Pro-War Essay Fails In So Many Ways

An essay circulated into my inbox last week that made the case for our involvement in the war in Iraq. It is not a new essay. Researching around, I found it was written in July 2006. But despite the age of this essay, there are some who believe that the arguments presented are still valid, even if some may hold some reservation on the details.

Despite the length, I have written a response to most of the points of the essay. I believe that when put under scrutiny, this essay fails miserably to justify our involvement in the Middle East.

I invite comments, both pro and con.

---

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war

The American people may have been isolationist and pacifist, but not true of the government, at least in Asia. The U.S. put sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China. This is not an “isolationist, pacifist” action. It is basically an attack on Japan’s economy. Implied elsewhere in this essay, such an attack on the economy would justifiably be an act of war. Furthermore, proof has already come out that our government knew before December 7 that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and could have been easily defended against.

But why allow such a tragedy? Because it makes it easier for the government to spew its pro-war propaganda and convince a people who don’t want to go to war.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe

I don’t doubt that they such long-range plans, but such plans are hardly viable considering the logistics and size of their military. One only needs to look at us and our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how an endeavor to conquer the U.S. would have been futile. The greatest military power in the world, yet these third world countries have caused us nothing but trouble.

How much more for Germany and Japan had they actually implemented invading America? Considering that Americans at that time loved their 2nd amendment, Japan and Germany would have suffered great losses, therefore weaken their grip on their empires.

Consider this. Germany would have conquered the tiny country of Switzerland, but would have suffered tremendously at the hands of the Swiss because of their well-armed citizenry. How much more would have Germany suffered against America had they actually tried to invade it?

The US was certainly not prepared for war.

Yet, would the Axis have been victorious in conquering a well-armed U.S. citizenry? The author wants us to believe that without a well-armed military, the U.S. would have crumbled. This is nothing more than state worship.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America . If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

See above. And to add to that, even if Russia had surrendered, the German army suffered tremendous loss and would not have had the man-power to even think of invading America. The author’s argument is simplistic and his conclusions derived without consideration of other factors (e.g. armed citizenry, feasibility of overseas invasion).

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

And yet here we have Pakistan who already has nuclear weapons and we send them billions of dollars. Ironic! What is to say that this country would remain “friends” with the U.S.? There is enough turmoil in Pakistan from its people to turn that country against us. It is a Muslim country ruled by a U.S. puppet dictator. And we’re worried about Iraq? We’re worried about Iran, who’s nuclear capabilities are still years away?

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.

The U.S. economy is going to collapse on its own, whether or not the Wahhabis are in control. The U.S. dollar index has dropped so significantly, the only thing the Federal Reserve can do is to either raise the interest rates, like Paul Volcker in the early 80s, causing a severe recession, or inflate the currency, therefore destroying the dollar with massive hyperinflation. To use this argument as a crutch to justify intervening in the Middle East is pointless.

Furthermore, our continued intervention and empire building in the Middle East is adding to the problems of our economy due to deficit spending.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.

Regime change does not justify our intervention in that country. As brutal as Saddam was, his removal only set the stage for the chaos that is going on in that country. His regime was secular and kept all Muslim sects in check.

And since death tolls are being thrown around, how many Iraqis have been killed because of this war? Due to collateral damage on our part and the violent civil war resulting of our intervention, it is estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis have died. Let’s not forget that our intervention in that area under Clinton. When questioned if the death of 500,000 children was worth it, Albright didn’t even bat an eyelash when she said yes. What happened to the Just War theory where we are not supposed to kill the innocent?

And to throw the Iranian deaths in the mix? Our government was the one who funded Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war and we supplied him with the weapons. And now we condemn him for those deaths? Our government is just as guilty of this crime.

One has to wonder, also, how many Assyrian Christians have been completely displaced because of this war. Even God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been 10 righteous living in the cities. Yet here we sit in judgement of Iraq and the 800,000 Assyrian Christians suffer for our intervention.

We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

How convenient that the death of Iraqi civilians isn’t even mentioned. And what of the “democratic change” in Iraq? Without a change of heart, democracy is pointless. What if the Wahhabis “win” and actually want a democratic society? Do we deny them that because we don’t agree with their ideology. Sorry, but democracy in that area would not change things. It is a false positive that things will be OK should a democracy be stable in that region.

And this idea of “the ones we get there we won’t have to get here” is foolishness. Our occupation has become a rally point for more Muslims to offer themselves up for sacrifice. We’re lopping off the heads of the hydra, but only creating more heads.

WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . a 27 year war.

As I mentioned before, the U.S. laid sanctions against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. We were intervening before we were intervening.

WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .

This essay is from mid-2006. This war has gone beyond $160 billion (some estimate over a trillion dollars) and we’ve already had more than 4000 American lives lost.

Still, despite the “low cost” of this war, it still goes against a couple of tenets of the Christian Just War theory.

1. We do not have the means to win this war. We either borrow the money from China or just have the money printed to finance this war. Furthermore, you don't win against an idea (terrorism) by putting a bullet into a religious people. Our own Christian history shows that!

2. Non-combatants are dying. It is estimated the 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the results of our intervention, whether it is directly from our own artillery or sectarian violence.

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

A world dominated by two relatively small countries? They may have dominated their respective areas, but the world? This is a dubious assumption, highly speculative.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

This is another highly speculative assumption that democracy would change the hearts of the people. This should be abhorrent to the Christian since it replaces Christ as the changer of hearts.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

And yet, no one knows what victory actually looks like? We actually had a victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet, now, they are in power again. No pro-war hawk has a clue as to what it would take to be victorious in this war and to maintain that as the status quo.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).


“As early as next year” would actually refer to this year, yet Iran still doesn’t even have nuclear power! And at best, the technology to create a nuclear weapon is still 5 to 10 years from now. Why does it seem that preventative, pre-emptive war is the only option here? This is nothing more than fear-mongering.

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

OR

4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

These last two points are so far-fetched that they’re laughable. What Navy do they even have to mount any kind of offensive? What invasion force do they have? Iraq is landlocked and Iran has only one coastline to build a Navy.

