wanted to…I want to know what your thoughts were…out there…’’
Their lame answers disappoint Philip. The astronauts are more interested and animated when asking him about how it feels to live in Buckingham Palace. He states,
“…they delivered as astronauts but failed as human beings.”
The astronauts failed to fill Philips’s desire for answers to the bigger spiritual and philosophical questions that, at times, ‘everyman’ struggles with. To find something to fill the ‘God-shaped hole,’ we all are created with as Aquinas says. We try to fill that hole with experiences, stuff, people, and relationships…everything but what it was designed to be filled with God.
In Search of Answers
Philip returns to the men’s group at St. George’s Center again. He is more thoughtful and humble as he describes himself to the others,
Drip, doubt, disaffection, unease, discomfort – a jealous fascination with the achievements of the astronauts. My mother died recently. She saw something was amiss…a wonderful word, ‘amiss’, something is missing…faith. She saw it. ‘How’s your faith?’ she asked me. I’m here to admit to you that I’ve lost it. And without it, what is there? Loneliness, emptiness, anticlimax…going all the way to the moon to find nothing but haunting desolation. That is what faithlessness is, as opposed to finding wonder and exhilaration. The solution to our problems is not in science but bravery.
“The answer is in here…(taps his heart)…faith!’’ replies Dean Woods.
“Help me,” begs Philip.
The prologue as this episode ends notes:
Prince Philip and Dean Robin Woods became lifelong friends. For over fifty years, St. George’s House has been a center for the exploration of faith and philosophy. Its success is one of the achievements Prince Philip is most proud of.
—
—
This episode of The Crown reminded me again that in despite all the trappings of civilization, all the college degrees, skills, and abilities, wealth and status one may possess, there is a part of us created to know our Creator. Nothing on this earth will satisfy that desire within our questioning souls.
The part of me that admires the British culture and civilization was somewhat taken aback in realizing that even the most privileged and well educated in our world struggle with the underlying desire to know who we are and our place in the grand scheme of things.
Depending on how a gem is held, light refracts differently. At B+PC we engage in Pop Culture topics to see ideas from a new angle, to bring us to a deeper understanding. And like Pastor Shane Willard notes, we want “…Jesus to get bigger, the cross to get clearer, the Resurrection to be central…” Instead of approaching a topic from “I don’t want to be wrong,“ we strive for the alternative “I want to expand my perspective.”
So, we invite you to engage with us here. What piqued your curiosity to dig deeper? What line inspired you to action? What idea made you ask, “Hmmm?” Let’s join with our community to wrestle with our thoughts in love in the Comment Section! See you there!
—-
—
—
On Saturday April 18, 2020 at 6pm in London and noon in Arkansas, I had a chance to ask Ricky Gervais a question on his Twitter Live broadcast which was “Is Tony a Nihilist?” At the 20:51 mark Ricky answers my question. Below is the video:
—
—
—
April 24, 2020 Ricky Gervais Dear Ricky,
This is the 7th day in a row that I have written another open letter to you to comment on some of your episodes in season one of AFTER LIFE, but actually today I got to see AFTER LIFE season 2. I had to get up at 2am in the morning to do it, but it was well worth it. So just like before I wanted to make some comments on episodes and then to pass along some evidence that indicates the Bible is historically accurate.
First, let me review. Here are letters to Ricky Gervais since Ricky answered my question about Tony being a nihilist on his Twitter Live broadcast that tuned into at noon on Saturday April 18, 2020:
The new emphasis in the beginning of season 2 is the paranormal. Episode 1 in season two starts off with Tony going to a yoga session with Matt and it turns out to be a disaster. Next at a person wants to tell the newspaper how he got raped by the spirit of Liberace. Of course, we can’t leave our Kath who brings up the paranormal and the idea that she can tell when an angel enters a room.
Why do so many people throughout the world believe in God and an afterlife? Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible).
Even Tony seems to feel this in episode 4 of the first season of AFTER LIFE when Tony talks about being with his wife in the future.
Matt: Tony that doesn’t even make sense. You are a rational man. You don’t even believe in an afterlife.
Tony: I know she is nowhere. Alright. But get this through your head. I would rather be no where with her then somewhere without her.
ironically, Charles Darwin even noted:
At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep [#1] inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons...Formerly I was led by feelings such as those…to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that [#2] whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. [#3] But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. a, page 29).
The emphasis on the paranormal in season two of AFTERLIFE reminds me of when I noticed in 1979 while going door to door telling people about Christ that many people who were involved in SPIRITUALISM and they thought they could talk to the dead. I totally reject that view. Arthur Conan Doyle in a famous 1927 tells of his firm belief in spiritualism.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle talks about Spirits and Spiritualism 1927
Actually I spent a whole summer in England in 1979 and it was a very interesting experience for several reasons. I was part of the organization OPERATION MOBILIZATION and we were an Christian Evangelical group that in that summer went to the homes of Muslims and Hindus and shared the gospel with them in the Manchester area. I also spent some time and London and got to attend All Souls Church, Langham Place, and hear the famous John Stott preach and I got to meet Michael Baughen who was the pastor (or Rector as you would say in England) at the time. Three noteworthy events during that time and one was attending a MANCHESTER UNITED soccer game. Secondly, I met several people who had recently visited with Cat Stevens and they told me he had recently converted to Islam and changed with name to Yusuf Islam.Cat Stevens had performed the song “Morning Has Broken” a few years earlier and it was one of my favorite songs. Thirdly, I got depressed in August because the sun only came out about 4 or 5 times that whole summer in England.
Now back to the paranormal and I must say that I totally agree with not accepting anything without evidence. This is a review I did a few years ago.THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95. PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263.Sagan is the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. He is author of many best sellers, including Cosmos, which became the most widely read science book ever published in the English language.In this book Sagan discusses the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science. For instance, he examines closely such issues as astrology (p. 303), crop circles (p. 75), channelers (pp. 203-206), UFO abductees (pp. 185-186), faith-healing fakes (p. 229), and witch-hunting (p. 119). Readers of The Skeptical Inquirer will notice that Sagan’s approach is very similar.Sagan writes:The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudo-sciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I’ve been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced Asci-cop C as if it’s an organization of scientists performing a police function Y CSICOP publishes a bimonthly periodical called AThe Skeptical Inquirer. On the day it arrives, I take it home from the office and pore through its pages, wondering what new misunderstandings will be revealed (p. 299).Sagan points out that in 1991 two pranksters in England admitted that they had been making crop figures for 15 years. They flattened the wheat with a heavy steel bar. Later on they used planks and ropes, but the media paid brief attention to the confession of these hoaxers. Why? Sagan concludes, ’Demons sell; hoaxers are boring and in bad taste’ (p. 76).Christians must admire Sagan’s commitment to critical thinking, logic, and freedom of thought. He takes on many subjects in this book, and the vast majority of his analysis is exceptional. However, his opinions on religious matters are affected by his devotion to scientism. Sagan believes only that which can be proved by science is true. He disputes psychologist Charles Tart’s assertion that scientism is ’dehumanizing, despiritualizing’ (p. 267). Sagan comments, ’There is very little doubt that, in the everyday world, matter (and energy) exist. The evidence is all around us. In contrast, as I’ve mentioned earlier the evidence for something non-material called `spirit’ or `soul’ is very much in doubt’ (p. 267).Science can only prove things about the physical world, and it cannot prove anything about the spiritual world. Does that mean that the mind and soul don’t exist? Of course not! First, we must realize that science is not the only way to truth. Even Sagan must admit that he must justify values like ’be objective’ or ’report data honestly’. Where do those values come from? They came from outside science, but they must be in place for science to work.Sagan gives an illustration that contrasts physics and metaphysics. He shows that the physicist’s idea will have to be discarded if tests fail in the laboratory. Therefore, the main difference between physics and metaphysics is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. This is a cute story, but can science answer the basic questions that underline all knowledge? Metaphysics is necessary for science to take place. It is not true that science is superior to metaphysics like Sagan would have us believe. The presuppositions of science can only be validated by philosophy. J. P. Moreland has correctly said, ’The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim’ (Scaling the Secular City, p. 197).Second, the absence of scientific evidence for the soul does not mean the soul does not exist. Sagan himself states,’Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ (p. 213).I was impressed with the way Sagan put his inner thoughts on the table. For instance, he comments, ’Plainly, there’s something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death…If some good evidence for life after death was announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote’ (pp. 203-204). What kind of evidence is Sagan looking for? It certainly is not vague prophecies. He states, ’Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy…Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs…Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? (p. 30). The answer to that question is yes. Christianity can point to very clear passages such as Isaiah 53 and Daniel 11 written hundreds of years before the events occurred.While comparing science to religion, Sagan comments, ’Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It’s just the best we have (pp. 27-28). Here Sagan is only half right. Science is imperfect, but it is not better than the Bible.’The Demon-Haunted World is a thought-provoking book that I thoroughly enjoyed. Some of Sagan’s anti-Christian views come through, but on the whole, this book uses critical thinking and logic and applies them to the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science of our day.Reviewed by Everette Hatcher III, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221.
Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.”
Many modern artists are left in this point of desperation that Schaeffer points out and it reminds me of the despair that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.” THIS IS EXACT POINT SCHAEFFER SAYSSECULAR ARTISTS ARE PAINTING FROM TODAY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ARE A RESULT OF MINDLESS CHANCE.
