Daddy's Broken Heart: Fathers of Abortion

 clipped from townhall.com

A Woman's "Choice" That Affects Men: Post-Abortion Trauma

---

by Jerry DeBin

---

Author's note: This piece is co-authored by Jeanne Monahan.

This Father's Day will be a celebration for dads all over the country, an opportunity for children to thank and honor their fathers. Yet for many men, the memory of involvement in a past abortion, of "cards they will not receive," will be painful and palpable.

In a debate where the primary focus is a woman's body and a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a child to his or her delivery, the "other partner," the father of the baby, is rarely given consideration, and is often completely disregarded altogether. The question of abortion is myopically women-centric.

Abortion advocates often mock pro-life men. Men are told they shouldn't speak out because they can never become pregnant. Yet, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that two women cannot a baby make.

Less acknowledged is the fact that this decision deeply impacts the dad, too.

---

This year three Father's Day cards will stand prominently on Jerry's kitchen countertop, telling the wonderful story of the lives of his three grown children. But there is an empty space next to the cards which tells another story that continues to grieve Jerry and his wife, Dayna. Over thirty years ago, Jerry and his then high school sweetheart, Dayna, chose to abort two of their children.

Jerry deeply empathizes with any man who has taken the life of another human and lives daily with that burden and emotional trauma. The negative psychological impact of abortion on women has been well publicized, but less so have been the effects of abortion on men.

In researching the topic, we found a variety of books, websites and support groups dedicated to male post-abortion trauma, as well as a number of studies on the issue. One study reported that 82 percent of male parents of a recently aborted baby (ranging from two days to 37 months) experienced depression. Another study found that men experienced anxiety, helplessness, guilt, and a dual sense of responsibility and regret during an abortion. An additional study reported that many biological fathers need professional support in dealing with abortion and its impact on relationships.

According to Guy Condon and David Hazard, authors of Fatherhood Aborted:

The Profound Effects of Abortion on Men, post-abortive men suffer from a whole host of problems, including relationship struggles, inability to trust friends, rage, addictions and sexual compulsions, sleeplessness, bad dreams, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, depression, fear of failure, fear of rejection, and loneliness.

Fortunately, Jerry and Dayna's story did not have a negative ending. They married after high school, but continued to be haunted by the unspoken grief and burden of the two children they had aborted. Ten years and three children later, they came to a crisis in their marriage where they needed to honestly confront the lingering effects of the two abortions. There were unresolved issues but they found helpful resources to successfully work through them and make peace with the past.

Having found hope in their grief and regret, they deeply wanted others to avoid making these same mistakes. They felt the best way they could do so would be to support young people facing similar tough decisions, and decided to start a pregnancy resource center in Prattville, Ala., in this effort. Having opened its doors in 1992, "Grace Place" PregnancyResource Center continues to thrive and serve young mothers and fathers experiencing an unplanned pregnancy even today.

Jerry and Dayna helped to start Grace Place to share truth about abortion, to give hope in situations that appear hopeless and to help restore the lives of men and women broken by abortion. They also discovered that the process helped complete the healing in their marriage and family.

An estimated 50 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. For each of those 50 million babies, there is a father. Even adjusting those numbers to allow for men who father more than one aborted child, the count of post-abortion men in America is easily 30 million. This Father's Day let us honestly engage men in the conversation about abortion and its impacts on everyone involved. There remain significant, long-term consequences of Father's Day cards that will not come this week … all across America.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement

I hope this is helpful.

 clipped from www.equip.org

Apologetics: Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement

---

Douglas Groothuis

---

The evangelical world today suffers from apologetic anemia. Despite the fact that Holy Scripture calls believers to give a rea­son (Greek, apologia) for the hope we have in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15; see also Jude 3), we sadly lack a public voice for truth and rea­son in the marketplace of ideas. We do not have a strong intellectual presence in popular or academic culture — although some evangelicals influence some areas, such as philosophy and politics, more than others.