France and Germany could be dominated by Jihadist, but not by military means. They'll be dominated because of their own laziness to stifle Muslim revolts in their country, let alone their own laziness to promote the Christian faith.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

Again, this is nothing more than fear-mongering.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

The implication here is to be the most determined and ruthless in order to win. The author, whether intentional or not, has just advocated the murder of innocents. It's Sherman's March to the Sea!

But this also implies the advocacy of torture, which no Christian should ever condone. There is no justification for it Biblically.

Furthermore, by advocating murder and torture, we redefine the moral high ground. The Golden Rule has no principle in war. Instead, we adopt evolution's "survival of the fittest" without exception.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

I actually agree with this. It teaches so little history that Americans grow up with no defense against revised and/or edited history and propaganda. Americans have been so dumbed-down by the socialist school system that they lack any kind of real critical thinking to see through this author’s propaganda.

The stakes are at least as high. A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

Or a world dominated by a tyrannical one-world Marxist ideology that imposes egalitarianism at all levels at the barrel of a gun. That is what our government has become, with the Democrats on the Left and the neoconservatives on the Left. The continuance of this war only serves their purposes, not any kind of Christian worldview. It's just one tyranny trying to conquer another tyranny.

It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

They favor these for the Iraqis, just not the means why which this comes about. It’s a false dilemma.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

Or maybe it is because their governments don’t want outsiders coming into their country. We certainly aren’t open for foreigners coming into our country and calling upon our government to change their policies (though with the lack of defense at our borders, we've allowed illegal immigrants to spout treasonous diatribes against our nation), so why the double standard here? I’ll tell you why! Because their argument false flat on its face!

Also, who is to say that there aren’t peace activist in those “places that really need peace activism the most”? Just because you don’t hear about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe the author has never heard of Christian missionaries? Blessed are the peacemakers, those awesome Christians of conviction, who stand up against the tyranny of those foreign governments. And yes, they do get killed.

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Again, a far-fetch highly speculative notion that America could be conquered in such a way.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!

You cannot liberate the people of Iraq if they oppose our occupation and the havoc that it has wrought in the land. Anyone who really wishes for the liberation of Iraq would allow the Iraqi people to sink or swim without our interference. By staying, we’ve only traded one dictator for another “Decider”.

---

Final Thoughts

There are many pro-war supporters who are realizing that, despite how much they want for us to stay in Iraq and go into Iran, our country cannot do it without destroying our country from within.

Money is the blood of war, plain and simple. By borrowing so much from China and Japan ($2 to $3 billion a day), our country has become debt slaves to them. Our country is also a debt slave to the private investors of the Federal Reserve Bank, who continuously print money out of thin air, therefore devaluing our currency. It is not a matter of if our currency is going to collapse. It is a matter of when. Our extravagent domestic and foreign spending, especially our war expenditures, only hastens the inevitable. Thus is the way of the empire.

So, for those who believe in the fear-mongering that we'll be conquered by Muslim extremist, which provides a strong defense against the Jihadist: A strong or weak economy?

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

If you look, God will find you
By Pastor Paul Viggiano

By now we've all been sufficiently exposed to the passions and despair of Mother Teresa via the new volume titled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. As a Protestant apologist, I have chosen to never take issue with certain individuals. Mother Teresa tops the list.

Yet the angst of this woman so dedicated to granting relief to the sickly and indigent in the name of Christ is worthy of reflection. It's been asserted, and rightly so, that her willingness to continue her altruism while feeling forsaken by God, and devoid of the intimate sense of deity she experienced as a younger nun, demonstrates a higher conviction than those whom God continually nurses along the road.

But this begs the question regarding what an intimate sense of deity actually is. What does it mean to hear from God and warm in his presence? Perhaps the magnitude of Mother Teresa's works amplified her sense of isolation, but her experience, or lack thereof, of God is hardly exceptional.

Churches, auditoriums and stadiums of Protestants and Roman Catholics alike are overrun every Lord's Day by professing believers seeking an experience with God. Whether it's the robes, incense, stained glass and ornate structures of Rome or the charismatic worship leaders, highly talented musicians and well-orchestrated mood lighting of Protestant Western evangelicalism - the goal is the same: contact with the deity.

And similar to the experience of Mother Teresa, the vast majority of those seeking intimacy at best find the experience vaporizes before lunch.

It may do Christians well to recognize that the type of experience so many of us are looking for - that existential passion coming as a result of the supernatural presence of God - was never all that productive in the biblical record. It can easily be argued that the two most faithless generations in the Bible were the ones with whom God had most contact.

The Israelites delivered from Egypt saw more supernatural signs and wonders - more emanations of God through the pillars of fire and smoke - than any generation recorded in history, yet their faith waxed cold.

More remarkable was the generation living during the time of Christ. They saw not only signs and wonders but beheld Jesus - the fullness of God in bodily form. Yet they were a faithless generation and the miracles they saw, and the presence of God in their midst, merely served to hold them more culpable.

I certainly can't speak with authority regarding the type of intimate experience Mother Teresa had with God as a younger woman (I am under the impression that God speaks through his scriptures and no longer in an unmediated fashion as we see with the prophets of scripture), but we must acknowledge that that type of experience (whatever our opinion) is an exception.

The whole idea of sensing the presence of God is a dangerous idea. The very word "sense" denotes that which can be touched, tasted, heard, smelled or seen. God falls into none of these categories. The apostle Paul prays that Christians might "comprehend" the width, length, depth and height of God's love - that the faithful might "know" the love of Christ.

The Bible speaks often of knowing God but seldom, if ever, about feeling God. The knowledge of God's love and grace may arouse passions, but the passion is a result of knowing God - it is not the love of God itself.

I may be accused of undue stoicism. I postulate that the despondency of Mother Teresa came about by her desire for a further experience. And her misery was exacerbated by evaluating the lack of experience as her "being forsaken by God."