Francis Schaeffer in his book HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT (Chapter 4) asserts:
Because men have lost the objective basis for certainty of knowledge in the areas in which they are working, more and more we are going to find them manipulating science according to their own sociological or political desires rather than standing upon concrete objectivity. We are going to find increasingly what I would call sociological science, where men manipulate the scientific facts. Carl Sagan (1934-1996),professor of astronomy and space science at Cornell University, demonstrates that the concept of a manipulated science is not far-fetched. He mixes science and science fiction constantly. He is a true follower of Edgar Rice Burroughs (1875-1950). The media gives him much TV prime time and much space in the press and magazine coverage, and the United State Government spent millions of dollars in the special equipment which was included in the equipment of the Mars probe–at his instigation, to give support to his obsessive certainty that life would be found on Mars, or that even large-sized life would be found there. With Carl Sagan the line concerning objective science is blurred, and the media spreads his mixture of science and science fiction out to the public as exciting fact.
This mixing of science and science fiction had a purpose behind it. James Hubner enlightens us. James Hubner in his book LIGHT UP THE DARKNESS (pages 18-19) wrote:
Carl Sagan said this about extraterrestrial creatures, “When we know who they are, we will know who we are.” That is a remarkable statement, a remarkable religious statement. Why is it significant to know our identity? Why do humans desire to know who they are? …By asking these questions, Sagan exposed his own image-bearing soul while being completely unaware of it.
I have written a lot in the past about Carl Sagan on my blog and over and over again these posts have been some of my most popular because I believe Carl Sagan did a great job of articulating the naturalistic view that the world is a result of nothing more than impersonal matter, time and chance. Christians like me have to challenge those who hold this view and that is why I took it upon myself to read many of Sagan’s books and to watch his film series Cosmos.
On December 5, 1995, I got a letter back from Carl Sagan and I was very impressed that he took time to answer several of my questions and to respond to some of the points that I had made in my previous letters. I had been reading lots of his books and watching him on TV since 1980 and my writing today is a result of that correspondence. It is my conclusion that Carl Sagan died an unfulfilled man on December 20, 1996 with many of the big questions he had going unanswered.
Much of Carl Sagan’s aspirations and thoughts were revealed to a mass audience of movie goers just a few months after his death. The movie “CONTACT” with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey is a fictional story written by Sagan about the SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI).Sagan visited the set while it was filming and it was released on July 11, 1997 after his unfortunate death.
The movie CONTACT got me thinking about Sagan’s life long hope to find a higher life form out in the universe and I was reminded of Dr. Donald E. Tarter of NASA who wrote me in a letter a year or so earlier and stated, “I am not a theist. I simply and honestly do not know the answer to the great questions…This brings me to why I am interested in the SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI)…Let me assure you, one of the first questions I would want to ask another intelligence if one were discovered is, DO YOU BELIEVE IN OR HAVE EVIDENCE OF A SUPREME INTELLIGENCE?”
Was Sagan ever satisfied with the answers he came up with in his life? It is my view that true peace and satisfaction can come from a personal relationship with Christ and only in the Bible can we find absolute answers that touch this world we live in. The Apostle Paul was totally content when he wrote the book of Philippians from a jail in Rome right before he was beheaded (according to tradition). Paul observed, “Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:11-13). On March 11, 2012 my pastor Brandon Bernard at Fellowship Church Little Rock read that scripture and then commented:
Paul is reminding us that in every circumstance and in everything he has gone through that his satisfaction is found deeply in Christ. You think about this guy who is writing from prison. He is in this prison cell and it is a hardship in his life, but him of all people is saying that “I am writing to you but I am content and I am satisfied.” That is a statement you don’t hear from a lot of people these days… A lot of people are discontent and dissatisfied… Think about the poets from your generation or the generation before us. How about the deep theologians called “The Rolling Stones.” Remember them. They wrote this song “I can’t get no satisfaction.” And you know what they say after that phrase? “And I try and I try and I try.” I am not sure how deep most of their lyrics are, but they voice the cry of many people. “I can’t get no satisfaction and I try and I am trying and I am trying.”
What about one of those other poets by the name of Bono who wrote a song called, “I still haven’t found what I am looking for.” It is interesting. “I still haven’t found what I am looking for.” It has a nice melody to it but there is probably a reason why it is so popular because there is a lot of people deep down in their soul feel like they haven’t found what they are looking for.
It is true. What is so funny to me is that what is so desired is so elusive.
Rice Broocks in his book GOD’S NOT DEAD noted:
Astronomer Carl Sagan was a prolific writer and trustee of the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) founded in 1984 to scan the universe for any signs of life beyond earth. Sagan’s best-selling work COSMOS also became an award-winning television series explaining the wonders of the universe and exporting the belief not in an intelligent Creator but in potential intelligent aliens. He believed somehow that by knowing who they are, we would discover who we as humans really are. “The very thought of there being other beings different from all of us can have a very useful cohering role for the human species” (quoted from you tube clip “Carl Sagan appears on CBC to discuss the importance of SETI [Carl Sagan Archives]” at the 7 minute mark, Oct 1988 ). Sagan reasoning? If aliens could have contacted us, knowing how impossible it is for us to reach them, they would have the answers we seek to our ultimate questions. This thought process shows the desperate need we have as humans for answers to the great questions of our existence. Does life have any ultimate meaning and purpose? Do we as humans have any more value than the other animals? Is there a purpose to the universe, or more specifically, to our individual lives?
____________
Carl Sagan had to live in the world that God made with the conscience that God gave him. This created a tension. As you know the movie CONTACT was written by Carl Sagan and it was about Dr. Arroway’s SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI) program and her desire to make contact with aliens and ask them questions. It is my view that Sagan should have examined more closely the accuracy of the Bible and it’s fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament in particular before chasing after aliens from other planets for answers. Sagan himself had written,”Plainly, there’s something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death…If some good evidence for life after death was announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere antedote”(pp 203-204, The DemonHaunted World, 1995).
Sagan said he had taken a look at Old Testament prophecy and it did not impress him because it was too vague. He had taken a look at Christ’s life in the gospels, but said it was unrealistic for God to send a man to communicate for God. Instead, Sagan suggested that God could have written a mathematical formula in the Bible or put a cross in the sky. However, what happens at the conclusion of the movie CONTACT? This is Sagan’s last message to the world in the form of the movie that appeared shortly after his death. Dr Arroway (Jodie Foster) who is a young atheistic scientist who meets with an alien and this alien takes the form of Dr. Arroway’s father. The alien tells her that they thought this would make it easier for her. In fact, he meets her on a beach that resembles a beach that she grew up near so she would also be comfortable with the surroundings. Carl Sagan when writing this script chose to put the alien in human form so Dr. Arroway could relate to the alien.Christ chose to take our form and come into our world too and still many make up excuses for not believing.
Lastly, Carl Sagan could not rid himself of the “mannishness of man.” Those who have read Francis Schaeffer’s many books know exactly what I am talking about. We are made in God’s image and we are living in God’s world. Therefore, we can not totally suppress the objective truths of our unique humanity. In my letter of Jan 10, 1996 to Dr. Sagan, I really camped out on this point a long time because I had read Sagan’s book SHADOWS OF FORGOTTON ANCESTORS and in it Sagan attempts to totally debunk the idea that we are any way special. However, what does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie CONTACT when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”
Dr Sagan deep down knows that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Francis Schaeffersaid unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore. This is what Schaeffer calls “taking the roof off” of the unbeliever’s worldview and showing the inconsistency that exists.
In several of my letters to Sagan I quoted this passage below:
Romans 1:17-22 (Amplified Bible)
17For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.(A)
18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)
21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
__________________________________________
Can a man or a woman find lasting meaning without God? Three thousand years ago, Solomon took a look at life “under the sun” in his book of Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.”
Let me show you some inescapable conclusions if you choose to live without God in the picture. Solomon came to these same conclusions when he looked at life “under the sun.”
Death is the great equalizer (Eccl 3:20, “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”)
Chance and time have determined the past, and they will determine the future. (Ecclesiastes 9:11-13 “I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net, or birds are taken in a snare, so people are trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly upon them.”)
Power reigns in this life, and the scales are not balanced(Eccl 4:1; “Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed— and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors— and they have no comforter.” 7:15 “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: the righteous perishing in their righteousness, and the wicked living long in their wickedness. ).
Nothing in life gives true satisfaction without God including knowledge (1:16-18), ladies and liquor (2:1-3, 8, 10, 11), and great building projects (2:4-6, 18-20).
There is no ultimate lasting meaning in life. (1:2)
By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture in the final chapter of the book 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
In 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas when it rose to #6 on the charts. That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the same conclusion that Solomon had and that “all was meaningless.” I remember mentioning to my friends at church that we may soon see some members of Kansas become Christians because their search for the meaning of life had obviously come up empty even though they had risen from being an unknown band to the top of the music business and had all the wealth and fame that came with that.
Livgren wrote:
“All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Both Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on youtube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. Hope is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:
—
—
—
—
Solomon wisely noted in Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible). No wonder Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography, “It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, for some extra mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand that message.”
“I believe in a principle that was enunciated rather well by Bertrand Russell which is that you should try to keep away from having irrational beliefs. You should believe things for which you can find some evidence, apart from commitment to principles – like equality, freedom, and justice.”
The simple question I will answer immediately is that about a personal God and that I don’t believe, a God that concerns himself with human affairs. We don’t have much evidence for that. As for a more abstract God some people suggest the level of abstraction that makes the concept pointless. If we identify God with the laws of nature I don’t see why we need another term for the laws of nature.
