Think About It

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Is the End Near for Osama bin Laden?

An interesting shift is taking place in Islam. Yesterday, Osama bin Laden broadcast another proclamation from his cave, but instead of the usual Death to America speech, , bin Laden denounced Arab leaders for sacrificing the Palestinians.  Osama bin Laden is now urging Muslim militants to liberate the Gaza by going to war with Arab regimes that have aligned themselves with Israel.  These regimes include Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.   He devoted much of his speech to Egypt, who he urged to use force to break the blockade around the Gaza.  Bin Laden called Arab leaders “agents of the crusaders” and “wolves.”

It is interesting to note that bin Laden is now urging Muslims to ignore the Islamic prohibition against going to war with other Muslims.  Bin Laden gets around this prohibition by claiming the leaders of Muslim countries who support Israel are not governing according to Islamic law.

“Those (Arab) kings and leaders sacrificed Palestine and Al-Aqsa to keep their crowns, but we will not be relieved of this responsibility,” said bin Laden.

Bin Laden singled out the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, for criticism.  He said Nasrallah has claimed he had enough money and men to fight Israel, but he has not fought to liberate Palestine.  Bin Laden was also critical of Iran, accusing it of trying to dominate the Middle-East.

Israel and Egypt have closed their borders with Gaza since Hamas seized control of the Palestinian territory in June last year. The closure brought about food and fuel shortages in the already impoverished strip where 1.4 million Palestinians live.

Questions:

What does all this mean?

Will this further fractionalize the militant Islamists?

Will those in militant Islam attack the heads of states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Will this cause some in Islam to mark Osama bin Laden for death or capture?

Religion and Science - Are They Compatible?

A recent poll taken by the publisher of Skeptic magazine turned up some surprising results about how scientists view God.  The New Age people would have us believe all scientists are either atheists or agnostics.  Skeptic magazine sent a number of questionnaires to scientists with the question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"  A surprising 40% of those surveyed indicated that science has not made God obsolete, which probably come as big news to scientists, but it is a big surprise to those who rely on the mainstream views of science.

One scientist said, “God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."

I too was somewhat surprised by this poll, because I had bought into the stereotype that all scientists are atheists, or agnostics at best.  Why does this stereotype exist?

Questions:

Have we been brainwashed by the mainstream media to believe religion is for the old, the dumb, or the gullible?

Is religion and science incompatible?

Does this cast a different light on school boards who are prohibiting “Intelligent Design” from being taught in the schools?

Obama's Journey Towards Appeasement

Wow, President Bush hit a nerve when he spoke to Israel’s Knesset.   Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party went ballistic.  So, what did Bush say that upset our liberal friends?  Bush spoke to Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and as would have been expected, he pledged U.S. support for Israel and placed Iran on notice.  I am quoting much of President Bush’s speech, because it was a good speech, a speech that Churchill would have been proud to make.   "America is with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists' sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush’s speech could have been given by a European leader before one of the crusades.  “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle… This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves.

President Bush goes on to make it quite clear that the U.S. and Israel are now together in the struggle against radical Islam.  “And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties," said Bush.

“Then Bush turned his attention to the naïve among us.  “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.  Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“President Bush then goes on to utter those lines that caused a hysterical breakdown within the Democratic leadership.  “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you,” said Bush.

“It is questionable whether Obama really took that much offense to President Bush’s comments or he simply saw this as a good opportunity to stir a national debate about the merits of face-to-face discussions with our adversaries in the Middle-East.  If that was Obama’s intent, then he has succeeded.  There are pros and cons to face-to-face discussions – and we will hear them all in the next few months.”

Questions: 

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Should our President meet with the President of Iran?

Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies.  He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples.  Did it work then and will it work now?

The Origins of the New Morality

"Ernie" has some thoughts on today's morality.

"I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut (though I am convinced a devious group is constantly at work keeping the Cubs out of a world series), so I'm totally confused about the downward plunge of American culture and values.  Is there a conspiracy afoot to destroy us from within, or is this just the normal outcome of a free society?  If it's a conspiracy, who's the architect and who's keeping it going?  Is it mush brained liberals?  Islamic terrorists?  Communists?  Rosie O'Donnell?  Reverend Wright?  Liberal media?  I don't know the answer, but I think we need to take whatever time is necessary to study this deterioration and get it reversed.  It's truly destroying us.

