The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy.
From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by such writers as John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, steel and iron did not exist in North America when they said they did.
Though researchers have shown that primitive metallurgy existed in South America, metal production was only used for adornment purposes. The very earliest metal working there dates to 200 AD with the Moche culture. This dates thousands of years after the Jaredite civilization and 800 years after the beginning of the Nephite civilization in the Book of Mormon. Metallurgy spread to Central America by 800 AD (long after the Book of Mormon record closes).
Between 2004 and 2007, a Purdue University archaeologist, Kevin J. Vaughn, discovered a 2000 year old hematite mine near Nazca, Peru. Although hematite is today mined as an iron ore, Vaughn believes that the hematite was then being mined for use as red pigment. There are also numerous excavations that included iron minerals.[77] He noted:
“Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World…Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite.”[78]
The Megiddo Seal was discovered in 1904 by an archaeological team led by Gottlieb Schumacher. The discovery was determined to be a seal belonging to a royal minister in the 8th century BC.
It is engraved with the figure of a roaring lion (symbol of the kingdom of Judah) with a beautiful curved tail with beautiful workmanship. The Hebrew inscription on it reads “Shema” on top, and “Servant of Jeroboam” on the bottom.
“Shema servant of Yarob’oam”
The inscription actually proclaims the name and rank of its owner, one of the ministers of King Jeroboam II who reigned from 787-747 BC. The word “servant” is the Hebrew word “ebed” and is mentioned in the Bible as one of high dignity in the government. Many seals have been discovered with similar inscriptions like “the servant of the king.” The Megiddo Seal with the Jeroboam Inscription is of great importance in Biblical Archaeology, it mentions one of the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel.
2 Kings 14:23-25 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, became king in Samaria, and reigned forty-one years. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin.
Material: Jasper Seal
Israel: Megiddo
Babylonian Period
Reign of Jeroboam, (8th cent. BC)
Roaring Lion with curved tail
Jasper, Inscription
Oval-shaped, Scaraboid
1.2 H, 1.5 in W
A single line encircles the seal
(Babylonian Per. Hebrew Script)
Discovered in 1904
Lost in Constantinople
Archaeological Museum, Istanbul
R: Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem
Water from today’s tsunami in Hakodate city in Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido.
I grew up as a member of Bellevue Church where Adrian Rogers was pastor. Here is a clip from a fine message of his on salvation (part 3):
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
The Census reports a 72 percent increase in the number of cohabiting couples since 1990. Unfortunately, research shows that cohabitation is correlated with greater likelihood of unhappiness, and domestic violence in the relationship. Cohabiting couple report lower levels of satisfaction in the relationship than married couples. Women are more likely to be abused by a cohabiting boyfriend than a husband. Children are more likely to abused by their mothers’ boyfriends than by her husband, even if the boyfriend is their biological father. If a cohabiting couple ultimately marries, they tend to report lower levels of marital satisfaction and a higher propensity to divorce.
Recent reports and commentaries on cohabitation tend to downplay these difficulties. I suspect this is because people do not know how to make sense of the research findings. Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. This analogy seems so compelling that people are unable to interpret the mountains of data to the contrary.
Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn’t have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.
The contract or consent approach doesn’t really help much either. Living together is fine as long as both people agree to it. The agreement amounts to this: “I am willing to let you use me as if I were a commodity, as long as you allow me to treat you as if you were a commodity.” But this is a bogus agreement. We can say at the outset that we agree to be the “man of steel”, but no one can credibly promise to have no feelings of remorse if the relationship fails.
All of this points to the essential difference between sexual activity and other forms of activity. Giving oneself to a sexual partner is, by its nature, a gift of oneself to another person. We all have a deep longing to be cherished by the person we have sex with. That longing is not fooled by our pretensions to sophistication.
Here is an analogy that works better than the taking the car for a test drive analogy. Suppose I ask you to give me a blank check, signed and ready to cash. All I have to do is fill in the amount. Most people would be unlikely to do this. You would be more likely to do it, if you snuck out and drained the money out of your account before you gave me the check. Or, you could give me the check and just be scared and worried about what I might do.