”I think the question, Is there a God falls into the category of a physical empirical question. God is supposed to be somebody who created the world. Is there a person who created the world, that’s a perfectly clear question with a right answer and I think it needs to be handled in the way we handle other questions about the physical world, namely by looking for evidence. So I don’t think that’s a factually empty question, It could turn out…
For years I have been quoting a book by Peter Stoner called Science Speaks. I like to use a remarkable illustration from it to show how Bible prophecy proves that Jesus was truly God in the flesh.
I decided that I would try to find a copy of the book so that I could discover all that it had to say about Bible prophecy. The book was first published in 1958 by Moody Press. After considerable searching on the Internet, I was finally able to find a revised edition published in 1976.
Peter Stoner was chairman of the mathematics and astronomy departments at Pasadena City College until 1953 when he moved to Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. There he served as chairman of the science division. At the time he wrote this book, he was professor emeritus of science at Westmont.
In the edition I purchased, there was a foreword by Dr. Harold Hartzler, an officer of the American Scientific Affiliation. He wrote that the manuscript had been carefully reviewed by a committee of his organization and that “the mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound.” He further stated that in the opinion of the Affiliation, Professor Stoner “has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way.”
The book is divided into three sections. Two relate directly to Bible prophecy. The first section deals with the scientific validity of the Genesis account of creation.
Part One: The Genesis Record
Stoner begins with a very interesting observation. He points out that his copy of Young’s General Astronomy, published in 1898, is full of errors. Yet, the Bible, written over 2,000 years ago is devoid of scientific error. For example, the shape of the earth is mentioned in Isaiah 40:22. Gravity can be found in Job 26:7. Ecclesiastes 1:6mentions atmospheric circulation. A reference to ocean currents can be found in Psalm 8:8, and the hydraulic cycle is described in Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Isaiah 55:10. The second law of thermodynamics is outlined in Psalm 102:25-27 and Romans 8:21. And these are only a few examples of scientific truths written in the Scriptures long before they were “discovered” by scientists.
Stoner proceeds to present scientific evidence in behalf of special creation. For example, he points out that science had previously taught that special creation was impossible because matter could not be destroyed or created. He then points out that atomic physics had now proved that energy can be turned into matter and matter into energy.
He then considers the order of creation as presented in Genesis 1:1-13. He presents argument after argument from a scientific viewpoint to sustain the order which Genesis chronicles. He then asks, “What chance did Moses have when writing the first chapter [of Genesis] of getting thirteen items all accurate and in satisfactory order?” His calculations conclude it would be one chance in 31,135,104,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 31 x 1021). He concludes, “Perhaps God wrote such an account in Genesis so that in these latter days, when science has greatly developed, we would be able to verify His account and know for a certainty that God created this planet and the life on it.”
The only disappointing thing about Stoner’s book is that he spiritualizes the reference to days in Genesis, concluding that they refer to periods of time of indefinite length. Accordingly, he concludes that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. In his defense, keep in mind that he wrote this book before the foundation of the modern Creation Science Movement which was founded in the 1960’s by Dr. Henry Morris. That movement has since produced many convincing scientific arguments in behalf of a young earth with an age of only 6,000 years.
Peter Stoner’s Calculations Regarding Messianic Prophecy
Peter Stoner calculated the probability of just 8 Messianic prophecies being fulfilled in the life of Jesus. As you read through these prophecies, you will see that all estimates were calculated as conservatively as possible.
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah to the present (1958) divided by the average population of the earth during the same period = 7,150/2,000,000,000 or 2.8×105.
A messenger will prepare the way for the Messiah (Malachi 3:1). One man in how many, the world over, has had a forerunner (in this case, John the Baptist) to prepare his way? Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1×103.
The Messiah will enter Jerusalem as a king riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9). One man in how many, who has entered Jerusalem as a ruler, has entered riding on a donkey? Estimate: 1 in 100 or 1×102.
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend and suffer wounds in His hands (Zechariah 13:6). One man in how many, the world over, has been betrayed by a friend, resulting in wounds in his hands? Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1×103.
The Messiah will be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12). Of the people who have been betrayed, one in how many has been betrayed for exactly 30 pieces of silver? Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1×103.
The betrayal money will be used to purchase a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13). One man in how many, after receiving a bribe for the betrayal of a friend, has returned the money, had it refused, and then experienced it being used to buy a potter’s field? Estimate: 1 in 100,000 or 1×105.
The Messiah will remain silent while He is afflicted (Isaiah 53:7). One man in how many, when he is oppressed and afflicted, though innocent, will make no defense of himself? Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1×103.
The Messiah will die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16). One man in how many, since the time of David, has been crucified? Estimate: 1 in 10,000 or 1×104.
Multiplying all these probabilities together produces a number (rounded off) of 1×1028. Dividing this number by an estimate of the number of people who have lived since the time of these prophecies (88 billion) produces a probability of all 8 prophecies being fulfilled accidently in the life of one person. That probability is 1in 1017 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. That’s one in one hundred quadrillion!
Part Two: The Accuracy of Prophecy
The second section of Stoner’s book, is entitled “Prophetic Accuracy.” This is where the book becomes absolutely fascinating. One by one, he takes major Bible prophecies concerning cities and nations and calculates the odds of their being fulfilled. The first is a prophecy in Ezekiel 26 concerning the city of Tyre. Seven prophecies are contained in this chapter which was written in 590 BC:
Nebuchadnezzar shall conquer the city (vs. 7-11).
Other nations will assist Nebuchadnezzar (v. 3).
The city will be made like a bare rock (vs. 4 & 14).
It will become a place for the spreading of fishing nets (vs. 5 & 14).
Its stones and timbers will be thrown into the sea (v. 12).
Other cities will fear greatly at the fall of Tyre (v. 16).
The old city of Tyre will never be rebuilt (v. 14).
Four years after this prophecy was given, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre. The siege lasted 13 years. When the city finally fell in 573 BC, it was discovered that everything of value had been moved to a nearby island.
Two hundred and forty-one years later Alexander the Great arrived on the scene. Fearing that the fleet of Tyre might be used against his homeland, he decided to take the island where the city had been moved to. He accomplished this goal by building a causeway from the mainland to the island, and he did that by using all the building materials from the ruins of the old city. Neighboring cities were so frightened by Alexander’s conquest that they immediately opened their gates to him. Ever since that time, Tyre has remained in ruins and is a place where fishermen spread their nets.
Thus, every detail of the prophecy was fulfilled exactly as predicted. Stoner calculated the odds of such a prophecy being fulfilled by chance as being 1 in 75,000,000, or 1 in 7.5×107. (The exponent 7 indicates that the decimal is to be moved to the right seven places.)
Stoner proceeds to calculate the probabilities of the prophecies concerning Samaria, Gaza and Ashkelon, Jericho, Palestine, Moab and Ammon, Edom, and Babylon. He also calculates the odds of prophecies being fulfilled that predicted the closing of the Eastern Gate (Ezekiel 44:1-3), the plowing of Mount Zion (Micah 3:12), and the enlargement of Jerusalem according to a prescribed pattern (Jeremiah 31:38-40).
Combining all these prophecies, he concludes that “the probability of these 11 prophecies coming true, if written in human wisdom, is… 1 in 5.76×1059. Needless to say, this is a number beyond the realm of possibility.
Part Three: Messianic Prophecy
The third and most famous section of Stoner’s book concerns Messianic prophecy. His theme verse for this section is John 5:39 — “Search the Scriptures because… it is these that bear witness of Me.”
Stoner proceeds to select eight of the best known prophecies about the Messiah and calculates the odds of their accidental fulfillment in one person as being 1 in 1017.
I love the way Stoner illustrated the meaning of this number. He asked the reader to imagine filling the State of Texas knee deep in silver dollars. Include in this huge number one silver dollar with a black check mark on it. Then, turn a blindfolded person loose in this sea of silver dollars. The odds that the first coin he would pick up would be the one with the black check mark are the same as 8 prophecies being fulfilled accidentally in the life of Jesus.
The point, of course, is that when people say that the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Jesus was accidental, they do not know what they are talking about. Keep in mind that Jesus did not just fulfill 8 prophecies, He fulfilled 108. The chances of fulfilling 16 is 1 in 1045. When you get to a total of 48, the odds increase to 1 in 10157. Accidental fulfillment of these prophecies is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
When confronted with these statistics, skeptics will often fall back on the argument that Jesus purposefully fulfilled the prophecies. There is no doubt that Jesus was aware of the prophecies and His fulfillment of them. For example, when He got ready to enter Jerusalem the last time, He told His disciples to find Him a donkey to ride so that the prophecy of Zechariah could be fulfilled which said,“Behold, your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey” (Matthew 21:1-5 andZechariah 9:9).
But many of the prophecies concerning the Messiah could not be purposefully fulfilled — such as the town of His birth (Micah 5:2) or the nature of His betrayal (Psalm 41:9), or the manner of His death (Zechariah 13:6 and Psalm 22:16).
One of the most remarkable Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures is the one that precisely states that the Messiah will die by crucifixion. It is found in Psalm 22 where David prophesied the Messiah would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16). That prophecy was written 1,000 years before Jesus was born. When it was written, the Jewish method of execution was by stoning. The prophecy was also written many years before the Romans perfected crucifixion as a method of execution.
Even when Jesus was killed, the Jews still relied on stoning as their method of execution, but they had lost the power to implement the death penalty due to Roman occupation. That is why they were forced to take Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor, and that’s how Jesus ended up being crucified, in fulfillment of David’s prophecy.