Look at today's immorality and the country's seeming lack of concern about it.  Whether it's drugs, porn, homosexuality, greed, corruption, rampant promiscuity, filth driven entertainment, supporting a Muslim for president, or any of the other deadly sins, it's obvious that the "problem" is growing and shows no signs of lessening.  It's sadly becoming the norm.  Even TV commercials are so full of sexual content they should be rated X.  I went into the bank the other day and the 2 young female tellers were wearing blouses that were barely keeping their un-bra'd boobs from falling out on the counter.  That kind of attire may be fine for hookers walking Sunset Boulevard, but not in a bank.  You have to ask why they think dressing that way is acceptable, and why bank managers allow it.  I guess when they see their Hollywood idols dressing that way and changing sex partners on a weekly basis, it's got to be OK.  Right?

In all this immorality I have to ask, "what is the purpose of it all?"  Why is it so important to those in influential industries to force this indecency upon us?  Is it just to see how far they can push the envelope, or is it part of a conspiratorial left wing agenda?  Why wouldn't it be more appropriate to force higher moral values on us?  Filth makes more money?  Probably as good an explanation as any.

And lastly, how do we stop it and start moving back to the moral values and Christian principles that formed this once magnificent country?  You can't look at the GOP for help.  They've not shown one inkling of willingness to buck the liberal agenda.  After all, what's more important?  Standing up for decency or getting reelected?  They've almost totally abandoned the conservative base of the party.  Think about it.  They had 8 years to prepare potential candidates for the presidential race and what did we get?   A 70+ year old democrat in Republican clothing named John McCain.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.  I'd like to hear yours.  Thanks.

Ernie"

Obama Cuts Reverend Wright Loose

Coming off a loss in Pennsylvania and with the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries just a week away, Barack Obama took a machete to his ties with Reverend Wright.  Speaking in North Carolina, Obama mustered up his best imitation of moral outrage and said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Obama’s denunciation came the day after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave two high profile speeches laced with Farrakhan-like rhetoric.  Wright also made a statement that hinted at an off-the-record conversation between Wright and Obama.  Wright had stated, "If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.  Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Obama, faced with another seven months of Wright’s bombastic racial remarks, undoubtedly decided it was time to publicly repudiate Wright before Wright could scuttle Obama’s campaign.  "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

“I have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," said Obama. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.  Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed.  I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama has clearly cut his ties to Wright, the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and has been his pastor for 20 years. Obama titled his second book, "The Audacity of Hope,"  from a Wright sermon.

I suspect Obama may have waited too long before coming out with his denunciation of Wright.  First, Wright’s past statements are forever tied to Obama.  Second, Obama’s denunciation of Wright will not insulate him from statements made by Wright between now and November.

Reverend Wright wasn’t the only one who was left to twist in the wind; loopy commentators from CNN and other left-wing media outlets quickly rushed in to spin Wright comments before the NAACP as being some sort of stellar civil rights speech.  Oops!

In addition to your comments, the questions are:

Will Reverend Wright continue his high profile public appearances between now and November?
Will the media cover these speeches?
How will Wright react to Obama’s denunciation?
Will Obama’s denunciation hurt him with African-American voters?
How much will this help Obama with white voters?

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright on African-American Education

Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave his much anticipated speech to the NAACP last night.   Fox carried it in its entirety, so I thought I would watch it.  I thought Wright, in an effort to calm the political waters, would make a conciliatory speech that would portray him as a thoughtful moderate.  Instead, what I saw was a fiery demagogue masquerading as a pastor.  The most disturbing part of his message had to do with the education of African-American children.  He apparently now has a Ph.D. in Psychology in addition to his theological education, or one might think that from watching his speech.  He went into a lengthy diatribe about how black children in the U.S. and in Africa use their right brains to learn while whites use their left brains.  The Reverend Wright explained this is why white teachers find black children sitting and standing on their desks and not paying attention in class.  This is code for, “It’s the white teacher’s fault; just keep doing what you’re doing.”   

Wright next chastised those who speak out against how young African-Americans speak.   (That would be whites and Bill Cosby.)  The Revered Wright went into a lengthy and faulty comparison of how New Englander’s pronounce their words and how young African-American mispronounce their words.  He forgot to mention that the New England accent is just that, an accent.  Moreover; Wright forgot to mention it is the grammar and syntax of young African-Americans that is being criticized, not just their mispronunciation of words.  In other words, “ebonics is just fine, just keep doing what you’re doing.”