 

The reasons for this anemia are multidi­mensional and complex. Three recent books explore the lack of a "Christian mind" in contemporary evangelicalism, and I highly recommend them. Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994) explores the historical roots of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Os Guinness's Fit Bodies, Fat Minds (Baker Books, 1994) discusses some of the historical problems and also outlines what a Christian mind should look like. J. P. Moreland's Love Your God with All of Your Mind (Navpress, 1997) explains why Christians don't think theologically, develops a biblical theology of the mind, and offers helpful apologetic arguments and strategies to empower the church intellectually.

 

My purpose here is briefly to lay out six factors that inhibit apologetic engage­ment. If these barriers were removed, our apologetic witness could grow into what it should be in Christ.

 

1. Indifference. Too many Christians don't seem to care that our culture routine­ly ridicules Christianity as outdated, irra­tional, and narrow-minded. They may complain that this "offends'' them — just as everyone else is complaining that one thing or another "offends" them — but they do little to counteract the charges by offering a defense of the Christian world­view in a variety of settings.

 

Yet Scripture commands all Christians to have a reason for the hope that is within them and to present this with gentleness and respect to unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:15). Our attitude should be that of the apostle Paul, who was "greatly distressed" when he observed the idolatry of sophisti­cated Athens. This zeal for the truth of God led him into a fruitful apologetic encounter with the thinkers there who had gathered to debate new ideas (see Acts 17). It should for us as well. Just as God "so loved the world" that He sent Jesus to set us right with Himself (John 3:16). Jesus' disciples should so love the world that they endeav­or to reach the lost by presenting the gospel and answering objections to the Christian faith (John l7:l8).

 

2. Irrationalism. For some Christians, faith means believing despite the absence of evidence and argument. Worse yet, for some faith means belief despite actual evi­dence to the contrary. The more irrational our beliefs, the better — indeed, the more "spiritual" they are. Although Paul teaches that God makes foolish ''the wisdom of this world" because it is false wisdom (1 Cor. 1-2), God's revelation is not irrational. Nor must belief in it be irrationally held. God does not require us to suspend our crit­ical faculties in order to believe what He has made known. Through Isaiah, God declares to Israel, ''Come now let us reason together" (Isa. l:l8). Jesus commands us to love God with all of our minds (Matt. 22:37).

 

When Christians opt for irrationalism, they become just another "religious option'' and are classified along with Heaven's Gate, the flat Earth Society, and other intellectually impaired groups. In the wake of the mass suicide in the Heaven's Gate cult, several major magazines such as Esquire, Newsweek, and US News and World Report claimed that the faith of those who ended their lives in accordance with Marshall Applewhite's science fiction religion was no stranger than that of Christians, who believe ridiculous things as well. Sadly the attitude of some Christians lends support to such accusations.

3. Ignorance. Many Christians are not aware of the tremendous intellectual resources available to the them "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'' (Jude 3). This is largely because many major churches and parachurch organizations virtually ignore apologetics. One major campus ministry with a fine history and otherwise splendid program offers no materials to help students deal with the unbelief emanating from secular profes­sors. Few evangelical sermons address the evidence for the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the supremacy of Christ, the justice of hell, or the logical problems with non-Christian worldviews. Christian best sellers, with rare exceptions, indulge in groundless apocalyptic speculations, exalt Christian celebrities (whose characters often do not fit their notoriety), and revel in how-to methods. You can tell much about a movement by what it reads — and by what it does not read.

 

4. Cowardice. In our pluralistic culture, a "live and let live" attitude is the norm. A capitulation to social pressure haunts evangelicalism and drains its convictions. Too many evangelicals are more concerned about being "nice" and "toler­ant'' than being biblical or faithful to the exclusive gospel found in their Bibles. Not enough evangelicals are willing to present and defend their faith in challenging situa­tions, whether at school, at work, or in other public settings. There is a strong temptation to privatize faith — to insulate and isolate it from public life entirely. Yes, we are Christians (in our hearts), but we shy away from engaging anyone with what we believe and why we believe it. This is nothing less than cowardice and a betrayal of what we say we believe.