The bottom line is that the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the life of Jesus proves conclusively that He truly was God in the flesh. It also proves that the Bible is supernatural in origin.
Note: A detailed listing of all 108 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus is contained in Dr. Reagan’s book,Christ in Prophecy Study Guide. It also contains an analytical listing of all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — concerning both the First and Second comings of the Messiah.
For creation science resources see the following websites:
Daniel J. Mitchell on Obama’s Economic Stimulus Plan
Dan Mitchell discusses Ineffectiveness of Stimulus Spending
April 15, 2021
Office of Barack and Michelle Obama P.O. Box 91000 Washington, DC 20066
Dear President Obama,
I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters.
There are several issues raised in your book that I would like to discuss with you such as the minimum wage law, the liberal press, the cause of 2007 financial meltdown, and especially your pro-choice (what I call pro-abortion) view which I strongly object to on both religious and scientific grounds, Two of the most impressive things in your book were your dedication to both the National Prayer Breakfast (which spoke at 8 times and your many visits to the sides of wounded warriors!!
I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it.
Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:
Page 244
We proposed that nearly $800 billion be divided into three buckets of roughly equal size. In bucket one, emergency payments like supplementary unemployment insurance and direct aid to states to slow further mass layoffs of teachers, police officers, and other public workers. In bucket two, tax cuts targeted at the middle class, as well as various business tax breaks that gave companies a big incentive to invest in new plants or equipment now instead of later. Both the emergency payments and the tax cuts had the advantage of being easy to administer; we could quickly get money out the door and into the pockets of consumers and businesses. Tax cuts also had the added benefit of potentially attracting Republican support. The third bucket, on the other hand, contained initiatives that were harder to design and would take longer to implement but might have a bigger long-term impact: not just traditional infrastructure spending like road construction and sewer repair but also high-speed rail, solar and wind power installation, broadband lines for underserved rural areas, and incentives for states to reform their education systems—all intended not only to put people to work but to make America more competitive. Considering how many unmet needs there were in communities all across the country, I was surprised by how much work it took for our team to find worthy projects of sufficient scale for the Recovery Act to fund. Some promising ideas we rejected because they would take too long to stand up or required a huge new bureaucracy to manage. Others missed the cut because they wouldn’t boost demand sufficiently. Mindful of accusations that I planned to use the economic crisis as an excuse for an orgy of wasteful liberal boondoggles (and because I in fact wanted to prevent Congress from engaging in wasteful boondoggles, liberal or otherwise), we put in place a series of good-government safeguards: a competitive application process for state and local governments seeking funding; strict audit and reporting requirements; and, in a move we knew would draw howls from Capitol Hill, a firm policy of no “earmarks”—to use the innocuous name for a time-honored practice in which members of Congress insert various pet projects (many dubious) into must-pass legislation.
PAGE 257
I stepped up to speak. It was my first time at a House Republicans gathering, and it was hard not to be struck by the room’s uniformity: row after row of mostly middle-aged white men, with a dozen or so women and maybe two or three Hispanics and Asians. Most sat stone-faced as I briefly made the case for stimulus—citing the latest data on the economy’s meltdown, the need for quick action, the fact that our package contained tax cuts Republicans had long promoted, and our commitment to long-term deficit reduction once the crisis had passed. The audience did perk up when I opened the floor for a series of questions (or, more accurately, talking points pretending to be questions), all of which I cheerfully responded to as if my answers mattered.
I think running up the deficit is not constructive and justifying it by trumping to stimulate the economy is foolhardy!!!
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 pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)
America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)
3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Milton Friedman – A Conversation On Minimum Wage FREE TO CHOOSE
April 14, 2021
Office of Barack and Michelle Obama P.O. Box 91000 Washington, DC 20066
Dear President Obama,
I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters.
There are several issues raised in your book that I would like to discuss with you such as the minimum wage law, the liberal press, the cause of 2007 financial meltdown, and especially your pro-choice (what I call pro-abortion) view which I strongly object to on both religious and scientific grounds, Two of the most impressive things in your book were your dedication to both the National Prayer Breakfast (which spoke at 8 times and your many visits to the sides of wounded warriors!!
I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it.
Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:
I was campaigning to push the country in the opposite direction. I didn’t think America could roll back automation or sever the global supply chain (though I did think we could negotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions in our trade agreements). But I was certain we could adapt our laws and institutions, just as we’d done in the past, to make sure that folks willing to work could get a fair shake. At every stop I made, in every city and small town, my message was the same. I promised to raise taxes on high-income Americans to pay for vital investments in education, research, and infrastructure. I promised to strengthen unions and raise the minimum wage as well as to deliver universal healthcare and make college more affordable. I wanted people to understand that there was a precedent for bold government action. FDR had saved capitalism from itself, laying the foundation for a post–World War II boom.
—-
The minimum wage has hurt young people as they seek to enter the job market and prove themselves and start heading up the financial ladder of opportunity and by cutting the bottom of the ladder off it is difficult for the most unskilled and disadvantaged to compete!
The Wall Street Journal rightfully complains about government-imposed minimum wage laws, which are causing higher levels of teenage unemployment. But an underappreciated aspect of this story is the role of union bosses. The unions are big advocates of higher minimum wages, ostensibly because they want to help the working poor, but the real reason is that unions want to somehow acheive above-market wages for their members, and it is difficult to achieve that goal if employers have other options. But if unions can increase the cost of hiriing other workers – or if they can price them out of the market with minimum-wage laws, then that helps the union bosses negotiate favorable deals. Regardless, the real victims are the hundreds of thousands of teenagers who are now jobless, as the WSJ explains:
Yesterday’s September labor market report was lousy by any measure, with 263,000 lost jobs and the jobless rate climbing to 9.8%. But for one group of Americans it was especially awful: the least skilled, especially young workers. Washington will deny the reality, and the media won’t make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage. Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. The September teen unemployment rate hit 25.9%, the highest rate since World War II and up from 23.8% in July. Some 330,000 teen jobs have vanished in two months. Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it’s precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. …The current Congress has spent billions of dollars—including $1.5 billion in the stimulus bill—on summer youth employment programs and job training. Yet the jobless numbers suggest that the minimum wage destroyed far more jobs than the government programs helped to create. Congress and the Obama Administration simply ignore the economic consensus that has long linked higher minimum wages with higher unemployment. Two years ago Mr. Neumark and William Wascher, a Federal Reserve economist, reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage. They found “overwhelming” evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased. …State lawmakers are also at fault. At least 10 states have raised their minimum wages above the federal level in the last decade, largely in response to union lobbying and in the name of helping the working poor. Four states with among the highest wage rates are California, Massachusetts, Michigan and New York. Studies have shown in each case that their wage policies killed jobs for teens. The Massachusetts teen employment rate sank by one-third when the minimum wage rose by 88% between 1995 and 2008.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com
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 pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)
America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)
3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist, author, broadcaster, and speaker with access to world leaders, U.S. presidents, celebrities, educators, and countless other notables. He has authored several books, including his latest, “America’s Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States.” Readers can email him at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.
If one can say the pandemic has had any positive side effect, it has been to help us focus on what the loss of liberties looks like. Such losses do not occur immediately but erode over time as people become increasingly comfortable with government claiming to know what is best for us.
The Biden administration is proceeding on a downward spiral that has ended in lost liberties in nations of the past by seizing increasing amounts of power for itself through a slew of executive orders, without the consent of the people, or Congress.
When announcing his gun control executive orders last week, President Joe Biden referenced the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. He claimed his orders do not infringe on that right, but added, “No amendment is absolute.” That is concerning.
He also announced the appointment of a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. A White House press release sought to obscure its real goal—court-packing:
The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.
The court’s role is stated in the constitutional system and in The Federalist Papers. In Federalist 81, Alexander Hamilton got to the heart of the argument when it came to an all-powerful Supreme Court that could override Congress, effectively making its own laws.
If the court were allowed such power, Hamilton said, it would produce serious negative outcomes:
The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
In a speech last week at Harvard, Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, warned that the main reason the public has mostly trusted court rulings is the perception “the court is guided by legal principle, not politics.”
No wonder some on the far left are demanding that the 82-year-old justice retire so Biden can nominate someone more to their liking.
This effort to reshape the court in ways that would sustain liberal policies is an affront to the Constitution and “we the people.” As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, the commission contains 36 members “who tilt markedly to the political left.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was right in his reaction to the Biden commission: “This faux-academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberals’ yearslong campaign to politicize the court, intimidate its members, and subvert its independence.”
President Franklin Roosevelt tried packing the court to advance his policies. Thankfully, he failed.
In a 2014 speech, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
The Biden administration and the left want the power to make their own laws, without constitutional restraints. They believe the Constitution is what liberal judges say it is and their goal is to place more judges who share this belief on federal benches.
(C)2021 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
Adriana Cohen: Censorship of conservatives proves Twitter & Facebook are enemies of free speech, free press
Twitter is not keeping ‘all voices on the platform’ — far from it
Big Tech titans Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg better lawyer up. These enemies of free speech and a free press will be hauled in to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain their brazen censorship of conservatives. The ever-growing list of those censored includes the president of the United States, his White House press secretary and the New York Post, whose account was locked for posting a credible story about Joe Biden and his son during an election.
In light of Twitter’s unprecedented and willful censorship, Jack Dorsey could also be facing charges for lying to Congress in 2018.
While testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Dorsey told lawmakers: “Let me be clear about one important and foundational fact: Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules.”
That’s an outright lie, given the overwhelming and well-documented evidence of the social network’s extreme bias and disproportionate censorship against conservatives over the years.