There will undoubtedly be those in the media and elsewhere who will praise Wright’s speech as being one of those great speeches on race in America.  First, much of his speech was spent in justifying the poor performance of African-American children in school.  Not once did he suggest that their parents had any part to play in their children’s education.  Second, Wright engaged in his own subtle racism by mocking whites for not being more understanding of the African-American culture.

The Revered Wright has tapped into that surefire formula for creating a following:  Blame all of the African-American’s problems on the white man, while not taking any responsibility for your own actions.  If anyone criticizes him, they are a racist.   

The questions are:
Will the majority of the African-American population ever see these Revered Wrights in their true light?
How can our educational system be modified to assure that young African-Americans will get a good education?
Will the Obama campaign be able to keep the Revered Wright under wraps until November?

When the Law and Religion Clash

We’ve been watching the events that are unfolding in San Angelo, Texas.  More than 400 children of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) have been forcibly removed from their home and placed into state custody.  The whole affair bears an eerie similarity to what happened in Waco, absent the fiery aftermath.

I don’t think most people approve of the idea of young teen age girls being forced to mary older men or, for that matter, anyone else.  The law certainly agrees with this position.  And, there will be those who take comfort in pointing their fingers at those “weirdoes” who belong to a “religious cult.” 

Several days and 400 lawyers later, the children remain in state custody while DNA tests are being run.  Meanwhile, grieving mothers mill around the religious compound waiting for some shred of news about their children.  State District Judge Barbara Walther has the unenviable job of unraveling this Gordian Knot. 

The raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch was prompted by a call made to a family violence shelter, supposedly by a 16-year-old girl who said her 50-year-old husband beat and raped her. It turns out that call was a bogus call.

The core argument of the state of Texas is it should be allowed to keep the children because the sect's teachings encourages girls younger than 18 to enter spiritual marriages with older men and produce as many children as possible.  State attorneys argued that the culture of the sect put all the girls at risk as well as the children, because boys returned would potentially turn into future predators.

The core argument of the FLDS is that most of the girls were over 18 and were given a real choice.  According to their attorney and some testimony there have been many cases of girls saying, “No, this is not a good match for me.”  The girls continued to remain in good standing.

A psychiatrist testified that CPS did not find the sect members living in squalor or substandard conditions; instead, they encountered for the most part happy well adjusted children living in clean and orderly conditions.

The questions are:

Should the children be taken from the parents and placed into the hands of Texas foster care, which has one of the worst ratings in the country?   

Should the children of those who married after the age of 18 be summarily returned to them? 

What should become of those children whose mothers were 16 or 17 when they had their children?

How far can the state intrude into a family’s religious beliefs?

Does this cross the constitutional line of freedom of worship?

Circling the Wagons Around Rev. Wright

Rev. John Thomas, the President of the United Church of Christ has come out four square in support of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Rev. Thomas said he knows Rev. Wright and supports him.  Furthermore, he  sees nothing wrong with Rev. Wright’s statements.   It appears President Thomas is circling the wagons around Rev.  Wright.   

The  question of the day:  I wonder if the majority of the members of the United Church of Christ feel the same way? 

Will this Christian Nation Become Secular?

  It’s Easter and there probably is no story more befitting of Easter than a story the Daily Telegraph published on 3/19/08, titled “Mikhail Gorbachev Admits he is a Christian”.   The former President of the Soviet Union and his daughter Irina paid a visit to pray at the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi, where it was reported that Gorbachev spent a half hour on his knees.  The local Italian newspaper, La Stampa, hailed it as “spiritual perestroika”. 

  When asked, Gorbachev said, "St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ.  His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life.”  Gorbachev’s parents were Christians, and he was baptized as a child into the Russian Orthodox Church.  Many, including President Reagan,  suspected for years that Gorbachev was a closet Christian.  It now appears his visit to Pope John Paul II in 1989, may have been more than a perfunctory visit.  Gorbachev’s wife, Raisa, was raised by deeply religious parents, who were killed during WWII for having religious icons in their home.

  A friend pointed out the interesting wording in the title of the Telegraph article.  It is the use of the word admits, when it should have been acknowledges.  Admits usually connotes that someone has done something wrong.  This could be a poor choice of words or perhaps it was worded that way by a secular leaning reporter. 

  If current trends prevail, the U.S. will become a secular nation in another 50-100 years.  Church membership has declined 10% since 1960.  A full 25% of those polled have no church affiliation.  Regardless of one’s church affiliations, we look to Christian/Judeo teachings for our concept of morality.  This begs the question:  Can a secular nation, be a moral nation?  Will Christianity eventually disappear?