 

Consider Paul's inspired request for prayer and his admonition to us:

 

Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone (Col. 4:2-6).

 

We may experience rejection, but Jesus encouraged those who are persecuted for His name's sake: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:11-l2). The apostle Peter echoed his Master: "If you are insult­ed because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you" (1 Pet. 4:14).

 

On the other hand, not all witnessing meets with rejection. When the Holy Spirit blesses our efforts, people will respond with interest and even with saving faith (Rom. 1:16). We must never forget that Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, and that He has commissioned us to declare His gospel (Matt. 28:18-20).

 

5. Arrogance and intellectual vanity. At the other end of the spectrum of error lies the arrogance of the know-it-all apologist, who is more interested in displaying his or her arsenal of arguments than in defending the truth in a godly manner. The besetting sin of apologetics is intellectual pride, and it must be avoided at all costs. The truth we defend is a gift of grace, not of our intellec­tual achievement. We develop our apolo­getic skills to sanctify ourselves in the truth, to win souls for Christ, and to glorify God. We must speak "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Truth without love is arrogance: love without truth is sentimentality.

 

Arrogance also occurs when some apologists accuse other believers of heresy without sufficient evidence, Paul told the early church leaders to expect heresy in their midst and to be on their guard against it (Acts 20:28-31). We should do the same. But we must be vigilant not to slander fel­low Christians or to assume the worst about them. I know of this error firsthand, having myself been accused of being New Age when a critic horribly misread a por­tion of one of my anti-New Age books. Let's not waste our apologetic energies unjustly attacking other believers, when real heretics and aberrant teachers cry out for refutation and correction.

 

6. Superficial techniques or schlock apologetics. Some who get excited about apologetics may become content with superficial answers to difficult intellectual questions. Our culture revels in rapid responses to almost everything, and tech­nique is king. Some Christians memorize pat answers to apologetic questions — such as the problem of evil or the creation/evolution controversy — which they dispense without a proper engagement of the issues and without a deep concern for the soul that raises the question. I once saw a little book called something like The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. Yes, macroevolution is false, and good arguments have been raised against it from both nature and Scripture. But the matter is not as simplistic as the title of that book makes it sound. Apologetics must include intellectual integrity.

 

Francis Schaeffer's apologetic motto was that we must give "honest answers to honest questions." First, we must really hear the question being asked or the objection being raised. We must get inside the minds of those who are giving reasons for not following Christ. Each person is different, no matter how common some skeptical objections may be. Don't reduce people to clichés.

 

Second, respond to what you hear. Don't answer a question that was not asked. Such a superficial approach will not impress the thoughtful unbeliever. If you cannot come up with a sound answer to the objection at the time, don't try to hide your ignorance or inability. Honestly admitting your limitations is better than giving a shoddy answer. Tell the person that he or she has a good point and you need to think more about it. Christianity is absolutely true, but this doesn't imply that any one Christian can handle absolutely every objection raised against it. We should avoid easy apologetic techniques and instead develop intellectual resources and cultivate real dialogue with unbelievers.

 

Walter Martin rightly said that the evangelical church is a sleeping giant. And he endeavored mightily to awaken it to its God-given potential to present the gospel and defend it against skeptical and  objections. With such a legacy in mind, may we rekindle that vision and find the passion and wisdom to put it into effect through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

To view the PDF of this article, click here.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Trust based on good reasons

 clipped from ls.egen.net

Faith and Evidence

"That's not faith."

There is an episode of the TV series Bones, in which the main character is buried alive with a friend and they are running out of air.  She is not panicking because she is sure her partner Booth will rescue them.  Her friend says, "You sure have a lot of faith in him."  Her reply betrays a common assumption about the nature of faith:  "Faith is an irrational belief in something that's logically impossible," she says.  "Over time, I have seen what Booth can do.  That's not faith."(1)

These comments reflect how many people view faith: it is an irrational leap in the dark.  It is about accepting propositions without evidence or even against the available evidence.  However, in the Christian sense, faith is not opposed to reason or evidence.  It is simply not reducible to either one.  In the book of 1 John, we read:  "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.  The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.  We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:1-3, emphasis mine). 