The Media Research Center, a watchdog group, released a study earlier this month that showed Twitter and Facebook have censored President Trump and his campaign 65 times. His political opponent, Joe Biden, hasn’t been censored once.
Hardly impartial, wouldn’t you say?
Yet, that’s not what Dorsey told Congress. He said: “We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially. We do not shadow ban anyone based on political ideology. In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform.”
Is that a joke?
First off, scores of conservatives, including myself, are being shadow-banned on Twitter, something I testified about in 2018 before Congress alongside other leading conservative voices being wrongfully censored.
So, no, Twitter is not keeping “all voices on the platform” — far from it. Recently it locked the White House press secretary’s Twitter account for simply posting a link to the New York Post’s verified story on Hunter Biden’s explosive emails.
Twitter locked the New York Post’s account for doing its job — reporting on a presidential candidate’s sketchy foreign business dealings and an alleged influence-peddling scheme. Amid other instances of censorship, Twitter also blocked the House Judiciary GOP from posting a link to the Post’s story to a government website.
There’s nothing impartial about this un-American suppression of information, especially if one considers that Twitter and Facebook gave Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, legacy media outlets and scores of blue-check “journos” the green light to peddle stories about the fake dossier and Russia collusion hoax against President Trump and his administration the past four years. This five-alarm conspiracy theory has since been debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and various congressional probes.
Twitter permitted China’s mouthpiece, the World Health Organization, to tweet last January that the coronavirus wasn’t transmittable between humans — false information that put millions of lives at risk worldwide. And yet it routinely silences right-leaning accounts such as Dr. Scott Atlas, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, for what it considers to be misleading information about the virus.
Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, was censored by the oligarchs at Twitter this month for simply questioning the efficacy of masks when data shows that infection rates soared in Japan, the Philippines, Hawaii, Miami and Los Angeles and elsewhere despite mask mandates.
The frightening reality is the social media speech police won’t even allow health care medical experts, like Atlas, to question anything that strays from their narrow point of view. The rest of us must regurgitate the approved left-wing talking points or risk being silenced or deplatformed from these almighty digital monopolies.
Congress must stop these rampant abuses once and for all.
Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski claimed Joe Biden’s brother, Jim, said that he and Biden’s son were relying upon “plausible deniability” as they pursued a lucrative deal with a Chinese Communist Party-linked company.
During an hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News conducted exactly one week before Election Day, Bobulinski, a Navy veteran, insisted he had firsthand knowledge that the former vice president was aware of the Biden family’s Chinese endeavors, contrary to the 2020 Democratic nominee’s claims.
After meeting with Joe Biden the evening of May 2, 2017 at the Beverly Hills Hilton and then briefly again the following day after the former vice president spoke at the Milken Institute Global Conference, Bobulinski said on Tuesday that he had a two-hour conversation with Biden’s brother at the Peninsula Hotel. Bobulinksi said he thought to himself, “How are they doing this? I know Joe decided not to run in 2016, but what if he ran in the future? Aren’t they taking political risk or headline risk? … How are you guys doing this? Aren’t you concerned that you’re going to put your brother’s future presidential campaign at risk? You know, the Chinese, the stuff that you guys have been doing already in 2015 and 2016 around the world?”
Bobulonski said he asked Jim Biden directly, “How are you guys getting away with this? Like, aren’t you concerned?”
“He looked at me and he laughed a little bit and said, ‘Plausible deniability.’ … Anyone watching this interview can look up what plausible deniability, what he means, and the definition is very distinct,” Bobulinski said.
Newly released texts from Bobulinski back up his claims that Joe Biden met with him in 2017. At the time, Hunter, James, and their associates were pursuing a lucrative deal with a Chinese tycoon, complicating claims from the former vice president that he never discussed business dealings with his son.
The texts are part of a trove of hundreds of documents from Bobulinski obtained by the Washington Examiner, including dozens of WhatsApp messages, emails, letters, and business proposals. The records show that James Biden planned outreach to a host of Democratic politicians and world leaders as the group pursued business deals with China in 2017, and that Hunter Biden aimed to avoid having to register as a foreign agent. Bobulinski has provided the records to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and to the FBI. Bobulinski did a sit-down interview with the bureau on Friday. His records are separate from those purportedly on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
“So I initially was sitting — because I got there a little earlier — was sitting with Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. And Joe came through the lobby with his security and Hunter basically said, ‘Hey, give me a second, I’ll go over and give me 10 minutes to brief my dad and read him in on things.’ And so then Hunter and his father and security came through the bar and I was just stood up out of respect to shake his hand,” Bobulinski said. “And Hunter introduced me as, ‘This is Tony, Dad, the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business that we’re working on and the Chinese.’ … You know, we didn’t go into too much detail on business because prior to Joe showing up, Hunter and Jim had coached me. ‘Listen, we won’t go into too much detail here. This is just a high level discussion and meeting.’ So it’s not like I was drilling down with Joe about cap tables and details.”
Carlson asked if it was clear to him that the Biden family had told Joe Biden about his business, and Bobulinski replied, “Crystal clear.”
In September 2019, after being pressed by Fox News, Joe Biden said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”
Joe Biden denied during the final debate last week that he has been involved in any family business dealings or any overseas deals, saying, “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”
“Yeah, that’s a blatant lie,” Bobulinski said. “When he states that that is a blatant lie. Obviously, the world is aware that I attended the debate last Thursday. And in that debate, he made a specific statement around questions around this from the president. And I’ll be honest with you, I almost stood up and screamed liar and walked out because I was shocked that after four days or five days that they prep for this, that the Biden family is taking that position to the world.”
Bobulinski, a former Navy lieutenant who has done business around the world, is listed as one of the recipients of a May 13, 2017, email detailing a business deal between a Chinese company and Hunter Biden.
“I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the much-publicized May 13, 2017, email is, in fact, a reference to Joe Biden,” Bobulinski said on Thursday, adding, “Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my chairman’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”
The “big guy” email is from Gilliar to Hunter Biden and others, sent May 13, 2017, and it says, “We have discussed and agreed the following renumeration packages.” The email noted that Hunter Biden would receive “850” ($850,000) and lists him as “Chair/Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC” — the China Energy Fund Committee.
“Hunter and everyone was in town and they wanted to coordinate me meeting with Joe. And so it was set up for the night of May 2 at the Beverly Hilton,” Bobulinski said on Tuesday. “I met first met with Hunter Biden and Jim Biden and just had a light discussion where they briefed me that, ‘Listen, you know, my dad’s on the way and we won’t go into too much detail on the business front, but we’ll just spend time talking at a high level about you, your background, the Biden family. And then, you know, he’s got to get some rest because he’s speaking at the conference in the morning.’ … Because they were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me more engaged and want to take on the CEO role. And, you know, develop SinoHawk both in the United States and around the world in partnership with CEFC.”
Carlson pressed him for further details about the purpose behind that discussion.
“As you can imagine, I’ve been asked by one hundred people over the last month, you know, ‘Why would you be meeting with Joe Biden?’ And I sort of turn the question around to the people that asked me why at 10:30 on the night of May 2, would Joe Biden take time out of his schedule to sit down with me in a dark bar at the Beverly Hilton sort of positioned behind a column so people can’t see us to have a discussion about his family and my family and business at a very high level where Jim Biden sat and Hunter Biden participated?” Bobulinski said. “And I’m irrelevant in the story. They weren’t raising money from me. There was no other reason for me to be in that bar meeting Joe Biden other than to discuss what I was doing with his family’s name with the Chinese CEFC.”
During a brief second meeting with Joe Biden after the former vice president’s speech at the conference, Bobulinski said Biden “just sort of asked me to keep an eye on his son and his brother.”
“Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family nor in any overseas business whatsoever,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told the Washington Examiner last week. “He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever held stock for him.”
The former vice president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by him or his son and dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as part of a “Russian plan.” Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said that “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”
ELECTIONSPublished October 19, 2020Last Update 13 hrs ago
Ratcliffe says Hunter Biden laptop, emails ‘not part of some Russian disinformation campaign’
‘There is no intelligence that supports that,’ Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe says
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said that Hunter Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” amid claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff suggesting otherwise.
Ratcliffe, during an exclusive interview on FOX Business’ “Mornings with Maria,” was asked about the allegations from Schiff, D-Calif., who over the weekend said that the Hunter Biden emails suggesting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had knowledge of, and was allegedly involved in, his son’s foreign business dealings.
“It’s funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence,” Ratcliffe said. “Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
He added: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”
Ratcliffe went on to say that it is “simply not true.”
WFP USA Board Chair Hunter Biden introduces his father Vice President Joe Biden during the World Food Program USA’s 2016 McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony at the Organization of American States on April 12, 2016, in Washington, D.C. (Kris Connor/WireImage)
“Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” Ratcliffe said, adding again that “this is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”
Ratcliffe’s comments come after Schiff over the weekend described the emails as being part of a smear coming “from the Kremlin,” amid claims the revelations are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin,” Schiff said on CNN. “That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about this vice president and his son.”
A senior intelligence official backed up Ratcliffe’s assessment.
“Ratcliffe is 100% correct,” the senior intelligence official told Fox News. “There is no intelligence at this time to support Chairman Schiff’s statement that recent stories on Biden’s foreign business dealings are part of a smart campaign that ‘comes from the Kremlin.’ Numerous foreign adversaries are seeking to influence American politics, policies, and media narratives. They don’t need any help from politicians who spread false information under the guise of intelligence.”
Ratcliffe went on to say that the laptop is “in the jurisdiction of the FBI.”
