Veritas Rex

Let's keep these confidential

I know that some people in the media are really looking forward to hearing these:

Gennifer Flowers is putting the tapes of her recorded conversations with Bill Clinton during their 12-year affair on the auction block, Vegas Confidential learned Monday.

Flowers, who came forward during Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign with details of the relationship, said she decided to part with the tapes after renewed interest surfaced. She was offered $5 million by a Japanese collector in the 1990s, she said.

Asked about the timing of her announcement coming out as Hillary Clinton continues to slide in her presidential bid, “I don’t need to hurt Hillary. She is doing a fine job of that herself, along with her idiot husband. Karma is an interesting thing. If these two don’t get elected, and they are a team, it will be karma coming back to visit them. It's about time."

When President Clinton denied the relationship during his presidential campaign, Flowers called a press conference played what she said were secretly recorded phone conversations.

This reminds me of the greatly detailed smear of Glenn Murphy by the Democrat Party recently.  It's one thing to cover the news.  It's another thing to publish police reports (including ones with the name of the victim).  We've already established that President Bill Clinton had a nasty habit of not remaining faithful to his spouse.  Do we have to hear the tapes too?  Where does our insatiable appetite for juicy sex scandals end?

Let's hope some remote foreign collector gets the tapes instead of some supermarket tabloid.

God Save Prince Harry...and all others like him

I've had the flu all week so I was looking for some goods news to brighten my day.  I came across this article on Prince Harry put out by the AP.  At first it doesn't seem like a positive article.  After all, the media spilled the beans that Harry was serving in Afghanastan, so it looks like he will have to come home.  However, this article gave me renewed faith in my generation and our British allies.  Here is an excerpt:

Harry was supposed to go to Iraq with the Blues and Royals regiment in May last year but the assignment was canceled because of security fears. Iraqi insurgents made threats on Internet chat rooms, saying he would not make it home alive.

Harry trained at Sandhurst military academy and joined the Blues and Royals as a cornet, the cavalry regiment's equivalent of a second lieutenant. After being held back from his Iraq assignment, the prince threatened to quit the army if he was not given the chance to see combat.

Harry said his older brother, William, who also graduated from Sandhurst and is training as a military pilot, is jealous of his deployment. As Britain's likely future king, Prince William is unlikely ever to see combat.

Helmand province is where most of the 7,800 British soldiers in Afghanistan are based. It has seen some of the country's fiercest combat in recent years, with NATO-led forces fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Harry's work in Afghanistan has involved calling in airstrikes on Taliban positions as well as going out on foot patrols. He spent part of his deployment at a base 500 yards from Taliban positions, the military said.

Since Harry's arrival, his battle group has been responsible for around 30 enemy deaths, a Ministry of Defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Video showed the prince in camouflage fatigues walking across arid and dusty terrain, calling in air support, firing a machine gun and patrolling the streets of Garmsir, the southernmost part of the province. He has since left Garmsir, and his current whereabouts are being kept secret.

It gives me a great deal of pride to see men in my generation have the courage to fight on the frontlines for freedom.  In many ways I envy them.  While others deride the war and demonize the soldiers and nations on the side of all that is still good in this world, these brave men fight the evil that our enemies would love to bring to our doorstep.  God bless our heroes who are protecting us overseas.  Not just the ones we all know, like Pince Harry, but the unknown heroes as well.  The father of four from Georgia.  The young soldier who will save the guy on his left or his right today.  Friends from my home town.  God bless and protect them all and give them victory. 

Atheism: The Same Old Thing

Vanity of vanities.   What is being said by our contemporary atheists has already been said 400 years ago.  There is nothing new under the sun.

By Dr. Benjamin Wiker (used by permission)

If you think the current wash of atheism is springing up from some deep well of originality, think again. It’s all been done before, and done a lot better (or perhaps we should say, it’s all been done before, and done a lot worse).

Let’s transport ourselves back to the latter part of the 1600s, and visit the Netherlands. At the close of that century, the celebrated skeptic Pierre Bayle (himself, often accused of being an atheist!), wrote an article on Benedict Spinoza in his famous Historical and Critical Dictionary. Spinoza, the “atheist…from Amsterdam,” had written a “pernicious and detestable book” containing all the “seeds of atheism,” seeds derived from the rotten fruit of his “monstrous” philosophical system.