John is clearly appealing to evidence and reason to try to persuade people that the story he tells is true.  If it is true, then it would make sense for one to have faith in the Jesus of whom he speaks, just as it made sense for Bones to have faith in her partner since she had seen the evidence of his abilities.  But only if it is true.  John is obviously not asking people to believe against the evidence or even in the absence of evidence, but on the basis of a certain type of evidence—in this case, the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

Evidence can serve to instill belief or confirm belief, but it has its limits.  We all interpret evidence in the light of our experience and the beliefs we already hold.  Just as John offered one type of evidence, others would offer their own evidences that Jesus was not who the apostles claimed he was.  Thus, it is not strictly the evidence that determines who puts their faith in Jesus and who does not because faith is about more than believing an idea.  It is about commitment, a willingness to stake your life on the truth of something or the reliability of someone.

Furthermore, those who accuse faith of lacking in evidence often fail to notice that every belief system, whether it includes the supernatural or not, has foundational elements which are not proven.  Even a naturalist worldview that relies on science must accept many things without direct evidence.  All people have faith in their own worldviews, even naturalist scientists.  They have to believe that their way of determining what is true is the best way.  They have to believe others and trust the results of other scientists.  If you are a complete skeptic, you will never get anywhere in science.  You would have to do all the experiments yourself and even then, you cannot prove 100 percent that you are not mistaken.  You have to trust that your findings will hold true in the future, that the laws that operate now will not change tomorrow.  You have to trust that your mind and thoughts in some way correspond to the way the world actually is.

So, faith has evidence.  But all evidence has faith too.

Whether our faith is rational or irrational depends on a number of factors: how much and what types of evidence supports it, whether it has stood up to honest scrutiny and criticism, and how much explanatory power it has to make sense of our experience.  Christian faith passes each of these tests, but it will always go beyond any of these factors.  Like the faith of Bones in her partner, it is also about trusting a person.  Our faith determines the direction of our lives; it is where our loyalties lie; it believes that the one who made us also loves us and has spoken to us.   Over time, we have seen what God can do.  And that is faith.

Rachel Tulloch is a member of the speaking team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Toronto, Canada.

(1) Bones, series 2, episode 9, "Aliens in a Spaceship."

---

Copyright (c) 2009 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)

---

A Slice of Infinity is aimed at reaching into the culture with words of challenge, words of truth, and words of hope. If you know of others who would enjoy receiving A Slice of Infinity in their email box each day, tell them they can sign up on our website at www.rzim.org/Slice

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

"Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow."

 clipped from www.informz.net

National Derangement

The Political Illusion

May 6, 2010

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on your TV, there it was again—another mind-numbing story about politics.

You might have thought we'd catch a breath after President Obama's historic election. But no, we've been treated to daily doses of political news ever since—the "historic" election of Republican Senator Scott Brown, Tea Party events, and weekly political scandals. Now, we're looking ahead to November and the next "most historic election ever"—the one that will finally save America.

Are we all losing our minds, spending half our lives watching politics on the tube? I'm reminded of the words of Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Danish philosopher. Almost 100 years before the invention of television, Kierkegaard predicted what would happen if such a thing were invented. "Suppose," Kierkegaard wrote, "someone invented...a convenient little talking tube which could be heard over the whole land. I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged."

He was right: We are becoming deranged. We are succumbing to what French philosopher Jacques Ellul prophesied in the 1960s—the politicization of all aspects of life. Ellul foresaw the Information Age and the media's need for a steady flow of information to feed the populace. Media therefore would gravitate to covering centers of power. Politicians would be willing accomplices, because they'd gain fame and clout.

We've succumbed to what Ellul predicted—the idea that every problem has a political solution. This, he warned, leads to increasing dependence on the state and decreasing citizen control of government.

The result: The structure of government becomes so unwieldy that it can hardly function. For example, we've spent billions fighting terrorism—but we couldn't stop "the underwear bomber" from boarding a U.S.-bound plane, even though his name was on a terrorist watch list.