“The FBI has had possession of this,” he said. “Without commenting on any investigation that they may or may not have, their investigation is not centered around Russian disinformation and the intelligence community is not playing any role with respect to that.”
He added: “The intelligence community has not been involved in Hunter Biden’s laptop.”
A senior Trump administration official, however, told Fox News that the FBI was not investigating the emails as Russian disinformation.
The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, as is standard practice.
Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating Hunter Biden’s emails which reveal that he introduced his father, the former vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2015.
Ratcliffe went on to say that his role as director of National Intelligence, which he assumed earlier this year, is “to not allow people to leverage the intelligence community for a political narrative that’s not true.”
“In this case, Adam Schiff saying this is part of a disinformation campaign and that the intelligence community has assessed and believes that — that is simply not true,” he said. “Whether its Republicans or Democrats, if they try to leverage the intelligence community for political gain, I won’t allow it.”
Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating Hunter Biden’s emails.
The emails in question were first obtained by the New York Post and, in part, revealed that Hunter Biden introduced the then-vice president to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.
“We regularly speak with individuals who email the committee’s whistleblower account to determine whether we can validate their claims,” Johnson told Fox News. “Although we consider those communications to be confidential, because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint, have been in contact with the whistleblower, and are in the process of validating the information he provided.”
The Post report revealed that Biden, at Hunter’s request, met with Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C.
The meeting was mentioned in an email of appreciation, according to the Post, that Pozharskyi sent to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015 — a year after Hunter took on his lucrative position on the board of Burisma.
“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read.
But Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates last week hit back against the New York Post story, saying: “Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.”
“The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story. They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani—whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported—claimed to have such materials,” Bates continued. “Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”
The Biden campaign also told Fox News Sunday that the former vice president “never had a meeting” with Pozharskyi.
Biden, prior to the emails surfacing, repeatedly has claimed he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”
Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and role on the board of Burisma, emerged during the Trump impeachment inquiry in 2019.
Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin, who was the top prosecutor at the time. He had been investigating the founder of Burisma.
“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously said to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.
“Well, son of a b—,” he continued. “He got fired.”
Biden and Biden allies have maintained, though, that his intervention prompting the firing of Shokin had nothing to do with his son, but rather was tied to corruption concerns.
Meanwhile, the Post reported Wednesday the emails were part of a trove of data recovered from a laptop which was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019.
The Post reported that other material turned up on the laptop, including a video, which they described as showing Hunter smoking crack while engaged in a sexual act with an unidentified woman, as well as other sexually explicit images.
The FBI reportedly seized the computer and hard drive in December 2019. The shop owner, though, said he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello.
The Post reported that the FBI referred questions about the hard drive and laptop to the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson told the outlet that the office “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.”
A lawyer for Hunter Biden did not comment on specifics, but instead told the Post that Giuliani “has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence.”
Giuliani did not respond to Fox News’ requests for comment.
Another email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “renumeration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair/ Vice Chair depending on an agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details.
Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity.
Sources also told Fox News that “the big guy” was a reference to the former vice president. The New York Post initially published the emails, and others, that Fox News has also obtained.
While Biden has not commented on that email, or his alleged involvement in any deals with the Chinese Energy firm, his campaign said it released the former vice president’s tax documents and returns, which do not reflect any involvement with Chinese investments.
Fox News also obtained an email last week that revealed an adviser of Burisma Holdings, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote an email to Hunter Biden on May 12, 2014, requesting “advice” on how he could use his “influence to convey a message” to “stop” what the company considers to be “politically motivated actions.”
“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” Pozharskyi wrote.
The email, part of a longer email chain obtained by Fox News, appeared to be referencing the firm’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, being under investigation.
Editor’s Note: This article was adapted from Tucker Carlson’s opening commentary on the Oct. 15, 2020 edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
Tom Cotton said it best below:
We knew Joe Biden’s son Hunter pocketed $50,000 a month for a job with a Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden allowed his son to make millions in Ukraine and China while Joe was Vice President.
Now, the New York Post is reporting that Vice President Biden may have been introduced to some of the corrupt Ukrainian businessmen paying Hunter… at the same time Vice President Biden was supposed to be overseeing our policy towards Ukraine.
Not everything you hear is untrue and not every story is complex. At the heart of the growing Biden-Ukrainescandal, for example, is a very straightforward question: Did Joe Biden subvert American foreign policy in order to enrich his own family?
In 2015, Joe Biden was the sitting vice president of the United States. Included in his portfolio were U.S. relations with the nation of Ukraine. At that moment, Vice President Joe Biden had more influence over the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian economy than any other person on the globe outside of Eastern Europe.
Biden’s younger son, Hunter, knew that and hoped to get rich from his father’s influence. Emails published Wednesday by The New York Post, documents apparently taken directly from Hunter Biden’s own laptop, tell some of that story.
“Tucker Carlson Tonight” have obtained another batch of emails, some exclusively. We believe they also came from Hunter Biden’s laptop. We can’t prove that they did, we haven’t examined that computer. But every detail that we could check, including Hunter Biden’s personal email address at the time, suggests they are authentic.
If these emails are fake, this is the most complex and sophisticated hoax in history. It almost seems beyond human capacity. The Biden campaign clearly believes these emails are real. They have not said otherwise. We sent the body of them to Hunter Biden’s attorney and never heard back. So with that in mind, here’s what we have learned.
On Nov. 2, 2015, at 4:36 p.m., a Burisma executive called Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer. The purpose of the email, Pozharskyi explains, is to “be on the same page re our final goals … including, but not limited to: a concrete course of actions.”
So what did Burisma want, exactly? Well, good PR, for starters. Pozharskyi wanted “high-ranking US [sic] officials” to express their “positive opinion” of Burisma, and then he wanted the administration to act on Burisma’s behalf.
“The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US [sic] policy-makers to Ukraine in November, aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support” to Burisma.
The goal, Pozharskyi explained, was to “close down for [sic] any cases/pursuits” against the head of Burisma in Ukraine.
It couldn’t be clearer what they wanted. Burisma wanted Huter Biden’s father to get their company out of legal trouble with the Ukrainian government. And that’s exactly what happened. One month later to the day, on Dec. 2, 2015, Hunter Biden received a notice from a Washington PR firm called Blue Star Strategies, which apparently had been hired to lobby the Obama administration on Ukraine. “Tucker Carlson Tonight” have exclusively obtained that email.
“Hello all …” it began. “This morning, the White House hosted a conference call regarding the Vice President’s upcoming trip to Ukraine. Attached is a memo from the Blue Star Strategies team with the minutes of the call, which outlined the trip’s agenda and addressed several questions regarding U.S. policy toward Ukraine.”
So here you have a PR firm involved in an official White House foreign policy call. How could that happen? Good question. But it worked.
Days later, Joe Biden flew to Ukraine and did exactly what his son wanted. The vice president gave a speech slamming the very Ukrainian law enforcement official who was tormenting Burisma. If the Ukrainian government didn’t fire its top prosecutor, a man called Viktor Shokin, Biden explained, the administration would withhold a billion dollars in American aid. Now, Ukraine is a poor country, so they had no choice but to obey. Biden’s bullying worked. He bragged about it later.
The obvious question: Why was the vice president of the United States threatening a tiny country like Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor? That doesn’t seem like a vice president’s role. Well, now we know why.
Viktor Shokin has signed an affidavit affirming that he was, in fact, investigating Burisma at the moment Joe Biden had him removed. Shokin said that before he was fired, administration officials pressured him to drop the case against Burisma. He would not do that, so Joe Biden canned him
That’s how things really work in Washington. Your son’s got a lucrative consulting deal with a Ukrainian energy company, you tailor American foreign policy — our foreign policy– to help make him rich. Even at the State Department, possibly the most cynical agency in government, this seemed shockingly brazen.
During the impeachment proceedings last fall, a State Department official named George Kent said it was widely known in Washington that the Bidens were up to something sleazy in Ukraine.
“I was on a call with somebody on the vice president’s staff and … I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board” of Burisma, Kent recalled. This, he noted, could create a perception of a conflict of interest.
So how did the vice president’s office respond to this concern? According to George Kent, “The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son, Beau, was dying of cancer and there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at the time.”
Family-related issues? This was America’s foreign policy being tailored to Joe Biden’s son. Five years later, Joe Biden still has not been forced to explain why he fired Ukraine’s top prosecutor at precisely the moment his son was being paid to get him to fire Ukraine’s top prosecutor, nor has Joe Biden addressed whether or not he personally benefited from the Burisma contract.
But there are tantalizing hints. On Wednesday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani published what he said was yet another email from Hunter Biden’s laptop. It’s a note to one of his children. At the end of the email, there’s this quote: “But dont [sic] worry unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
What does that mean, exactly? Well, we don’t know. There may be more detail on the laptop, but unfortunately, we don’t have access to that. But the question remains, how has Joe Biden lived in extravagance all these years on a government salary? No one has ever answered that question. And the tech monopolies are working hard to make certain no one ever does.
Thursday morning, the New York Post published another story based on the emails. This one describes a business venture Hunter Biden was working on in China. One email describes a “provisional agreement that the equity will be distributed as follows … 10 held by H for the big guy?”
The big guy? Is the big guy Joe Biden? If so, how much did Joe Biden get and how much of that came from the Communist Chinese government? Those are real questions, this man could be elected president in three weeks. But Twitter doesn’t want you to wonder. It won’t allow you to ask those questions. Twitter restricted the New York Post story as “unsafe,” like it was a lawn dart or a defective circular saw. And that was enough for the Biden campaign.