Think about it: What do you have in your checking account that is more valuable than what you give to a sexual partner? When people live together, and sleep together, without marriage, they put themselves in a position that is similar to the person being asked to give a blank check. They either hold back on their partner by not giving the full self in the sexual act and in their shared lives together. Or, they feel scared a lot of the time, wondering whether their partner will somehow take advantage of their vulnerability.
No one can simulate self-giving. Half a commitment is no commitment. Cohabiting couples are likely to have one foot out the door, throughout the relationship. The members of a cohabiting couple practice holding back on one another. They rehearse not trusting. The social scientists that gather the data do not have an easy way to measure this kind of dynamic inside the relationship.
In my view, this accounts for the disappointing results of cohabitation. I am sorry to say that I learned this from experience. My husband and I lived together before we were married. It took us a long time to unlearn the habits of the heart that we built up during those cohabiting years.
The sexual revolution promised a humane and realistic approach to human sexuality. Ironically, the uncommitted-sex mentality has proven to underestimate both the value and the power of sexual activity. Lifelong, committed marriages are difficult, no doubt about it. But self-giving loving relationships still have the best chance of making us happy.
Brad and Amy share their experiences at the Family Life Weekend to Remember conference.
Tim Hawkins-My favorite Bible verse
(1/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus
Happy: William and Kate surrounded by, clockwise bottom right, The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Miss Eliza Lopes, Miss Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Master Tom Pettifer, Master William Lowther-Pinkerton
The 1981 wedding party. From back, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Diana and Charles, Edward van Cutsem; front: Lord Nicholas Windsor, Clementine Hambro, Catherine Cameron, India Hicks, Sarah-Jane Gaselee and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones
The photograph of Charles and Diana, taken by Patrick Lichfield, seemed to capture a moment of spontaneous informality, with the wedding party collapsing in a fit of giggles. But, as we now know, the warmth was not reflected in the marriage itself.
By contrast, Kate and William’s picture, by photographer Hugo Burnand, appears more formal, despite little Tom Pettifer’s insistence on leaning in as close to the bride as possible.
Yet it is the small touches that are most telling. In Lichfield’s picture, Charles looks curiously detached, but Kate and William’s togetherness is plain to see.
Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund.
John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column for OpinionJournal.com. He is author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” (Encounter, 2004).
He joined The Wall Street Journal as a deputy editorial features editor in 1984 and was a member of the editorial board from 1995 through 2001. The articles he has written have appeared in Esquire, Reader’s Digest, Reason, The New Republic, and National Review. He became an editorial page writer specializing in politics and government in October 1986 and was a member of the Journal’s editorial board from 1995 through 2001. Next month’s guest speaker will be Andrew Breitbart.
First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity. After listening to their inspiring short talks I had determined in my heart that I was going to get the word out about these luncheons to all my conservative friends who want to know what is going on politically in Washington and in our beloved Arkansas.
One subject that Fund brought up was the red tape that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to deal with in California. That brings me to the subject that I am going write about today.
Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer is easy. Huckabee wants to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wants to call Huckabee a tax fugative, but who can blame him.
Liberals like Brantley and Ernie Dumas want to praise former Arkansas governor Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7%, but that is the reason our state has the highest state income tax in the area (all bordering states have either lower state income taxes or no state income tax).
Is it any suprise that during the last census that the seven states that do not have an income tax grew in population? Arkansas has suffered from bracket creep and in 1929 you had to make 5 times the average wage to pay any state income tax at all, but now over 66% of tax payers in Arkansas pay at least some of their income at the 7% level.
Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971. However, we have just grown to 77 percent since 1981.
I go by the username of SalineRepublican and I got this response from “Couldn’tBeBetter“:
And Saline, we can all read about what great shape the Texas budget is in with their no income tax and low taxes. Plenty of money to fight those non-Glovbal Warning brush fires. But then again, their governator wants to be left alone except when he doesn’t want to be left alone. Maybe, Mexico will take them back for a token 25 cents and a future soccer player for a kicker for UAF.
It wasn’t your usual legislative hearing. A group of largely Republican California lawmakers and Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled here last week to hear from businesses that have left their state to set up shop in Texas.
“We came to learn why they would pick up their roots and move in order to grow their businesses,” says GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who organized the trip. “Why does Chief Executive magazine rate California the worst state for job and business growth and Texas the best state?”