If she was truly a Christian (and I am certainly not doubting that), her true comfort was to be found in the knowledge that one had already been forsaken by God on her behalf. The venues of Christians seeking God will find greater comfort for their souls by realizing that it is God who has sought after and found them. Worship and obedience is not our act of connecting with the deity but our response to the knowledge of his connecting with us.

Christians do not climb Jacob's Ladder; Jesus is Jacob's Ladder. And the gospel diffuses the fragrance of his knowledge in every place. When one comes to believe in God and his Christ, that very faith, no matter how small or fragile, is God's testimony that he has found us and sent his son to die in our place. That is the Christian's peace.

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Falwell's impact will remain

Minister isn't being judged by the espousers of modern liberalism and apostasy. He's facing a higher judge and will have little reason to apologize.

By Pastor Paul Viggiano

I never considered myself a huge Jerry Falwell fan - at least until now. The hue and cry cascading off the walls of the dark caves of Western paganism at the mere sound of Falwell's name leads me to conclude that the man was acutely efficient at leading a vanguard of righteousness.

It appears men would have preferred a duplicitous Falwell. For all the talk of hypocrisy and double-mindedness in the church, Falwell is castigated for being single-minded and a man of conviction. "No," his detractors say, "it was not his convictions. It's was his binding of conservative Christianity with conservative politics." As if his particular world view is not allowed to penetrate the sacred halls of government - where, by the way, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are commonly ground in granite.

Falwell is no longer suffering the cackling hens of modern liberalism and apostasy. He stands before God and will, I suspect, apologize less than most of us for not acknowledging Jesus as king of kings.

It's telling to hear the caviling of those who have no bones speaking ill of the dead. Falwell made a huge difference, and the enemies of biblical ethics would exhume his bones, grind them to powder and have them cast off the Golden Gate.

Leftist angst against Falwell is due in large part to his success. I doubt that Falwell will go down in history as a master theologian. A broader historical examination will reveal that it was the ethical anarchy of the 1960s that made Falwell's career. As we slid into a moral freefall, those who were maintaining their sanity (not me, I saw Woodstock six times in my banana pants and tye-died shirt) wanted to know if God cared about cultural licentiousness or if the Bible had any significance when it came to the reality of a society and its laws and leadership.

Falwell, mirroring historical, biblical Christianity, said yes.

Crimes, by their very nature, are (or at least should be) immoral. The popular slogan that you can't legislate morality is a staggeringly daft proposition. Why in the world would something be a crime if it were not immoral? Falwell's simple argument was that morality makes a difference in terms of the success and happiness of a nation - or as the Bible would put it, "blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."

Those who take part in the political process, at some level, do what Falwell did - they marshal their efforts to promote what they believe to be in the best interests of the people. There is a veiled hypocrisy lurking in the bosom of those who seek to chastise Falwell simply because they disagree with the source of his value system, which happened to be the texts of the Old and New Testaments. Why should his sources be excluded form the marketplace and other sources accepted? People hated his ethics and thought they should be excluded, but they love their own ethics and promote them with gusto.

There is truly a sad irony that so many would seek to vilify a Christian man simply because he sought to be faithful to the very God the vast majority of our founding fathers appealed to in the process of creating this nation. It would be helpful if his detractors showed us their sacred text so that we might hold it under the same scrutiny.

Christians vs. The Constitution? I Hope Not.

As odd as it may sound, the title of this post is essentially what we are facing in the political arena. The presidential election isn't for another 18 months, but early debates have generated a lot of attention lately, mainly due to U.S. Representative Ron Paul's stance on the U.S. Constitution. If you haven't heard of or know about Ron Paul, he is one of 10 candidates that are seeking to win the Republican primaries, then go on to seeking the presidency. I suggest you get acquainted with him here and here.

When it comes to government policy, no one has the record that he has when it comes to voting consistency. This is because he uses the Constitution as the measure by which he votes. I have yet to hear of another congressman who actually does that.

Christians ought to be tremendously delighted that we have someone who actually believes in following the Constitution. After all, aren't Christians constantly arguing against non-Christians that our Federal government was founded upon Christian principles? There ought to be a groundswell of support for Ron Paul from conservative Christians, but it has been eerily silent. So far, all I've seen in Christian support of Ron Paul is coming from Chris Ortiz of the Chalcedon Foundation.

Maybe silence is better than opposition at this point. Maybe Republican Christians are rethinking their position on a lot of things since Ron Paul burst into the scene at the debates. I sincerely hope so. I sincerely hope they take a good hard look at Ron Paul, because to oppose him is to actually oppose the limits of the Constitution. And to oppose those limits is to oppose the Christian principles that those limits were founded upon.

The Constitution is not perfect, but it the law of the land by which we, as United States citizens, are obligated to uphold. The President even more so. If we, as Christians, won't back a candidate like Ron Paul, then we might as well abandon our arguments that our country and goverment was founded on Christian principles.

(Thoughts? Several of us have created a blog in promoting Ron Paul's bid for the presidency. We invite discussion and debate, but you must be a registered with Blogger.com in order to comment. Our blog is called Ron Paulitics (not associated with www.ronpaulitics.com) and it is found at ronpaulitics.blogspot.com. In the months to come, I will be posting mostly there.)

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano: Resurrection Day Edition

Evidence of Faith, Cause for Hope

Here are ten reasons why the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains the most important occurrence in history.

By Paul Viggiano
Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Charles Hodge, the renowned 19th century Princeton theologian, penned these words concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "It may be safely asserted that the resurrection of Christ is at once the most important, and the best authenticated, fact in the history of the world."

Hodge buttressed this assertion with 10 arguments. Nine of these arguments would pass muster vis-à-vis any other notable historical event. The 10th is undeniable:

1. It was predicted in the Old Testament. The Christian faith began at the dawn of man with God making a promise to redeem mankind through the death and resurrection of the Christ. The Old Testament was a widespread and well-known document.