All day Thursday, they deflected questions about Joe Biden’s subversion of our country’s foreign policy by invoking Twitter’s ban on the New York Post story. So the tech monopoly censors information to help their candidate, that candidate uses that censorship to dismiss the story. One hand washes the other.
It doesn’t matter who you plan to vote for Nov. 3, you should be terrified. Democracies cannot exist and never will be able to exist without the free flow of information. That is a prerequisite and without it, we’re done. But companies like Facebook and Google and Twitter do not care because they don’t believe in democracy. They worship power and they don’t need to be consistent. Melania Trump’s private phone conversations, the president’s stolen tax returns, they were happy to publish all of that. But if you criticize the Democratic candidate, their candidate, you are banned.
“Facebook and Twitter have policies to not spread things that are utterly unreliable, that have been debunked, and where their origin is untrustworthy,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Thursday. “They’re practicing their own internal controls, as I wish they had over the past four years … An active Russian disinformation campaign in 2016 had an influence on that election. They are trying even harder in this election. I’m glad that they are managing the content on their own websites.”
Chris Coons is a liar.
Not one word of this story has been debunked, not one word in those emails has been “debunked.” And if it is debunked, we’ll be the first to report it because we’re not liars. But did you catch the phrase he wanted you to hear: “Russian disinformation”? That’s what they’re claiming these emails are. And it’s all over the Internet, in fact-free, conspiracy-laden conjecture crazier than anything the QAnon people ever thought of.
But none of their garbage, their lunatic lies about Russia is ever censored by the tech monopolies. It’s not “unsafe” because it helps Joe Biden. Therefore, you can read it.
And where are the real journalists, now that we need them more than ever? They’re gone. They’re cowering. They’re afraid. They don’t want to upset power. Jake Sherman of Politico, who claims to be a news reporter, actually apologized on Twitter for asking the Biden campaign about Hunter Biden’s emails. These people are craven. They have no standards. They have no self-respect. Like their masters in Silicon Valley, they worship power alone.
—-
Twitter, Facebook Suppress New York Post Report on Hunter Biden
Andrew Kerr4 hours ago
Twitter on Wednesday afternoon began blocking tweets from being posted that contained links to the New York Post’s report on alleged emails that purportedly show Hunter Biden offered to introduce then-Vice President Joe Biden to an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
“We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” Twitter told users who attempted to post a tweet containing a link to the Post’s story.
A Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the platform took action to limit the spread of the Post’s report because of the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials cited by the outlet.
“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” the spokesperson said.
There’s no evidence at the moment the Post relied on hacked materials for its report.
According to the Post, the email was part of a “massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer” that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. The owner of the repair shop said the customer never came back to pay for the service and retrieve the computer, the Post reported.
The Post uploaded an invoice signed by the customer that states that equipment left with the repair shop “after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned.”
The repair shop owner later alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop and its hard drive after it went unclaimed, both of which were seized by federal authorities in December, according to a federal subpoena obtained by the Post.
Before the laptop was seized, however, the shop owner reportedly made a copy of its hard drive and turned it over to a lawyer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who in turn provided a copy of the hard drive’s contents to the Post.
The Daily Caller News Foundation has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails reported by the Post, and the Biden campaign issued a statement on Wednesday denying that Biden met with the Burisma executive in 2015 as alleged in the Post’s report.
Link to New York Post story blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr)
Also on Wednesday afternoon, Twitter began blocking any tweet from being posted that contained links to one of the two documents the Post uploaded to document sharing platform Scribd.
One of the documents depicts an alleged email sent by Hunter Biden in April 2014 to his former business partner Devon Archer, and the other is an alleged email that Vadym Pozharsky, an advisor to Burisma’s board of directors, sent to Hunter Biden and Archer in May 2014.
Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Vadim Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr)
Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Robert Biden to Devon Archer” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot:Andrew Kerr)
Facebook spokesman Andy Stone, a former staffer for the Democratic House Majority PAC and former California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, announced earlier Wednesday it would reduce the distribution of the Post’s report despite the lack of any fact-checks against the story.
During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies, revealing significant differences on several issues.
The debate, which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court.
Here are six highlights from the debate:
1) COVID-19
Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the opening question, she laid out what could be called a prosecutor’s case. How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>
“The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” the California senator said. “And here are the facts: 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease, 1 in 5 businesses closed. We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.”
That was in response to a question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan.
“Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy, for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of a vaccine, and make sure it’s free,” Harris said.
Pence, who headed the White House coronavirus task force, defended the administration’s record.
“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” the vice president said. “Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world.”
Pence added: “Joe Biden opposed that decision.”
“He said it was xenophobic and hysterical. I can tell you, having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President Trump gave us invaluable time to set up the greatest mobilization since World War II,” Pence said. “I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.”
As for the Biden plan, Pence said, the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends. He also took a shot at a Biden scandal that effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid.
“The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way,” he said. “ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism, something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.”
In September 1987, Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution, knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit.
Asked about the race to develop a vaccine, Harris said she wouldn’t trust a Trump-endorsed vaccine, but would take one approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine.
“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think, is unconscionable,” the vice president said. “Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is, we will have a vaccine by the end of this year, and it will continue to save countless American lives.”
2) Taxes and the Economy
Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden’s tax plan.
Harris said that the Biden administration would repeal the 2017 tax cuts “on Day One,” and that they were passed to benefit the “rich.”
“Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America’s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family,” Harris said. “On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.”
Pence defended the tax cuts and said: “Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts,” Pence said. “That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 with a tax break.”
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code.
Following the tax cut, the American economy experienced record low unemployment, wage growth, and an overall increase in business investment, according to Adam Michel, a specialist on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Harris said that Biden’s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn’t raise taxes on American making under $400,000.
“He has been very clear about that,” Harris said, adding, “Joe Biden is the one who, during the Great Recession, was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back, and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit for Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.”
According to The Washington Post, “most Americans received a tax” cut in 2017, not just the rich.
Biden’s tax proposal would raise taxes about $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
“… The Biden tax plan would reduce [gross domestic product] by 1.47 percent over the long term,” according to the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model. “On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”
According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Biden’s proposal “would increase taxes on average on all income groups, but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.”
3) Climate Change and Fracking
Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy, but she also denied past support for banning fracking.
“Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs,” Harris said, adding, “Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy, because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.”
Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the Midwest.
“Joe sees what is happening in the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods,” she said. “So, Joe believes again in science. … We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is, they don’t believe in science. Joe’s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it, but we are going to create jobs.”
Pence addressed the issue of climate change, but also attacked the Biden campaign’s promises for the environment.
“As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science,” he said.
“With regard to banning fracking, I just recommend people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking,” Pence said of Harris. “You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.
“While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out the Green New Deal is on [the Biden-Harris] website. As USA Today said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.”
That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House.
“You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. The American people have always cherished our environment, and we’ll continue to cherish it,” Pence said. “We’ve made great progress reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking.
“We don’t need a massive $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families. … It makes no sense. It will cost jobs.”
4) China
Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China, including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said. “They did not let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.”
The vice president defended the administration’s aggressive trade policy with Beijing. “But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades, in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China,” he said.
Harris said that the Trump administration had “lost” the trade war with China. “What ended up happening because of a so-called “trade war” with China? America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs,” she said.
Pence countered that a Biden administration would go soft on the communist country.
“Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades,” he said.
The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden’s boss, President Barack Obama, saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America.
“In our first three years, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created, and that’s the type of growth we’re going to see,” Pence said.
5) Supreme Court and Abortion
With the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves.
Neither candidate directly addressed the question, but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court.
“The issues before us couldn’t be more serious,” Harris said. “There is the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president, Michael Pence.”
Pence reiterated his pro-life stance, and called out the Biden-Harris ticket.
“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life. I will not apologize for it,” he said. “This is another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.”
Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts, meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more, and then he accused her of not answering the question.
“Once again you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer,” Pence said. “The American people deserve a straight answer.”
In his remarks, Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years.
6) Race Relations
The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities.
Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists, referring to last week’s presidential debate between Trump and Biden.
“Last week, the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists,” Harris said. “It wasn’t like he wasn’t given a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. Then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back, stand by.’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.”
She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally.
Pence countered by citing Trump’s comments regarding the Charlottesville violence.
“This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, that you selectively edit so much,” Pence said, arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “very fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville.
“After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” the vice president said.
“He has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis, President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.”
Pence then went on offense about Harris’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco.
“When you were D.A. in San Francisco, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” Pence said to Harris. “You increased the disproportionate incarceration. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass the First Step Act on Capitol Hill.”
The First Step Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill signed into law by Trump in December 2018.
Harris didn’t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco, but pivoted to her record as California attorney general.
“Having served as the attorney general of California, the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do,” she said, adding, “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias.”
——
I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there in 1978. Also during the late 1970’s I helped my friends Byron Tyler and David Rogers in a Christian Rock Saturday morning show on Rhodes’s radio station!!! My brother-in-law graduated from Rhodes but I graduated from University of Memphis in 1982.
President Trump is going to announce his nomination for the Supreme Court later this week, and all the talk is about Amy Coney Barrett, currently a Notre Dame professor of law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As it happens, Amy was a classmate of mine at Rhodes College, a small (1,400 students at the time) liberal-arts school in Memphis. I didn’t know her well, but she was a friend of other friends, and we were acquainted a bit through being in a club together.