The contrast is undeniable. Texas has added 165,000 jobs during the last three years while California has lost 1.2 million. California’s jobless rate is 12% compared to 8% in Texas.
“I don’t see this as a partisan issue,” Mr. Newsom told reporters before the group met with Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The former San Francisco mayor has many philosophical disagreements with Mr. Perry, but he admitted he was “sick and tired” of hearing about the governor’s success luring businesses to Texas.
State Assemblyman Dan Logue, R., and Assembly Minority Leader Connie Conway, R., during a news conference on the Texas meeting.
Hours after the legislators met with Mr. Perry, another business, Fujitsu Frontech, announced that it is abandoning California. “It’s the 70th business to leave this year,” says California business relocation expert Joe Vranich. “That’s an average of 4.7 per week, up from 3.9 a week last year.” The Lone Star State was the top destination, with 14 of the 70 moving there.
Andy Puzder, the CEO of Hardee’s Restaurants, was one of many witnesses to bemoan California’s hostile regulatory climate. He said it takes six months to two years to secure permits to build a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the Golden State, versus the six weeks it takes in Texas. California is also one of only three states that demands overtime pay after an eight-hour day, rather than after a 40-hour week. Such rules wreak havoc on flexible work schedules based on actual need. If there’s a line out the door at a Carl’s Jr. while employees are seen resting, it’s because they aren’t allowed to help: Break time is mandatory.
“You can’t build in California, you can’t manage in California and you have to pay a big tax,” Mr. Puzder told the legislators. “In Texas, it’s the opposite—which is why we’re building 300 new stores there this year.”
Other states are even snatching away parts of California’s entertainment industry. The Milken Institute, based in Santa Monica, Calif., reports that 36,000 entertainment jobs have left the state since 1997. The new film “Battle: Los Angeles,” which is set in California, was filmed in Louisiana.
“The red tape is ridiculous,” says Mark Tolley, the managing partner of B. Knightly Homes, which relocated to Austin from Long Beach in 2005. “Regulators see developers as wearing a black hat and the environmental laws have run amok.”
“I’m a pro-jobs Democrat,” Mr. Newsom told me. “My party needs to get back into the business of jobs.” Mr. Newsom says he’s developing an economic development plan to present to Gov. Jerry Brown, who he says “gets it” on the need for business-friendly policies. Mr. Newsom told me that what impressed him most about Mr. Perry and the Texas legislators was their singular focus on job creation.
California, by contrast, seems to constantly lose focus. Several Democrats who agreed to go on the Texas trip were pressured by public-employee unions to drop out—and many did. And just as Texas business leaders were testifying about how the state’s tort reforms had improved job creation, word came of California’s latest priority: On April 14, the state senate passed a bill mandating that all public school children learn the history of disabled and gay Americans.
One speaker from California shook his head in wonder: “You can have the most liberated lifestyle on the planet, but if you can’t afford to put gas in your car or a roof over your head it’s somewhat limited.”
The most dramatic reform California could make would be to change its boom-and-bust tax system so it doesn’t depend on a small number of wealthy residents who can flee the state. The idea would be to broaden the income tax base and lower the state’s high rates. It works today in seven states ranging from Colorado to Massachusetts. Of course, the Lone Star State has no state income or capital gains tax at all.
“Texas’ economy is far less volatile due to its having neither a progressive income tax system nor a large tax burden,” concludes “Rich States, Poor States,” a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Less volatility also allows Texas to keep expenditures in check. While it shares with California the challenge of a huge budget deficit this year, it’s expected to close it without raising taxes. Texas’s overall spending burden remains below what it was in 1987—a remarkable feat.
When Jerry Brown ran for president in 1992, he understood the distorting nature of the tax code and proposed a flat tax with deductions only for rent, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. He called it “a silver bullet” for the economy. Mr. Brown has since abandoned that idea, grousing recently to a state legislator that “the flat tax cost me the New York Democratic primary.”
But if California continues its economic decline, something Texas-sized in its ambitions may be called for— whether it’s a moratorium on new business regulations or a restructuring of the state’s dysfunctional unemployment compensation or litigation. Nothing less is likely to stem the outflow of businesses and jobs from the Golden State.