Ellul also foresaw that when government becomes all-intrusive, the intermediate structures that keep societies vibrant—families, churches, and voluntary associations—collapse and tyranny follows.

What's the answer? First, we better recognize that politics is not the be-all and end-all. Politics is merely the expression of culture. Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow.

This happened when God's people were awakened in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. England then was in worse straits than we are today, with slavery, child labor, and rampant political corruption. But along came William Wilberforce, the Oxford movement, and the Salvation Army. What followed was a great, century-long revival of Christian faith. England was not only saved in the Wesley revivals, it was stronger than ever.

So we as 21st-century Christians must do the same thing. And there is no time to lose. If, as I believe, the political illusion has America by the throat, there are only two likely outcomes—revolution, which is what the Tea Party people suggest (albeit peacefully), or tyranny.

God has acted again and again through His people to change history's course. But for that to happen, the Church had better sober up, summon its spiritual resources, expose the political illusion, and begin to defend and live the Christian faith in our culture.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Nurses disciplined for refusing to asssist in abortion

 clipped from www.licatholic.org

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

---

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

---

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

EAST MEADOW — Eight nurses who refused to participate in an abortion at Nassau University Medical Center here March 31 are resisting disciplinary action levied on them by hospital officials.

"This is a horrendous situation," said one of the labor/delivery nurses disciplined who asked that her name not be used. She and the others, she said, had signed paperwork at the time they began working there stipulating that they would not be required to assist in abortions but have often faced pressure to do so.

Some of the nurses involved have lost vacation time and others have their cases still pending, union officials report.

"The decision against these nurses by the hospital goes against protocol, goes against procedure, and goes against the law," said Jerry Laricchiuta, president of the Civil Service Employees' Association (CSEA) Nassau Local 830. The union is filing a grievance and is "considering litigation."

"This was not an emergency situation and at no time was the patient endangered," said Ryan Mulholland, communications director for the CSEA local.

The hospital's administrator, Arthur A. Gianelli, president and CEO of NuHealth System, declined to comment, citing "confidentiality requirements."

Joining the union in speaking up for the nurses are the Long Island Coalition for Life and Feminists Choosing Life of New York State.

On March 30, the patient, who was about 15 weeks pregnant, came to the hospital for surgery to prevent a miscarriage, Mulholland said. She had come to the hospital before because of complications. After preparation for surgery began, further complications ensued. The next day, she decided to have an abortion rather than undergo the surgery.

"Several of us had put in letters years ago stipulating that we do not participate in abortions," the labor/delivery nurse noted. "There are many reasons for that, other than our religious beliefs, and we represent many different religious backgrounds. Most of the doctors don't perform abortions either."

So the attending physician asked them for assistance in contacting a nurse who would be willing to assist with an abortion, she said. Because the patient was stable and in no danger and was being monitored for vital signs, the physician decided to wait until later in the afternoon for that nurse to arrive.

Meanwhile, hospital personnel asked the refusing nurses to sign a form for employees who refuse to perform or assist in procedures contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs, Mulholland said. One of the nurses contacted the union representative, who came to the maternity ward to assess the situation.

"They were asked to sign it on the spot and it was three or four pages long," said Laricchiuta, local president. Even though it was dated December 2009, he said, neither employees nor union officials were familiar with the form. Hospital procedure requires that employees be informed about any new policies before being asked to comply with them.

The procedure began when the nurse willing to assist in abortion came on duty. The baby died before the procedure was completed, Mulholland said, with no ill effect to the woman.

On April 2, all the nurses who resisted assisting in the abortion were verbally reprimanded, Mulholland said.

In addition, three lost vacation time and the other five also face further disciplinary action.

They were cited for alleged insubordination, failing to provide patient care and endangering patient safety, refusal to sign the form, refusing to accept transfer of a patient from another unit, and conducting union business in a patient care area. No specific reference to abortion was made.