2. It was foretold by Christ himself. People have twisted the Scriptures from the very beginning. For those who doubted the promise of the Messiah, or were inclined to bend the Scriptures to their own agenda, Jesus re-announced that he would die and rise again.

3. It was an easily verified event. The Resurrection wasn't a matter of secret knowledge. It was a physical resurrection. There was no faith required to observe the risen Christ.

4. It was substantiated by abundant, suitable and frequently repeated evidence. Jesus was a threat to the religion of the Jews and the authority of Rome. They wanted Christianity to end. All they had to do to achieve this was produce the dead body of Jesus. This would never happen.

5. There were numerous, competent witnesses of the event. The Resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum where only the devout or those skilled in piety could observe. Jesus was a public figure followed by hundreds and seen by thousands for 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension.

6. The conviction of the witnesses was testified by their willingness to suffer even to the point of death. The Christian faith grew dramatically after the ascension of Jesus, due to the spirit-inspired testimony of the apostles who all (but one) were put to death for their faith. It can be argued that people have been known to die for a lie, but it is a much harder argument to make that people will die for something they know to be a lie.

7. God confirmed the testimony of those who witnessed the Resurrection by signs and wonders seen by entire communities. Jesus conferred the power to perform signs and wonder to his apostles; this continued for years. The authorities certainly had the time and occasion to expose these apostles if they weren't genuine.

8. The fact of the Resurrection has been commemorated by a religious observance of the first day of the week from the time it happened until this present time. The regularity of millions (now billions) of people meeting on a weekly basis for thousands of years speaks toward the reliability of the data.

9. The effects produced by the Gospel admit of no other rational solution than the truth of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection. The Christian church is his monument. All believers are his witnesses. The tome of literary, archeological and historical evidence of the Resurrection is simply unmatched. Unbiased observers have taken historical events as fact with much less evidence.

The truth of the Gospel, the Resurrection, in fact all of Scripture can, and always has, passed every legitimate method of scrutiny. The real question is, "How legitimate are the methods?" Using man-made disciplines and evidences to determine the authenticity of Scripture would be like using my Casio to determine the accuracy of the atomic clock.

Add this to the fact that man has a propensity to interpret facts through his own grid. For example, if someone's grid doesn't allow for miracles, he won't believe the event was a miracle no matter how much evidence he is given; he'll just wait for some new explanation. Besides, it would be foolish to think that God has left us at the mercy of our own ability to do research in order to know the truth, let alone be saved.

This brings us to Hodge's last point.

10. Simply put, we know the Resurrection truly took place. Jesus said that his words are sufficient to judge us -- words which we still have in the Bible. The testimony of God's word is self-evident and undeniable. When people deny the Scriptures, they are denying something they know to be true in the depth of their heart. Man's accountability to God is not capricious; it is based in something men know.

And what a glorious thing God has revealed to us -- that there is hope beyond the grave. Jesus is called the first fruits of the Resurrection because those who trust in him will be resurrected as well -- this is what the Bible calls the good news. He is risen indeed!

The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance. His e-mail address is pastorpaul@integrity.com.

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Speaking the language of unity

By Pastor Paul Viggiano

When God set out to confound men's efforts at building their own tower to heaven, he simply confused the language so they couldn't understand one another's speech. Apparently the easiest way to scatter and disassemble a people is to make communication difficult.
When Alexander the Great sought to unify his entire conquered territory, which spanned nine time zones, he made Greek the only allowable commercial language. People could speak their native languages in their own communities, but if they were going to do business, they had to learn Greek.

Healthy and unified nations have a specific language, and there are good reasons for it.
Perhaps you've encountered a language difficulty while placing an order at your local drive-through. It's an inconvenient, moderately laborious and ineffective process when the two people don't speak the same language. No big deal. You end up with the chicken instead of beef -- who can tell the difference?

But what if you're on the phone seeking information on bills you owe or work that needs to be done on your car or house? Business becomes tricky when you can't understand each other. Still, it might be considered a minor inconvenience. Eventually things get done.

It's a little more perilous when you come upon an automobile accident. When someone says, "Call an ambulance!" and all you get are blank stares, with no opportunity to press two for the alternative language, the victim might bleed to death.

And how about the military -- assuming people are living in a country they love and are willing to defend. What happens when lives are on the line and orders are given in the nation's language? Are we comfortable with the idea of people dying because no one understands the commanding officer?

It should be obvious that we need to pick a language and have everybody learn it. It will strengthen our nation. People are xenophobic by nature. We tend to fear what we don't understand. A healthy conversation where we all understand what's being said will foster an esprit de corps among the people.

Those who oppose a unified language are either ignorant of what unifies a nation or they simply don't care about unity -- maybe they're only concern is to build a constituency. Either way, having multiple languages when it comes to commerce, health, safety and national security is divisive and dangerous.

And I don't oppose the glorious American melting pot. I view myself as a spicy Mediterranean addition. The multiculturalism of our country is splendid and exciting. All the foods, styles, music and diversity make our country electrifying. But it is a melting pot, not a rotating Lazy Susan where all the individual bowls form segregated courses having no common point of contact with each other.

The melting pot as originally suggested by Pierre Eugene DuSimitière is e pluribus unum -- out of the many, one. For this to work, there are things that need to contribute to the unum. And one of the non-negotiables of the unum is the language. Our current trend is heading us toward e pluribus pluribus. We're celebrating the many, but we're losing the one -- one flag, one language and one indivisible nation under one God.

There are things unique about the United States that have always attracted people from other countries. It might be a worthwhile pursuit to understand what specific and unique attributes helped to make this country great and cling to them.

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

How about science-based ethics?

By Paul Viggiano

Faith-based science is the hot new derogatory maxim. From the sacred halls of secular bioethics, the encyclicals blazon: "We must annihilate the influence of the theist, and pure science must reign as the uncontested canon of decency and morality." With papyrus firmly clenched in their mandibles, the monkeys fly.

Inscribed on the parchment are the names of scientists whose works were quelled by the myopic clergy: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. Faith, it is asserted, is the absence of evidence. Faith has no place in science.