I can tell you a few things about her, though. For one thing, she did not have a wild reputation, so I think that if she’s nominated, the Senate hearings will have to find something else to complain about. She was an English major and served on the Honor Council, a student body that enforced our honor code against lying and cheating (a great feature of academics at Rhodes that allowed us take-home tests in many classes). We were both in Mortar Board, an honor society. She wasn’t a political activist and was never a member of the College Republicans (I was, and we had a much larger membership than the College Democrats).Amy at the homecoming game senior year
Popular, as far as I knew, and by our senior year, she shows up in the yearbook’s candid photos taken around campus.Candid photo in the social room (the ironing board refers to another picture)
I hadn’t thought about her for a long time, until three years ago when friends were pointing out she’d been nominated for the Seventh Circuit, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled her over her religion, proclaiming that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” At the time, I thought that was a rough Senate hearing.
My daughter was a Notre Dame student, and two years ago, I stopped by to visit Amy at her home in South Bend and catch up. She had been listed as being on the president’s shortlist for a Supreme Court seat, and Kavanaugh was going through his own nomination process at that time.L to R: Me, Amy Barrett, and my daughter
My daughter had been treating the accusations against him as probably true by default and took an unconcerned view towards the behavior of the press. Amy knows Kavanaugh, spoke well of him, and described what it was like seeing the press contacting her and digging through rumors about him. That changed my daughter’s opinion of how these things go, she told me. I meant to ask her if she were named to the Supreme Court if she’d be willing to go through all of the hatred and attacks on her reputation that would surely be a part of it. But I can’t remember if I did. I reckon we’ll all find out soon enough, though.
As a footnote, if Amy is confirmed to the court, she would be the second Supreme Court justice to come from Rhodes. Our first was Abe Fortas (class of 1930), who was named by President Johnson in 1965. Fortas resigned in 1969 after a series of ethics scandals, but the college gives out the Abe Fortas Award for Excellence in Legal Studies each year. Quite understandable; we’re a small school, and we should still be proud one of our own was elevated to the Supreme Court. May Amy Barrett bring us more honor.Published in LawTags: SCOTUS; SUPREME COURT; Amy Coney Barrett
Barrett was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1972.[2] She is the eldest of seven children, with five sisters and a brother. Her father Michael Coney worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company, and her mother Linda was a homemaker. Barrett grew up in Metairie, a suburb of New Orleans, and graduated from St. Mary’s Dominican High School in 1990.[9]
From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.[11][14]
Teaching and scholarship
Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School in 2002.[15]At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[16] Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.[12] Her academic work has been published in journals such as the Columbia, Cornell, Virginia, Notre Dame, and TexasLaw Reviews.[15] Some of her most significant publications are Suspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014), Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013), The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006), and Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).
At Notre Dame, Barrett received the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” award three times.[15] She taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar, and Statutory Interpretation Seminar.[15] Barrett has continued to teach seminars as a sitting judge.[17]
A hearing on Barrett’s nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[20] During the hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with Professor John H. Garvey in which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to “elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today,” Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, “My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge”[21][22] and “It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”[23] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett’s response by saying, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern.”[24][25][26] The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives,[11] and in response, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network began to sell mugs with Barrett’s photo and Feinstein’s “dogma” remark.[27]Feinstein’s and other senators’ questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidents John I. Jenkins and Christopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee’s religious belief that employed an unconstitutional “religious test” for office;[23][28][29]others, such as Nan Aron, defended Feinstein’s line of questioning.[29]
Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett’s nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[30][31] During her Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such as Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas. Barrett said these cases are “binding precedents” that she intended to “faithfully follow if confirmed” to the appeals court, as required by law.[30] The letter co-signed by Lambda Legal said “Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, ‘put Catholic judges in a bind.'”[30] Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were “very much overblown” and called them “mostly scare tactics.”[30]
In 2015, Barrett signed a letter in support of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family that endorsed the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality and its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. When asked about the letter, she testified that the Church’s definition of marriage is legally irrelevant.[32][33]
Barrett’s nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Barrett’s nomination.[34][35]
On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[36][37] On October 30, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[38] It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin—voting for her.[10] She received her commission two days later.[2] Barrett is the first and to date only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[39]
Notable cases
Title IX
In Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a male Purdue University student (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[40] Doe alleged the school’s Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and had violated his Title IX rights “by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias,” and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[41][42][43]
Title VII
In EEOC v. AutoZone, the Seventh Circuit considered the federal government’s appeal from a ruling in a suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against AutoZone; the EEOC argued that the retailer’s assignment of employees to different stores based on race (e.g., “sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The panel, which did not include Barrett, ruled in favor of AutoZone. An unsuccessful petition for rehearing en banc was filed. Three judges—Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton—voted to grant rehearing, and criticized the panel decision as upholding a “separate-but-equal arrangement”; Barrett and four other judges voted to deny rehearing.[11]
Immigration
In Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent from the majority’s decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration’s controversial “public charge rule“, which heightened the standard for obtaining a green card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner, who held that DHS’s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act.[44][45][46] The public charge issue is the subject of a circuit split.[44][46][47]
In Yafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), the court considered a case brought by a Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, who challenged a consular officer’s decision to twice deny Ahmad’s visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife’s visa application violated his constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.[48] In an 2-1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. She declined to address whether Yafai had been denied a constitutional right (or whether a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed) because even if a constitutional right was implicated, the court lacked authority to disturb the consular officer’s decision to deny Ahmad’s visa application because that decision was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel’s decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearing en banc; the petition was denied, with eight judges voting against rehearing and three in favor, Wood, Rovner and Hamilton. Barrett and Judge Joel Flaumconcurred in the denial of rehearing.[48][49]
Second Amendment
In Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented when the court upheld a law prohibiting convicted nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted of mail fraud. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as “substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence.” In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[50][51]
Fourth Amendment
In Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019), the panel, in an opinion by Barrett, affirmed the district court’s ruling denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. The defendant, Benner, was a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in a probable cause affidavit that was used to obtain an arrest warrant against Rainsberger. (The charges were later dropped and Rainsberger was released.) The court found the defendant’s lies and omissions violated “clearly established law” and thus Benner was not shielded by qualified immunity.[52]
The case United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were “playing with guns” in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant’s vehicle, taking possession of two firearms; the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, when no crime was alleged. Barrett distinguished Navarette v. California and wrote, “the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature…Watson’s case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment.”[53]
In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett included as one of only seven Supreme Court “superprecedents“, Mapp vs Ohio (1961); the seminal case where the court found through the doctrine of selective incorporation that the 4th Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures was binding on state and local authorities in the same way it historically applied to the federal government.
Civil procedure and standing
In Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought a class-action lawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, found that the plaintiff’s allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was a “bare procedural violation” that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy the Article III‘s injury-in-fact requirement. Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created a circuit split.[54][55][56]
Judicial philosophy and political views
Barrett considers herself an originalist. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[10] Reuters described Barrett as a “a favorite among religious conservatives,” and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies.[57]
Barrett was one of Justice Antonin Scalia‘s law clerks. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes. She has also praised his adherence to originalism.[58]
In 2013, Barrett wrote a Texas Law Review article on the doctrine of stare decisis wherein she listed seven cases that should be considered “superprecedents”—cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list included Brown v. Board of Education but specifically excluded Roe v. Wade. In explaining why it was not included, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as “superprecedent” a decision must enjoy widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge. She argued the people must trust the validity of a ruling to such an extent the matter has been taken “off of the court’s agenda,” with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey as specific evidence Roe had not yet attained this status.[59] The article did not include any pro-Second Amendment or pro-LGBT cases as “Super-Precedent”.[30][31] When asked during her confirmation hearings why she did not include any pro-LGBT cases as “superprecedent”, Barrett explained that the list contained in the article was collected from other scholars and not a product of her own independent analysis on the subject.[32][33]
Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana’s parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, Barrett voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[57] At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she described the decision—in Notre Dame Magazine‘s paraphrase—as “creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand.”[60][61] She also remarked that it was “very unlikely” the court would overturn the core of Roe v. Wade: “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”[62][63] NPR said that those statements were made before the election of Donald Trump and the changing composition of the Supreme Court to the right subsequent to his election, which could make Barrett’s vote pivotal in overturning Roe v. Wade.[64]
Barrett was critical of Chief JusticeJohn Roberts’opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in NFIB vs. Sebelius. Roberts’s opinion defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act by characterizing it as a “tax.” Barrett disapproved of this approach, saying Roberts pushed the ACA “beyond it’s plausible limit to save it.”[64][65][66][67] She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtaining birth controlwithout having the religious institutions pay for it.[65]
Potential Supreme Court nomination
Barrett has been on President Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, after Anthony Kennedy‘s retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with Judge Raymond Kethledge and Judge Brett Kavanaugh.[16][68] Trump chose Kavanaugh.[69]Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.[70] In the Republican Party, Barrett was favored by social conservatives.[70]
After Kavanaugh’s selection, Barrett was viewed as a possible Trump nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[71] Trump was reportedly “saving” Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during his presidency.[72] Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett has been widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[73][74][75][76]
Personal life
Judge Barrett with her husband, Jesse
Since 1999, Barrett has been married to fellow Notre Dame Law graduate Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, Indiana. Previously, Jesse Barrett worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorneyfor the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years.[77][78][79] They live in South Bend and have seven children, ranging in age from 8-19.[80] Two of the Barrett children are adopted from Haiti. Their youngest biological child has special needs.[79][2][81]Barrett is a practicing Catholic.[82][83]
Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin.
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (3)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (2)
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)