"In addition to what the union is doing," the labor and delivery nurse noted, "some of the nurses are considering filing legal action," and also filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Celeste Broyles, treasurer for the Long Island Coalition for Life, said that the coalition supports the nurses and their union. "Health care workers should not be coerced or pressured into assisting in or performing abortions.

"We appreciate that there are health care workers who recognize that human life begins in the womb," Broyles said. "It is unfortunate that the hospital would put health care workers in that situation."

Florence Scarinci, Long Island representative for Feminists for Choosing Life of New York State, said "it is sad that 'pro-choice' always seems to mean the choice to have an abortion, rather than the choice not to participate in abortion."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

 clipped from www.americanthinker.com

March 25, 2010

---

Secularism's Ongoing Debt to Christianity

---

By John D. Steinrucken

Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life's riddles than does faith alone. However, it is rational to conclude that religious faith has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition. To the extent that the West loses its religious faith in favor of non-judgmental secularism, then to the same extent, it loses that which holds all else together.

Succinctly put: Western civilization's survival, including the survival of open secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Arguably the two most defining and influential Christian concepts are summarized in two verses of the New Testament. Those verses are Romans 14:10 and John 8:32.

Romans 14:10, says: "Remember, each of us must stand alone before the judgment seat of God." That verse explicitly recognizes not only each man's uniqueness, but, of necessity, implies that man has free will -- that individual acts do result in consequences, and that those acts will be judged against objective standards. It is but a step from the habit of accepting individual accountability before God to thinking of individual accountability in secular things. It thus follows that personal and political freedom is premised upon the Christian concept of the unique individual exercising accountable free will.

John 8:32 says: "And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Whatever the theological meanings that have been imputed to that verse, its implicit secular meaning is that the search for truth is in and of itself praiseworthy.

Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?

An orderly society is dependent on a generally accepted morality. There can be no such morality without religion. Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?

Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist! The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics. They can cite no overriding authority other than that of fashion. For the great majority in the West, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large -- a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.            

A few years ago, I saw on television the interview of a reforming prostitute and drug addict. When asked why she had chosen to reform, her simple answer was, "I don't want to go to Hell." I am sure that she had previously received hours of counseling from secular social workers, all without discernible effect. What did it for her was the simplicity of a belief in Heaven and Hell, and with knowing that one day, she would stand alone before her God to be judged.

For the majority of a culture's population, religious tradition is inextricably woven into their self-awareness. It gives them their identity. It is why those of religious faith are more socially stable and experience less difficulty in forming and maintaining binding attachments than do we secularists.

Most men do have a need for God. This, I think, is proven by the desperation with which so many of those who have forsaken the God of their fathers (it has been fashionable to do so) are now reaching for meaning in eastern exotica, new-age mumbo-jumbo, and other attempts to fill the spiritual hole.

Or they surrender themselves to secular ideologies or do-good causes, especially those in which they can mass with others in solidarity, shouting in unison mindless, ritualistic simplicities and waving placards of hackneyed and inane slogans.

Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion. From the time of the philosophes with their certainties in 1789, the rationally thought-through utopias of those who think themselves the elite of the world, when actually put to the test, have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings. But they, the clever ones, never look back. In their conceit, they delude themselves that next time they are sure to get it right. They create justifications for their fantasies by rewriting the histories.

We secularists should recognize that we owe much to the religionists, that we are not threatened by them, that we should grant to them their world. Why should we be exercised over a Christmas Crèche in front of the county court house? It is appropriately symbolic of Christianity's benign but essential role as guarantor of our political and legal systems -- that is, of a moral force independent of and transcendent to the political. And what harm will come to a child who hears prayer in the schoolroom? I daresay harm is far more likely to come in those places where prayer is not heard.

The fact is, we secularists gain much from living in a world in which excesses are held in check by religion. Religion gives society a secure and orderly environment within which we secularists can safely play out our creativities. Free and creative secularism seems to me to function best when within the stable milieu provided by Christianity.         