Spinoza’s book (the Tractatus theologico-politicus) introduced readers to a new method of approaching Scripture, one that inaugurated the “modern” approach to biblical scholarship. Spinoza’s monstrous philosophy was pantheism, a system that collapsed God into nature, so that nature itself became the highest object of our devotion.

Lesson one. The contemporary debunking of Scripture we find in non-believers from scripture scholar Bart Ehrman to professional atheist Richard Dawkins is old hat. It is not very surprising that a method of approaching Scripture largely designed by an alleged atheist four centuries ago would yield conclusions cheerfully compatible with atheism now. Furthermore, the current rash of nature worship displacing God worship can be traced back to the same cause, Spinoza.

There are many who regard Spinoza as sincerely religious precisely because of his high-flown religious reveries (forgetting that, since he was a pantheist, his devotions were directed at a deified nature). One way to help us judge would be to glimpse the circle of Spinoza’s friends. Here we find men (much like our present day clique of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) dedicated to Radical Enlightenment.

To look at just one example from Spinoza’s circle, Johannes and Adriaen Koerbagh. Adriaen got into trouble with the Dutch authorities for living, unmarried, with a woman and fathering a child out of wedlock and Johannes for spreading atheism (denying the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the inspired unity of the Bible, miracles, the resurrection, the afterlife, and, significantly in regard to Spinoza’s influence, asserting the identity of God and nature).

In 1668 the brothers Koerbagh published A Garden of All Kinds of Loveliness without Sorrow, which amounted to a dictionary that denied the basic tenets of Christianity, and charged that Christian doctrines were merely political obfuscations used to control the masses.

The Radical Enlightenment became a kind of underground movement, bent on converting Europe to an entirely new way of thinking, one that was directly opposed to Christianity. One of the most famous publications that issued from this growing group was The Treatise of the Three Imposters, which first appeared in 1719. The treatise was a handy collection of anti-Christian tirades (much like Christopher Hitchens’ current The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever).

Who were the three imposters? Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Witness the downright nastiness, that would (perhaps) even make Richard Dawkins blush.

“Jesus Christ…gave currency to the opinion [that he was divine when] he thought it suited his designs. Considering how much Moses had made himself famous, although he had commanded but a people of ignoramuses, he [Jesus] undertook to build on this foundation [of Moses], & got himself followed by some imbeciles whom he persuaded that the Holy Spirit was his Father; & his Mother a Virgin: these good people, accustomed to indulge themselves in dreams & fancies, adopted his notions & believed all that he wanted,…As the number of fools is infinite, Jesus Christ found Subjects everywhere;…”

For the authors of The Treatise of the Three Imposters, all religion was a travesty perpetrated by imposters upon the ignorant masses. It is time to throw off the chains of superstition, and embrace reason!

Sound familiar? The Treatise circulated all over Europe, and became a kind of atheist underground bestseller, spreading unbelief to the like-minded. Just like Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Harris’ The End of Faith, Hitchens, God is Not Great, and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell.

There is very little difference between the ideas and aims of the underground Radical Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century, and the ideas and aims of our contemporary Four Horsemen of Atheism. There is a simple reason for this. It’s just the same old thing. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Me vs. the human race

It's all about me.  Today, I can give my eggs for cloning experiments in exchange for fertility treatments so I can make a human baby of my own.  Maybe someday I can trade my disabled five-year old for her healthy organs in exchange for a heart transplant to keep me alive.  Or, maybe I can have my aging father put to death so the cost of his would-be care could cover nursing services for my husband's upcoming hip replacement.  I'm sure there are more options that I'm not seeing yet, but it looks like the frontier of trading human beings has opened up the possibilities.

Desperation leads us to do dangerous things, and medical science gives us the arena to do them.  The age-old question is should we?  Are we really willing to trade our own human race so that human cloning can continue to be developed?  Think about where we would go from there...

From Citizenlink.org, the daily epage from Focus on the Family Action, 2/25/08:

British Women Trade Their Eggs for Discount on Fertility Treatments

Fifteen women from the United Kingdom have agreed to donate their eggs for human-cloning experiments in exchange for discounted fertility treatments.

The North-East England Stem Cell Institute is offering women in vitro fertilization treatments at a 50 percent discount if they agree to donate half of the eggs produced during the treatment.

