From the article:

“MORE than a third of Church of Scotland ministers do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, a central tenet of Christian faith. A Sunday Times survey of kirk ministers found that 37% believe the traditional story of Jesus�s birth, which forms part of the nativity, should not be taken literally.”

Sadly, the trend in many mainline Protestant denominations in America is similar. Apostasy continues to run rampant…

Intelligent Design Begins to Make Inroads in Public School System in Pennsylvania

It’s sad when, to even mention Intelligent Design in public school, it has to be put to a vote, then survive a legal challenge. Such is the case with our godless secular public school system in America today. No wonder people accept the demonic theory of evolution as fact, when no other theory of origins is allowed to be presented.

Lee’s mention of the government’s penchant for using the royal “we” in connection with our money, reminded me of Davey Crockett’s famous speech, Not Yours to Give. I can think of a few backsides I’d like to tattoo this onto, and I don’t even believe in tattooing.

The term “compassionate conservatism,” as used by the state, is oxymoronic Newspeak (hint to Darrell: now’s a good time to post your thoughts about Bush’s border patrol ). Christians who use that phrase ought to wash their mouths out with Bible soap—you can probably find some at the local Jesus junk store, with your favorite verse on it. When will our brethren and sistern learn that accomplishing fine goals with the wrong means is sinful and inevitably leads to God’s curse?

By the way, our family donated to the PCA’s Mission to the World, with my children taking up a special collection and giving generously. Dave Black recommended the Southern Baptist International Mission Board’s relief fund. Watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing when you are donating your money, so you don’t get fleeced.

Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, has an excellent essay posted on LewRockwell.com. Here is a brief excerpt:

“Our” Collective Goodness in the Tsunami Disaster

Stung by the suggestion that “we” (please note the quotation marks) are stingy because “we” (quotation marks again) were sending only $15 million to the tsunami victims, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell immediately upped the ante with another $20 million in U.S. government assistance. Powell also made it clear that this is just the beginning and that “we” will ultimately send billions of dollars to the victims. Extolling “our” generosity, Powell vowed, “We will do more.” …

… In the 20th century, “we” embraced a collectivized system in which “we” nationalized everyone’s income and then made the government “our” agent for “our” goodness, compassion, and caring. The system that “we” adopted functions like this:

“We” authorize the Congress that “we” elect to take any portion of “our” income it wants, as long as the percentage is set in a democratic (i.e., majority-vote) fashion. Once that portion or percentage is democratically set, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use force to collect the assigned take from everyone. The IRS then delivers the take to other government agencies, which then distribute the take to the poor and needy of the world. Voila! “We” are caring, compassionate, and good — well, as long as “our” government officials and agencies are caring, compassionate, and good. If they are “stingy,” then “we” are stingy.

Indeed, the forced redistribution of wealth is considered by many as evidence of our compassion. Unfortunately, there is nothing inherently Christian or moral about that. If anyone can use scripture to support the notion that compassion is defined as taking from one person to give to another, I’m all ears.

From “What in the World!” from BJU:

Many Presbyterian Church (USA) pastors preach what the apostle Paul called “another gospel.” PCUSA pastor Amy Miracle, for example, recently spoke at a conference put on by a group of liberal Presbyterians. In her talk, “Are You Saved?” Miracle details her dislike for conservative “salvation talk.”

“The truth is that the language of salvation has never made much sense to me,” she says. “‘Christ shed his blood for you.’ ‘Jesus died for my sins.’ I’ve never understood exactly how that worked.” Miracle concludes that “the language that has been associated with salvation is not helpful. ‘You need to be saved because you are bad – you are a sinner – you have done evil things and you are no good.’ I don’t know about you, but I don’t respond well to that language…The way I see it, salvation is not about being bad. It is about being lost, about feeling restless, about experiencing brokenness.” Miracle concludes by answering the question she poses in her sermon title: “Are you saved? The answer is always yes.”

I subscribe to an email newsletter called Daily Dose, from Dr. William Campbell Douglass, MD. Dr. Douglass is a curmudgeonly physician who is full of common sense, and he has plenty of opinions about the government messing around with medicine. Here’s his take on the forced vaccination of American troops, who are used as guinea pigs for questionable vaccines, at taxpayer expense:

Voluntary vaccination vindicated

If you’ve been a reader of mine for long at all, you know I’m not a fan of the vast majority of vaccinations – for children or adults. For the most part, I think they’re needless. And since they cause hundreds of deaths per year from adverse reactions, I believe the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits (if there are any). But as usual, I’m in the minority on this issue. The bulk of medicine champions injecting folks with a whole litany of the very diseases they hope to prevent�

Especially people who HAVE NO CHOICE: Soldiers.