Hmmm. Just how would someone go about scientifically proving that faith has no place in science? Is the assertion subject to the scientific method? Can it be tested, measured, observed and repeated? Wait a minute! Is the scientific method subject to the scientific method? How does one go about proving that the scientific method is scientific? A conundrum indeed! It would appear that the scientific method is based upon faith in its own methodology.

If faith has no place in science, they might as well go public, make a bag of money and close shop, because faith has its ugly fingers all over science. The scientist must have faith in his observations, the accuracy of his instruments, the reliability of the conclusions of his predecessors, the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past -- something he can never prove), and his own ability to think clearly, which has already been proved questionable.

Theists (people who believe in God) are not opposed to good science. They recognize the worth and the validity of the process. But they see its limitations. Einstein said that science teaches us no truth; it merely helps us organize the things we observe.

Those who are opposed to faith-based science are now seeking to seize the language to advance, not their science, but their ethics. Faith-based science is not the problem; the problem is science-based ethics.

Such politically charged issues as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia and cloning are not heated due to disagreements regarding what one sees looking through the microscope. The pot is boiling, not due to science but ethics. Two equally competent OBGYNs might have radically opposing views regarding pregnancy terminations and stem cell usage.

Just how does science-based ethics work?

Does the DNA code contain some type of secular scripture? Will the science-based ethicist eventually discover the 10 genetic commandments? What if the 10 genetic commandments are the same as the Ten Commandments? How long before that gets published in scientific journal?

It's all so silly. Any thoughtful person realizes that the starting point of his world view is always based on faith. And faith is not a blind leap into a pool of irrational thoughts and concepts; it is a necessary beginning. And guess what? Even the atheists know this.

In a brilliantly written article in Wired magazine by Gary Wolf, atheists are given their day in court. "No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science" splashes across the cover. The latest diatribes against religion -- The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett -- receive the free promo. But Dennett, perhaps the most renowned of all, drops the baton.

This atheist-materialist, who demands good evidence for any conclusion, when asked the tough ethical questions by Wolf, responds with answers suitable for clerical ordination. Wolf writes, "Dennett knows that reason alone will fail. ... He doesn't want people to lose confidence in what he calls their 'default settings.' ... No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined sacred things."

I'm ready to take the weekend off and give Dennett my pulpit. Perhaps he can give a sermon on faith-based atheism. But Dennett wasn't finished. "It's not that science can discover when the body is ensouled," claims Dennett. "That's nonsense. We are not going to tolerate infanticide." Why not? Someone might ask Dennett. It would, no doubt, be offensive to his faith.

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

There are still Herods aplenty

By Paul Viggiano

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil's Dictionary, defines politics as "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." This was as true 2,000 years ago as it is today.

Jesus was greeted at birth with a political conspiracy. Herod and his advisers wanted the baby terminated. Just why would Herod, a puppet of the Roman Empire, want to kill a little baby? Jesus met this type of hostility all his life. When he re-entered the public arena as a 30-year-old man, the political and religious conspiracy to kill him continued until its success.

Why does everybody want to kill Jesus? Why would Herod have been so determined to succeed that he would kill a whole region of males under 2 years old just to make sure the baby didn't live?

Jesus labeled his generation faithless and perverted. It would appear that a twisted political and religious agenda has no room for a genuine Jesus. But why?

Let's be clear. The Romans and the Pharisees (the perverted clergy of the era) didn't care if a bunch of Jews decided to believe in a man named Jesus, have prayer meetings, quiet times, sing hymns and embrace his instructions on loving their enemies. Those who heed the instructions of Jesus would make model citizens.

Except for one thing:

Apparently Jesus was a king -- even more, the king of kings. The magi came to worship a king. When the followers of the Pharisees realized Pilate (a Roman governor) was contemplating releasing Jesus, they engaged in first-century spin: "We have no king but Caesar," they cried. Would Pilate release a prisoner who threatened the authority of Caesar? Not if he wanted to continue living.

Jesus was born to die. The Bible says a body was prepared for Jesus to do the will of the Father, which was to die on the cross to save sinners. But it would appear that the mechanics behind ensuring that Jesus would die at the hands of sinful men was to assert his authority over the kings of the Earth.

Why did Herod, Pilate, the Israelites and the gentiles want Jesus dead? Because of his assertion of authority over all things. If Jesus is who he claims to be, then he is the rightful master of all things -- great and small -- the hearts and thoughts of men and the kingdoms of the Earth.

It is little wonder that the modern-day Herods are still seeking to terminate the babe. As long as Jesus lives as savior, he reigns as king. In order for today's Herods to advance their political agenda, it is necessary to remove the vestiges of this king from our progressive and enlightened culture. There is nothing more annoying than being confronted with a supreme and holy king who teaches with absolute authority -- especially if I'm trying to legitimize and sanction an ungodly and unethical moral and political schema. This king must be killed!

This begs the question: If Jesus isn't king, who is? If the Pontius progressives want Jesus out, who is his replacement? If we're not one nation under the Triune God, who are we under? We're certainly not going to draw the nightmarish conclusion that the ultimate authority is wafting through the halls of Capital Hill.

Perhaps we're one nation under the people. But what if the people decide they want to be one nation under God? Is that the one instance where the will of the people must be overturned? And if so, by whom? On the other hand, what if the people decide that it's perfectly moral to lie, steal, cheat and extort? Is it ethical by consensus? Alternatives to being under God appear lacking.

There are plenty of Herods today. They continue to seek to kill the baby Jesus. They think they'll succeed by removing Christmas trees, nativity scenes or getting corporate America to reject the "Merry Christmas" greeting at the local mall. Like Herod, they consult their scribes to find the baby Jesus and remove his crosses, his laws and anything that brings our thoughts to him. One day, no doubt, they will they seek to rename all the cities? Instead of Santa (saint) Barbara will it be Secular Barbara and Secular Diego and Los Angeres?