In the pantry, among the few untouched items are two cartons of eggs. (ABC News)
President Obama deserves a lot of credit for sending the team in. I personally do not like many of the policies of this administration, but this raid was planned very well, and I am glad he made the decisions he did.
An exclusive look inside the Pakistani mansion where the world’s most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was killed. (ABC News)
A series of medicines were found in the house, including petroleum jelly, antiseptic (the red labeled bottle), nasal spray (the blue box), and eye drops (the bottles tipped over in the front). (ABC News)
In the back yard of the house there are several jugs of cooking oil, including various brands of olive oil and a jug of sunflower oil. (ABC News)
An exclusive look inside the Pakistani mansion where the world’s most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was killed. (ABC News)
Osama bin Laden may be at the bottom of the ocean, but all of his wives are alive, and one of them may have identified him to the SEALs.
Time magazine reports that “a U.S. intelligence official says one of Bin Laden’s wives identified her husband by name as the SEALs closed in for the kill.”
It would be safe to assume that was a different wife from the one who purportedly was willing to take a bullet for Bin Laden.
It was reported Monday that one of Bin Laden’s wives was used as a human shield and died in the raid. According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the woman who was in the room with the Al Qaeda leader was one of Bin Laden’s four wives. He said she was shot but not killed, and she was not being used as a shield.
“In the room with Bin Laden, a woman — Bin Laden’s wife — rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed,” Carney read Tuesday from a new account of the dramatic firefight that took place in Pakistan a few days ago…
“We will continue to gather and provide to you details as we get them and we’re able to release them,” Carney said at the news briefing.
Bin Laden’s wife wasn’t the only woman in the compound. Twenty-three children and nine women were in the three-story building at the time of the assault and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, said a U.S. official who requested anonymity to discuss an intelligence matter, the Associated Press reported.
http://bbcbreakingnews.co.cc/
Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama announcesOsama bin Laden, the mastermind behind al-Qaida, is dead, President Obama announces from the White House
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 7:43am CST on May 4, 2011.
A real discussion about the budget must begin now—our economy cannot wait any longer. For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money.
That’s ridiculous, and the American people have had enough.
National defense is the primary constitutional function of the federal government. However, that does not mean that the Department of Defense should receive a blank check without serious oversight. In order to supply our troops with the tools they need, it makes sense to prioritize spending where it is needed most—rather than to keep borrowing from other countries, many of which we pay to defend. (The United States’ Top 10 creditors: China, Japan, Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil Exporters, Russia, United Kingdom, Brazil, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Taiwan)
Since 2001, military expenditure has increased by nearly 120 percent; when you subtract the cost of the two conflicts we are currently fighting that still puts military spending at a 67 percent increase. National defense remains the nation’s No. 1 priority. However, the levels of defense spending are no longer justifiable to securing our country, especially given that our defense spending has surpassed the defense budgets of all other countries combined.
Proposing cuts to the Defense budget is no longer an eccentric idea; recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, typically the guardian of Defense budgets and often arguing the need for more money, has recently proposed spending cuts totaling $100 billion. That said, even though Secretary Gates’ proposals are genuine, they still allow the DoD to grow into a $1 trillion military by 2030 – nearly the amount we spent on all discretionary spending in 2008.
Many of Secretary Gates’ proposals will be included in the $48 billion in Defense spending cuts proposed, but the proposal will also include reduction in spending from programs like realigning the 750 overseas bases in 63 different countries (including the sale of buildings and assets at unused/vacant overseas bases), turning over responsibility for security in Iraq and Afghanistan to local forces, reducing the size of military personnel through natural attrition, reducing the size of the civilian employment, and focusing on waste, fraud, and abuse.
– The savings proposed are reductions based on FY2011 estimates (Defense is not further reduced to FY2008 levels)
– Relative to FY2010 levels, this proposal reflects a 2.7 percent decrease of all military spending.
Additional:
War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).
The proposal includes transferring the primary functions of the Department of Energy to DoD, includingnuclear weapon procurement and disposal of nuclear waste.
The proposal includes shifting the United States Coast Guard to the DoD, a transfer that will promoteuniformity, administrative savings, and reduce duplicative functions.