Josephine Quintaville, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said the egg-sharing scheme takes advantage of vulnerable women who desperately want a baby.

"I feel extremely sorry for the women who have been inveigled into this deal,” she told the U.K.’s Northern Echo.

Christians who don't believe in absolute truth

One of the most alarming/depressing things I've read in recent times was this paragraph from this interview with Christian pollster George Barna.  Note:  Your understanding of this post will benefit from reading the entire interview.  However, for those who don't read it, basically Barna is talking about the results of an extensive poll of born again Christians.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs within the born again constituency. There are segments on both sides of the arguments related to immigration reform, responses to poverty, the Iraq war, and so forth. Much of this relates to the worldview of factions within the born again community. Some, especially younger born agains, tend to have a postmodern view of the world, which leads them to conclude that there are no absolute moral truths, that relationships and dialogue are of the ultimate importance, and that tolerance of diverse opinions and lifestyles is appropriate. (emphasis mine)

Now, I am not particularly concerned about Christians, like Jim Wallis and other progressive Christians, who disagree with me about the Iraq War or on global warming.  We need to have Christians in all areas of public policy and their positions on these issues don't threaten their personal relationship with Christ.

Barna, however, is talking about people who are "born again" (defined below), yet claim that there are no absolute moral truths.

The Barna Group is the only survey research organization I know of that does not rely upon self-report to be classified as “born again” or “evangelical.” We classify people as “born again” based on their answers to two questions about what they believe, rather than the label they choose for themselves. The questions are whether they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and if so, we ask what they think will happen to them after they die. We offer seven possibilities to choose from, one of which is that they believe they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

I struggle to see how this works for these people.  Jesus wasn't exactly a moral relativist.  In John 14:6 he says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the father except through me."  That's not morally neutral.  The ten commandments are not morally neutral either- there aren't caveats and exceptions.

How does one claim a relationship with Jesus Christ but simultaneously claim that there are no absolute moral truths?  It just doesn't make sense.

I've been a long time church-attender.  I've met Christians of all denominations, shapes and sizes.  Unfortunately, many of my brothers in Christ are easily impacted by the world around us.  They have bought into the subtle deceptions of our post-modern world view.  They are:

(1)  Christians that don't have any idea what they are talking about.  These Christians are intellectually bankrupt.  Read Mark Noll's book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, to learn more.  They call themselves born again, but they've never sat down to think about what that means other than trying to be "good people."  These folks have never developed a coherent Biblical world view, so it is usually determined by those that they surround themselves with.

(2)  Christians who have bought into the post-modern view that we can pick and choose what rules to be subject to.  In other words, I am a Christian so I am accountable to my beliefs about truth-telling.  However, if another person chooses to believe that telling lies is OK, they aren't similarly accountable.   Biblically, though, we must understand that Christians and non-Christians will eventually be held accountable to the same standard, even if we doubt it because some who sin also prosper.

These Christians have made "tolerance" king over truth. 

In order to avoid overstating my case, it should be pointed out that tolerance is Biblical (and largely a Christian development).  For example, Jesus ate with sinners and fellowshipped with those that were "unclean".  But he never pretended that their behavior wasn't wrong.  Despite bestowing the great privilege of dining with the son of God on him, He didn't tell Zacchaeus that his exploitation of the taxpayers was OK (Luke 19).  He saved the adulteress from a stoning, but he acknowledged her sin and told her to "sin no more" (John 8). 

Tolerance is a way to measure our love for other people, not an excuse for moral relativism.

This is the exact reason we chose to name our blog Veritas Rex (Latin for truth is king).  The biggest challenge for our culture (and apparently the church) is to overcome the virus of moral relativism that has taken over- even, apparently, in the church.  It will soon destroy us.

Family Facts: Top ten influences to the quality and sustainability of marriage

The Heritage Foundation has a new website (at least it's news to me) called Family Facts.  This website is a great resource for all sorts of findings related to marriage, family, children's issues, religion and faith.

Worth checking out are their top ten lists.  This month's list, answering the question, "What Influences the Quality and Stability of Marriage?" is particularly good.  You can find it on the front page.

Also, check out the video they produced on the topic.

Western Europe Slides Further Toward Pro-Death Culture

Our friends at the Rockford Institute report the following disturbing development in Luxembourg as that tiny nation takes a further step toward euthanasia.  The erosion of faith and an ethic of life in public life leads to such "utilitarian" views and votes as societies lose their way and elevate the expedient over the eternal.