Herod failed in his attempts to kill Jesus, but not until he caused heartache and destruction. Today's Herods will fail as well. But they, like their predecessor, will wreak as much devastation as they possible can. May God grant us the eyes to see the blessings attached to serving a holy, righteous and benevolent king. May God grant us wisdom to still seek him.

The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance. His e-mail address is pastorpaul@integrity.com.

Ontological Argument: Rebuttal

First off, I'll state here that I am in disagreement with Ehud's evaluation as to how we ought to vote. And second, as one who has and will vote for the candidate I believe to be the best for the job, I can say that this is not something I find as "the principle of the thing" to satisfy my "guilt-ridden conscience" for my "self-gratification." Ehud goes a little too far in making a characterization of people's hearts by the usage of his words.

I am actually surprised with Ehud's post since only a few days before, he quotes George Washington. In fact, it's ironic. Why is it that the principles of George Washington to stand firm against tyranny does not apply here in the arena of politics, way before such bloodshed could come to the fore? Ehud says:

Is it better to cast vote for a thoroughly Christian candidate who, under current circumstances, will never win or for the pseudo-Christian moralist who could actually win, thus bringing about at least some of our goals?

...if a Believer foregoes the opportunity to do some small amount of real good in deference to a statement of mere conceptual good, he ought then to feel guilty.

So "some of our goals" accomplished by the pseudo-Christian would be "some small amount of real good." True, but since when should the Christian be begging for scraps at the table of (lesser) evil? And how long does that "real good" last when Christians are voting only for the "lesser evil"? And what assurance do Christians have that the "real good" will not be undermined or overwhelmed by the "real bad"?

Is Ehud being short-sighted? Maybe, maybe not. If he tows the incrementalist line, then he believes that doing some of the "real good" now would incrementally build more "real good" later. If it were really the case, one would have to wonder how we got to such a dismal situation with our government. After all, was not our nation and government founded and built upon Christian principles? But evil is like leaven, and eventually, small "real good" favors get swallowed up.

The parallel to Ehud's approach is that of constantly trying to address the urgent needs, all the while postponing the emergency need. Sure, we can steer out of the way of the rocks, but we're still heading for the waterfall. If doom is inevitable (sorry, my pessimism is showing), then perhaps its time to turn the boat around and give it all you got.

The only "real good" I can see coming from Ehud's POV is that tyranny is slowed down. Not stopped, but slowed. Perhaps he sees nothing but a collapse of our form of government. It is, after all, part of the historical cycle of democracy. So while the government sinks down, we might as well get what we can from it. *shrugs*

I, myself, see our nation and government going the way of the Tidy Bowl man. Tyranny-saurus Rex is getting bigger and is the new lion in the Colosseum. Applying Ehud's way of voting, it can be slowed, but not stopped. But what of my way of voting? Is it any better?

In the short-term, no. Ehud is right in saying that the Christian candidate cannot win. Those of us who vote for them are few in number (how sad is that?). By voting in this way, we shun the table scraps from the table of evil. Instead, we starve. Tyranny is not slowed and we are devoured in the process.

But in the long-term, if we are consistent to pass along to our children the way we vote, then there is victory on the horizon. This is a "real goal" that can be achieved, but this cannot happen if Christians give in to voting for table scraps, and then pass this type of philosophy onto their children.

I'm not saying that the "real good" scraps aren't important, so don't get me wrong there. What I am saying is that when one looks at the big picture in the political scheme, evil is either ratcheted fast or ratcheted slow. In the long run, "real good" becomes a "conceptual good" to the powermongering government leviathan.

Lastly, Christians DO believe that a "thoroughly Christian candidate" can and do win in the real world. In other words, they vote like I would. The problem is that mainstream Christianity is so antinomian, they really don't know what a "thoroughly Christian candidate" looks like. But that is their blindness, not mine. Following Ehud's line of reasoning, am I now to follow after the blind and into their folly? We are sheep, that is true, but let's not follow our brethren because they lead in numbers.

Ehud's quote of George Washington is more appropriate in its philosophy against tyranny than his ontological argument. If I am going to go down fighting against tyranny, it'll be with lead...pencil first before the bullet.

Another reason to take your kids out of public schools

I graduated high school 17 years ago (man, has it been that long?!) and though my school didn't have the "creme de la creme" of students, it wasn't that bad either (though just a few short years, Ehud and Big Calvin saw its drastic decline). After reading this article, I cannot fathom how bad it must be at my alma mater or at any other public school for that matter. Mind you, should the Senate pass this and the president sign it into law, its reach isn't limited to high school. It is all inclusive of public schools, whether elementary, middle or high school.

Does this piece of...legislature have a chance of passing? You can count on it. Why? Look at the list of sponsors and co-sponsors:

Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY], Rep. Judy Biggert [R-IL], Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA], Rep. John Carter [R-TX], Rep. Philip English [R-PA], Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R-PA], Rep. Jim Gerlach [R-PA], Rep. Sue Kelly [R-NY], Rep. Mark Kennedy [R-MN], Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL], Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY], Rep. Ron Lewis [R-KY], Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV], Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT], Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL], Rep. William Shuster [R-PA], Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN], Rep. Curtis Weldon [R-PA].

This ain't your great-grandfather's Republicanism.

Round 2: Continuity/Abrogation vs. Discontinuity/Reiteration

Here we go again. Once again, Tony has returned to "correct" us Reformed folk. I had thought it would be a better exchange than last years clash. It started out pretty good, but in Tony's recent rebuttal, I get this indictment against me:

I’ve never seen anyone, even in the Reformed tradition, rape the scriptures like an existential-postmodern Schliermacher, using a question-begging method

Tony says this right afterwards:

I couldn't agree more.

As much as Tony says to not "let [his] post reflect [his] attitude," it would be difficult to do so. To "rape the scriptures" is to put me in league with heretics who are worthy of eternal damnation. Sorry, but the slams last year pushed the limits of my charity, and I'm not going to tolerate it this year.