The United States Coast Guard has long been considered an essential part of our military reediness throughout its long history. Title 14 of the United States Code states “The Coast Guard was established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.” Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Department of the Navy.
In 2003, the Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Currently, the Coast Guard has been working with the Navy in Operation Iraqi Freedom, anti-piracy operations, and anti-terrorist smuggling organizations.
With all this work for the DoD, common sense would suggest a move from the Department of Homeland Security to the DoD.
The echoes of a royal wedding from an earlier era are difficult to ignore.
The backdrop is the same: the opulent red-and-gold decor of the grand Throne Room at Buckingham Palace. And the mischievous smiles on the faces of some of the bridesmaids and page boys – and endearingly bewildered expressions on the others – are strikingly similar.
But, 30 years after the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, the official wedding picture of Prince William and Kate Middleton also reflects the differences between the two couples’ relationships.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
No strings attached. Test-driving a relationship by sharing living quarters appears to be the perfect solution. If it works out, great! If not, no harm done.
Or so you thought.
Damage does occur when couples choose to live together. Marriage cements love with a commitment. Living together leaves you vulnerable, causing you to doubt the level of your partner’s dedication.
Studies show that couples who live together before marrying have a higher tendency to divorce. It seems the short-term commitment of living together often equals short-term commitment in marriage.
If you’re not ready to get married, do you really think you’re ready to live together?
Tim Hawkins on Parenting
Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (4 4)
Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife Conference and how it made a difference in their marriage.
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 6:47am CST on May 4, 2011.
For those who take issue with any of the spending cuts I have proposed, I have two requests:
First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.
Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?
The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers’ unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in this proposal.
The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.
During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for 10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD reported that the U.S. ranked 14 th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below average) out of 35 developed nations.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
“Despite its widespread acceptance by the young, the remarkable growth of unmarried cohabitation in recent years does not appear to be in children’s or the society’s best interest. The evidence suggests that it has weakened marriage and the intact, two-parent family and thereby damaged our social well-being, especially that of women and children. We cannot go back in history, but it seems time to establish some guidelines for the practice of cohabitation and to seriously question the further institutionalization of this new family form.”
“In place of institutionalizing cohabitation, in our opinion, we should be trying to revitalize marriage-not along classic male-dominant lines but along modern egalitarian lines. Particularly helpful in this regard would be educating young people about marriage from the early school years onward, getting them to make the wisest choices in their lifetime mates, and stressing the importance of long-term commitment to marriages. Such an educational venture could build on the fact that a huge majority of our nation’s young people still express the strong desire to be in a long-term monogamous marriage.”
“These ideas are offered to the American public and especially to society’s leaders in the spirit of generating a discussion. Our conclusions are tentative, and certainly not the last word on the subject. There is an obvious need for more research on cohabitation, and the findings of new research, of course, could alter our thinking. What is most important now, in our view, is a national debate on a topic that heretofore has been overlooked. Indeed, few issues seem more critical for the future of marriage and for generations to come.”
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
January, 1999
Tim Hawkins – Holding Hands
Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (3 4)
Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 6 of 7
Official royal wedding photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton -– now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — were released on Saturday.
The couple, all smiles for the camera, couldn’t look happier.
Osama bin Laden may be dead, but U.S. officials expect at least one new bin Laden tape to surface soon, according to multiple reports.
According to The New York Daily News, bin Laden may have ordered the tape to be released in the event of his death.
The tape is said to be a recording created not long before his death, though authorities say there is no indication he knew the United States was closing in on him. It’s not clear whether it’s audio or video.
Media outlets will have a tough decision on their hands when the tape does surface. Airing it could potentially boost his legacy as a martyr and incite new violence.
_____________________________________
Several dozen demonstrators gathered in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, on Tuesday, to protest against the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a US special forces’ mission a day earlier. Chanting “Obama! Solve your own problems” and “The friend of America is a traitor”, members of Pasban (Pakistan Voice Against Injustice) youth organisation rallied against US troops crossing into Pakistan to raid bin Laden’s compound in the town of Abbottabad.
The 1981 wedding party. From back, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Diana and Charles, Edward van Cutsem; front: Lord Nicholas Windsor, Clementine Hambro, Catherine Cameron, India Hicks, Sarah-Jane Gaselee and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones 