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES SHOCKED BY VOTE TO LEGALIZE EUTHANASIA IN LUXEMBOURG

World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Larry Jacobs expressed “shock and dismay” over Tuesday’s (Feb. 18, 2008) vote to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Luxembourg. Euthanasia is currently legal only in the Netherlands and Belgium.

“Europe is quickly slipping into a new Dark Age, in the words of Winston Churchill, ‘made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science,’” Jacobs observed.

The Luxembourg parliament voted 30 to 28 to allow so-called consensual euthanasia, over the objections of Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and his Christian Social Party.

Proponents are in the process of establishing “guidelines” for euthanasia in Luxembourg. While news sources have reported that the law would apply to the terminally ill, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says the bill would also allow individuals with “grave and incurable” conditions to be euthanized.

Obviously, a person can have a condition that’s “grave and incurable,” but not life-threatening.

“Euthanasia proponents always assure us that the act will be voluntary,” Jacobs observed.  “But the devil is in the details. Frequently, if a patient is unable to indicate consent, this life-or-death decision is made for them by a relative or a physician.”

A 2005 report by the Dutch government concluded that in 2004 there were an estimated 550 killings of individuals who were comatose or otherwise unresponsive in the country.

The Luxembourg bill has gone through first reading. A final vote will come after procedures to implement the measure are devised.

“We hope parliamentarians will have second thoughts about unleashing this lethal measure on the people they serve,” Jacobs declared.

And so does Veritas Rex.

D'Souza: Love and Chemicals

By Dinesh D'Souza

On Valentine's Day it seems appropriate to ask, "What is this thing called love?"  To the materialist, it is nothing but the interaction of chemicals.

Physicist Victor Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis rejects the idea that humans have souls. “If we do indeed possess an immaterial soul, then we should expect to find some evidence for it.”  Along the same lines, philosopher Daniel Dennett writes, “Nerve cells are very complicated mechanical systems.  You take enough of those, and you put them together, and you get a soul.”  Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker adds, “Every aspect of our mental lives depends entirely on physiological events in the tissues of the brain.”  And what happens to free will?  “It seems free to you,” biologist Francis Crick explains, “but it’s the result of things you are not aware of.”

The issue here is the effort on the part of atheists—some with impressive scientific credentials—to extend the materialistic understanding of nature to human beings.  Yes, we humans are material objects but are we no more than that?  Certainly we experience ourselves very differently from the way we experience the outside world.   All other things we experience indirectly, from the outside, through the apparatus of our senses; but ourselves we experience directly, from the inside, without the involvement of our senses.

Only about ourselves do we have this kind of “inside information.”  And when we examine ourselves we discover things about our nature that we don’t find in inanimate objects.  Based on our privileged and unique access, we know that the external or objective account of reality, however accurate it may be in describing raindrops and tree trunks, is not the fully story when it comes to describing ourselves.

For instance, we have consciousness and that is something that doesn’t show up under a microscope.  We experience love, one of our deepest human experiences, and this seems absurd to explain simply in terms of atoms and molecules interacting with each other.  We also are “selves,” which means that we experience our lives as unified wholes.  The molecules that make up my bodily frame change over the years, and yet I remain the same “me” all along.  We are intentional and purposeful beings, and our actions are much better understood in these terms than in terms of the laws of physics.  Finally we have free choice and free will, and neither of those are possible if we are simply material objects subject to the invariable laws of nature.

On Valentine’s Day I will take my wife out to dinner and gaze into her eyes.  Sixteen years later, those eyes have the same magic that they did when I first proposed.  I suppose that this can be understood in a purely scientific way, as a mechanistic response to some deep evolutionary drive.  But this response must remain deeply alien to the way in which the thing called love is actually experienced by all those who are in love.  The scientific outlook on love makes nonsense of every novel and poem ever written on the subject.  This is not to say that the scientific account is wrong, only that it’s very narrow and incomplete.  It would be like understanding the Civil War purely in the terms of the physical movements of the platoons with no comprehension of the moral and human factors that propelled the conflict.