To the extent that Western elites distance themselves from their Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in favor of secular constructs, and as they give deference to a multicultural acceptance that all beliefs are of equal validity, they lose their will to defend against a determined attack from another culture, such as from militant Islam. For having destroyed the ancient faith of their people, they will have found themselves with nothing to defend. For the culture above which they had fancied themselves to have risen, the culture which had given them their material sustenance, will by then have become but a hollow shell.

An elite must, by definition, have a much larger base upon which to stand. For Western civilization, that base has over the centuries been the great mass of commoners who have looked to Christianity for their moral guidance and for strength to weather adversity. The elitists delude themselves if they think the common people will look to them for guidance once their religious beliefs have been eroded away.

The greatest crime of the elitists -- if they have their way -- will be their failure to use their gifts of intellect to lead and to preserve. Their sin will be the abandonment of that ninety percent of the population which had provided them with the secure societal and material wherewithal for practicing their conceits and dilettantes.

If the elitists of our Western civilization want to survive, then it is incumbent upon them to see to the preservation of the hoary, time-honored faith of the great majority of the people. This means that our elitists should see that their most valued vested interest is the preservation within our culture of Christianity and Judaism. It is not critical that they themselves believe, only that they should publicly hold in high esteem the institutions of Christianity and Judaism, and to respect those who do believe and to encourage and to give leeway to those who, in truth, will be foremost in the trenches defending us against those who would have us all bow down to a different and unaccommodating faith.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Manners matter.

 clipped from www.informz.net

Etiquette Arising
Combating the Coarsening of Culture

March 4, 2010

Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at a Phoenix high school, was tired seeing the boys in his class subject the girls to vulgar words and behavior. The behavior was disrespectful, and disrupting to his classes. So Ivanyi decided to give the boys an example in chivalry. When a girl got up to go to the restroom, Ivanyi stood as a sign of respect. When she came back to class, Ivanyi held the door for her.

As he told AOL News writer David Knowles, "She had this funny look on her face, and the other kids giggled a little." But it wasn't long before Ivanyi was teaching the boys to do things like pull out the girls' chairs when they sat down. Now, he says, "Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it."

This now-routine show of respect has led to a difference in the way the boys behave around the girls. Being taught to show respect for them leads them to feel more respectful toward them.

It doesn't please the feminists, of course. One recently told me that she'd kick me if I held a door open for her. But that's ok—they need to learn as well.

Ivanyi is not the only one who understands the link between etiquette, attitudes, and behavior. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, journalist Meghan Cox Gurdon notes that while proms retain old traditions like corsages and chaperones, student behavior is often vulgar. Gurdon quotes etiquette expert Emily Post, who wrote in the 1920s that, at public dances, couples were expected to demonstrate modesty and decorum because they were in public.

And Mrs. Post had no illusions about how teenagers would behave if chaperones were absent: Young men would try to paw their dates, or worse, she wrote. Today, it's not unusual for girls to plan to lose their virginity on prom night.

Modern girls get no help from Peggy Post, a descendent of Emily Post. In her new book, Prom and Party Etiquette, Post says that when it comes to sex on prom night, she "made a conscience decision not to try to lecture teens or tell them what to do."

This is sheer insanity. Eve Grimaldi, dean of students at a girls' high school in Washington, D.C., understands that you cannot deal with moral issues without moral instruction. Moral neutrality is not neutral in a fallen world. Refusing to take a stand just allows kids to pander to their worst instincts.

This is why, on prom night, Grimaldi brings an armload of sweatshirts with her. Girls wearing immodest gowns are forced to put one on. Grimaldi also keeps a sharp eye on the way dancers behave. Good for her.

In an article in Christianity Today, I once quoted the great historian Arnold Toynbee. He contended that one clear sign of a civilization's decline is when the elites—people he describes as the "dominant minority"—begin mimicking the vulgarity and promiscuity exhibited by society's bottom-dwellers. The result: The entire culture is vulgarized.

Christians need to resist the slide into vulgarity by creating strong countercultural influences. We can start by elevating our own standards in speech and dress, if we need to.

And we should applaud teachers who are teaching good manners and decorous behavior to the young—manners and behavior that teach kids to view one another and treat one another with the respect they deserve.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.