So, Tony, if you aim any more invectives towards my direction, whether it is coming directly from you or your colleagues, I will remove your posts and the discussion would be over. In trying to get climb the mountain of truth, I need your help (if I do indeed need it), not your drag. Towards Ehud, on the other hand, well, he's a different beast, so he'll scrap with you. You two can go ahead and sling the cow-pies and horse-cakes 'til you both produce enough methane to solve America's energy issues.

My Response

I have no problem with saying that the "new covenant" is "new" as defined by Tony. But what Tony hasn't shown is that "new" means every aspect of the covenant is different (fallacy of division). Lets just look at what is being said in verses 32 and 33:

"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke My covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
I will put My law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."

Tony claims that "not like the covenant" is "exegetically an absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant. He's railing against this idea that I hold to a position of "renewed" covenant, but I don't. It's just a strawman he's setting up. I agree that the Old Covenant is done away with and the New Covenant is not a renewed form of the Old Covenant. Perhaps it is the way Tony defines "new" that has lead him to think that our (the Reformed) definition of "new" is "renew." And even if some in the Reformed circle do hold to a "renewed" covenant, I am not one of them.

He states later in his rebuttal that "since the Old Covenant will be abolished (Seilhamer, 1976:235), so will its Torah, which cannot be divorced from it (Hartley 1980:1.405)." He then goes on with more authors citing how "if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the Law must also be annulled." The problem with Tony is that he cites authors without bringing forth how they come to such a conclusion. It is very much the tactic he used last year. How do I know that those same authors are not engaged in the fallacy of division? If Tony can't show this, then I have no reason to believe that the Mosaic Law must be completely abolished as well.

Of course, his response may just as well be the same as last year where I and my Reformed brethren must submit to the academics of New Testament "Scholarship" just because they are "experts" in their field. Would he submit to worldviews that are antithetical to the Christian worldview because their "experts" say theirs is the true worldview? I think not. And why not? Because say-so can only go so far.

But even if we are to assume Tony's position of complete abolishment of the Mosaic Law, he is in a very odd position. He maintains that Nine of the Ten Commandments were reiterated in the New Testament, therefore it is binding upon the Christian. But wait a moment here! That's bringing back abolished Mosaic Laws! That's Old Covenant! I brought this up before when talking about Ephesians 2:14-15 but he has never answered this oddity. How can the "Ark of the Covenant...be forgotten and will not be missed" when you have Mosaic Laws to follow and are constantly reminded of it?

That's a glaring problem with Tony's position of discontinuity/reiteration. The Old Covenant and the Mosaic Laws are inseparable and are abolished together, yet we are bound by Mosaic Laws because they are reiterated?

However, Tony would disgree with my last 2 paragraphs since Jeremiah is, in his view, talking about ethnic Israel, and the promises therein have yet to happen in the future. And yet, we see the author of Hebrews using Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Chapters 8 and 10 to describe Christ's ministry and the advent of the New Covenant. Plainly, 9:15 reads:

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (emphasis mine)

The author of Hebrews makes the "new covenant" connection to Christ and is contrasted with the "first covenant." So, is the "new covenant" now or still something in the future for Israel? Tony will have to contend with the author of Hebrews (therefore with God) concerning when the "new covenant" is to take place. After all, it is the author who cites Jeremiah 31 to emphasize his doctrine and then takes the liberty to expound upon it to, I would argue, Jewish Christians.

So let's see if we've got this straight. If Christians are not under the Old Covenant, then we have a New Covenant, but it's not the New Covenant that Jeremiah 31 is talking about because that is specifically talking about ethnic Israel. Does this mean there is a 3rd covenant, one especially made for Israel in the future? Does this mean that Israel is actually still under the Old Covenant since their New Covenant is still in the future?

And what is this "new law" that Tony brings up? He quotes Clark Wood that it is "'a divinely authoritative direction,' which is not formulated or a codified law like the Mosaic Law (Wood 1976:41)." Again, how he arrives to this conclusion is never explained. It's not only an assertion, but speculation as to what "law" means in verse 33. That really is about as far as it goes since Tony has already dismissed all of the Mosaic Law, therefore it is a different beast, a "new law". And since he abhors our use of analogy of faith, he is stuck only within the confines of the immediate text to which there is no definition of this "new law."

And a "new law" it has to be for Tony based on his presupposition that a "new covenant" means a complete disconnect with the Mosaic Law. That's like saying getting a new car means a complete disconnect with the laws of science and mechanics, but that's absurd. All the Mosaic Law did was codify the moral laws; laws based on God's character and nature. It clearly marked the line between good and evil. Furthermore, it marked out how to administer justice when the laws were transgressed. Under Tony's interpretation, God would get rid of the standard of measure of what is good and evil and replace it with a "new law" that has no definition. "Divinely authoritative direction?" Well, the Mosaic Law is exactly that since it is God's Law on how to live a holy, righteous and good life.

My Take

In verses 32 and 33, God is the one who makes the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Shouldn't this be obvious from just reading the passages? And what is this difference? "I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts." How the covenant is implemented by God is what makes the New Covenant "new." That's just a simple reading of the text. No gymnastics, no twisting of the text. The New Covenant isn't "new" because there is a "new law," but instead, the manner in which this New Covenant is implemented is what makes this "new." We can know this by knowing how God implemented the Old Covenant:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, emphasis mine)

I may be accused of "using a question-begging method" here, but frankly, I could care less since Tony's method must begins with a fallacious understanding of what it means to be "new." Not only that, but the simplicity of drawing out from the text of what God is going to do should naturally lead us to question, "What did God do before?" All I have done here is look at how God defines the New Covenant, see that He is implementing it in a specific way, then look at the Old Covenant and see how He implemented it there. In the Old Covenant, He calls the Jew to put "these commandments (His Laws)...upon [their] hearts...and bind them on [their] foreheads"; in the New Covenant, it will be God who will "put [His] law in their minds and write it on their hearts." It's novel! It's fresh! It's unprecedented! It had not existed back then! It is of a new kind...a new kind of covenant! It's unheard of! Gee, take your pick.