A year and a half ago (Daily Dose, 6/17/2003), I sounded the alarm about how the U.S. military is forcing our troops to submit to all manner of vaccinations – often against their will – in the name of readiness for warfare. To recap, I told you about how our brave servicemen and women endure endless injections designed to “protect” them against bio-toxins like smallpox, anthrax, ricin and others, plus a potent dose of “pre-treatment” against chemical warfare agents.

If it doesn’t kill them, that is. Several have died, and others have been severely sickened by the practice – and these are just the cases that made the news. As it turns out, some of these chemicals haven’t been tested on humans yet. That’s right: Our soldiers have become guinea pigs in massive drug studies!

Those who refuse the shots face court martial and prison time, or at the very least, a dishonorable booting from the armed forces. Hundreds, in fact, have refused injections, some having been discharged in punishment, according to a recent Reuters health article. How is this possible? A legal loophole exempts soldiers in times of war from the “informed consent” laws that civilians like you and I are protected by.

But in a rare and encouraging decision handed down by our judiciary, a federal judge has set aside a ruling by the Food and Drug Administration that declared the anthrax vaccine currently being pumped into our troops as “safe.” Common side effects of the over one million vaccinations so far injected in our soldiers have included joint pain, extreme fatigue, and memory loss.

What’s this mean? It means that the government, at least for now, can’t force the vaccine onto non-consenting troops without a special order from the President. The ruling came in the wake of a lawsuit filed by several soldiers and civilians challenging the Department of Defense’s vaccination policy.

Not a clean win, true, but a step in the right direction.

What really troubles me about all of this is that the military may not be forcing the vaccination of our troops simply for their own safety. It might be a far more insidious reason causing our brave soldiers to be “shot” by our own government.

As I’ve shown you time and again, drugs are big business – among the most profitable enterprises on planet Earth. But within the patent medicine world, there’s a redheaded
stepchild that just doesn’t usually make much money: Vaccines.

Why? For one, many vaccines (like this year’s much-ballyhooed flu vaccine) have to go through costly reformulation every single year to keep pace with the latest strains of killer bugs. Secondly, vaccines have to be offered for reasonable prices so that everyone can afford them � the bad press a drug company would face for jacking up vaccine prices would cost them far more than the extra profit they’d make on the vaccines themselves.

So it’s kind of a catch-22 for the drug makers. They have to develop vaccines to stay competitive, but unless they corner the market on a blockbuster vaccine for some new illness, it’s hard for them to make much money on this class of medications. Unless they’re selling millions of doses to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Yes, wartime has become just the shot in the arm the vaccine business needed. All of a sudden, several million preventive doses are needed for a half-dozen or more different bio-toxins. Think the drug makers aren’t licking their chops at that prospect? No wonder the FDA is rushing to declare even virtually untested vaccines as “safe” � it means billions of dollars in profits for the drug business. This, in turn, means untold millions in tax revenue pouring into the government’s coffers.

True, the tax dollars these drugs cost far outweigh the tax revenue generated, but since when has the government cared about being fiscally responsible with your cash? All they care about is being able to say, “Look, the economy’s growing! Just look at how the drug business is booming! We’ve created thousands of jobs in drug plants! Vote for us!”

Plus, the drug companies reap the benefits of the biggest publicly funded drug studies ever conducted � using our troops as the guinea pigs! Look, I’m not claiming that these are the only reasons our troops get vaccinated, but logic dictates that they have to be a factor in the equation. That scares me a little.

Your “vaccine” against bureaucratic bamboozlement,

William Campbell Douglass II, MD

Boy in a Santa suit asked to quit dance

HAMPTON – A parent of a Hampton Academy Junior High School student says the principal of the school told his son to leave the school�s holiday dance on Friday night because the boy was dressed in a Santa Claus costume, which was politically incorrect.

Michael Lafond said his son, Bryan, went to the dance dressed as Santa because it was a holiday party.

Principal Fred Muscara said he told the boy he couldn�t get into the dance because he was wearing the costume.

“It was a holiday party,” said Muscara. “It was not a Christmas party. There is a separation of church and state. We have a lot of students that go to Hampton Academy Junior High that have different religions. We have to be sensitive to that.”

“The last time I checked, Christmas was the celebration of the birth of Christ and not Santa Claus,” said Leslie Lafond, Bryan�s mother.