Now, I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but the tranlators of the Bible should know their languages, right? So then, in looking at all the english translations, each of them say, "My law" in verse 33. Not "new law"..."My law." "My," of course, is God referring to Himself. It is "God's law" that God is writing upon the heart. Again, a simple reading of the text, one which an Old Testament Jew could look at and marvel at this promise. God's Law, the same law that the Jewish author of Psalms 119 praised, is going to be put his mind and written on his heart. That is a much greater hope than being promised a "new law" which has no definition and, frankly, is foreign to Scripture. What the Jew could not do in the Old Covenant, God was going to do in the New Covenant. That's novel! That's fresh! That's...er, we've gone through this, huh?

But not only the Jew, but the Gentile as well. The New Covenant is for the Jew, but since Jew and Gentile are one under Christ, without a wall of separation, it is a covenant for the Gentile as well. It is not something in the future and it's not a separate covenant. It is a present reality, one which the author of Hebrews indicates explicitly. The New Covenant for the Jew is the same New Covenant for the Gentile.

Summary of Tony's Position

In trying to maintain his position, Tony must:

1. Hold to the fallacious idea that "new" means having every detail be different from before.
2. Turn "My law" (aka God's law) to mean something else, meaning a "new law", which is nothing more than a foreign law undefined by Scripture.
3. Contradict the author of Hebrews, and ultimately, God, in his interpretation and understanding of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Reading chapters 8 through 10 makes the "new covenant" a present reality, unlike Tony's rendering of it to the future.

Then in the consistency of his position, he must also try to make sense of the strange reimplementation of Nine of the Ten Commandments (his evaluation, not mine) since it rebuilds 90% of the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Wasn't it Tony who said that the Mosaic Law is supposed to do nothing with the "new covenant" because there is an "absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant, which the Torah (Mosaic Law) "cannot be divorced from it"?

WWTD? - What Will Tony Do?

Tony knows that I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so he continues to work that angle (this tends to smack of academic elitism). Yet when brought under scrutiny, no matter how much Hebrew or Greek he brings up, his position does not make any logical sense. If Tony still wants to make a case for his position, then he needs to provide more than just assertions.

Show us how your interpretive method works, because at this point, the clearness of Scripture is trapped under the muddiness of fallacious imposition, foreign law, and anachronism.

In Christ,

Victor

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Who wants Proposition 85 to fail in November?

The California measure requires a doctor to notify a parent or guardian of an under-18-year-old-girl 48 hours before aborting the girl's baby.

By Paul Viggiano

Proposition 73 is making another go at it, this time as Proposition 85; the measure requires a doctor to notify a parent or guardian of an under-18-year-old-girl 48 hours before aborting the girl's baby.

Perhaps my 50s are showing, but a stupefied paralysis overcame me when this measure failed to win voter approval last November. Black-and-white films reeled in my head of Aryan boys and girls liberated from the limited knowledge and wisdom of their incompetent parents and ushered into the loving and omnipotent arms of the government who would transform them into model citizens.

As a student, and as a teacher, I recall the necessity of getting notes from parents for missing school, field trips, exams by the school nurse, a work permit to wipe off tables at the Redondo pier and delivering papers for the Daily Breeze.

But any 13-year-old girl can find herself under the bright lights of this grotesque and invasive chemical or surgical procedure if her boyfriend is willing to ride her to the clinic on the handlebars of his bike. If she's lucky, she'll have the assistance of a nameless social-service agent or moderately recognizable government educator. For some reason, we're voting for this over Mom and Dad.

From where is this "let's-keep-the-parents-out" wisdom generated? I thought there was conventional agreement that there should be dialogue between children and their parents, especially during trying times. Do we truly prefer a detached public servant over a loving, albeit struggling parent? Do we not believe, in the final analysis, that parents will be the superior decision makers regarding the best interests of their children?

Always willing to be swayed by good argumentation, I listen attentively to the arguments against Proposition 73, which will be before California voters in November as Proposition 85. Few are willing to argue that the government cares more than parents.

It would appear that the only good argument for keeping Dad and Mom in the dark is the possibility that Dad is the perpetrator, as the measure's opponents have argued. Is this one good argument actually good?

I tried to make a list of all the people who would oppose this proposition. Who would be happiest to see it fail? Who would benefit most from no-questions-asked abortions for the under-aged? Planned Parenthood obviously has something to gain. I'm sure the American Civil Liberties Union would have a party, and certainly there are kids who don't want to be forced to talk to their parents about these terribly important and personal issues.

But it became readily apparent that it's the pedophile parent who has his fingers crossed. The father who has impregnated his own daughter is head and shoulders above all on the list of people who want this proposition to fail. The last thing an abusive dad wants to deal with is communication with the authorities. And what about his wife?

Would Mom not insist that the perpetrator-dad take their daughter to the clinic where he must stand before doctors and nurses? Of course they've done this hundreds of times so they profile him. They begin asking questions:

What if they ask who the unborn child's father is? Are they going to be curious as to why the father doesn't care? Mom would sure like to know. What if someone suggests a DNA test? Will he not start sweating? The last thing in the world he wants is to face the music.

It is that evil, abusive and depraved parent, above all, who is hoping this will once again fail. No questions asked of his daughter and no questions asked of him. Nervously wringing his hands as he listens to the propaganda against the ballot measure and wondering if enough people will "buy it," he spoils for a defeat.

Think of the atrocious cycle:

The frightened teen is allowed to go through this no-questions-asked-no-mom-no-dad process, and the vile parent -- the poster-parent used to defeat the proposition last fall -- is given the freedom to do what we all know he'll continue to do until he's put behind bars or his scarred-for-life daughter is old enough to leave home. What tragic irony!

Yes, I am pro-life. But one need not be pro-life to see the absurdity of defeating Proposition 85. Unless you truly believe the government is better equipped than parents to deal with the difficult and intimate issues surrounding teenagers, this must be made law. And the one good reason offered by opposition to this law may be the biggest reason to have it.