The materialist fallacy, Schopenhauer wrote, is that mistake of “the subject that forgets to take account of itself.”  Schopenhauer was an atheist, but he recognized that the materialist understanding of reality is a very shallow one.  I’m not sure if today’s leading atheists like Dennett and Pinker have someone to care for, but if they did they would surely know, and would not need me to remind them this Valentine’s Day, that love is much more than chemicals.

Founding Fathers II

I love this topic, so I had to post once more on the Christian faith of the Founding Fathers.  As I predicted, the secular progressives do not agree with my estimation that most of the Founding Fathers were dedicated Christians.  Of course, this position is important to them because if the Founding Fathers were Christians, and they allowed their faith to help guide many of their public policy decisions, then it is harder to attack me when I do the same.  :)

Question:  If many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, then why would they waste their time with leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous religious societies or through serving in active ministry?  Here are but a few examples:

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Chaplain in the American Revolution for two years.

JOEL BARLOW (DIPLOMAT UNDER WASHINGTON AND ADAMS): Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years.

JOSEPH BLOOMFIELD (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

ELIAS BOUDINOT (PRESIDENT OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Founder and first President of the American Bible Society; President of the New Jersey Bible Society;85 member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; member of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

JAMES BOWDOIN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN BROOKS (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): President of Middlesex County Bible Society.

JAMES BROWN (U. S. SENATOR; DIPLOMAT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JAMES BURRILL, JR. (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT; U. S. SENATOR): President of the Providence Auxiliary Bible Society.

DEWITT CLINTON (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; U. S. SENATOR; INTRODUCED THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT): Manager and Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS DANA (MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; CHIEFJUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT; U. S. MINISTER TO RUSSIA): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN DAVENPORT (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

SAMUEL DEXTER (SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER ADAMS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN; U. S. SENATOR): Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JONAS GALUSHA (GOVERNOR OF VERMONT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GASTON (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

CHARLES GOLDSBOROUGH (GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GRAY (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FELIX GRUNDY (U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Proposed formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government to other nations.

JOHN HAMILTON (MAJOR-GENERAL IN THE REVOLUTION; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

JOHN JAY (ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT): President of the American Bible Society; member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

WILLIAM JONES (GOVERNOR OF RHODE ISLAND): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS SCOTT KEY (ATTORNEY; AUTHOR OF “THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER”): Manager and Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

RUFUS KING (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Selected as manager of the American Bible Society.

ANDREW KIRKPATRICK (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT): Vice-President of the New Jersey Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Member of the American Sunday School Union.

JOHN LANGDON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

BENJAMIN LINCOLN (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

JOHN LOWELL (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

GEORGE MADISON (GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN MARSHALL (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF STATE; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; officer in the American Sunday School Union.

JAMES MCHENRY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Baltimore Bible Society.

DAVID LAWRENCE MORRIL (GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; U. S. SENATOR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Manager in the American Sunday School Union.

JOSEPH NOURSE (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. TREASURY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ROBERT TREAT PAINE (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Military Chaplain.

ALBION PARRIS (GOVERNOR OF MAINE): Manager of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM PHILLIPS (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR 11 TERMS): President of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians; President of the Massachusetts Bible Society; member of the American Board of Foreign Missions; Vice-President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Society for Educating Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry.

CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Charleston Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS POSEY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF INDIANA; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

RUFUS PUTNAM (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; FEDERAL JUDGE): President of the Ohio Bible Society.

BENJAMIN RUSH (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Founder and manager of the Philadelphia Bible Society.

ISAAC SHELBY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN COTTON SMITH (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): President of the Litchfield County Foreign Missionary Society; first President of the Connecticut Bible Society; President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Board of Foreign Missions.

CALEB STRONG (CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JAMES SULLIVAN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

INCREASE SUMNER (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

WILLIAM TILGHMAN (FEDERAL JUDGE; CHIEF-JUSTICE OF PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

SMITH THOMPSON (U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF NAVY): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

DANIEL TOMPKINS (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE U. S.): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JOHN TREADWELL (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

ROBERT TROUP (FEDERAL JUDGE; SECRETARY OF WAR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

PETER VROOM (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

BUSHROD WASHINGTON (U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM WIRT (U. S. ATTORNEY-GENERAL UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS): Manager of the American Sunday School Union; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS WORTHINGTON (GOVERNOR OF OHIO; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

Taken from: 

Barton, David: Original Intent : The Courts, the Constitution & Religion. 1st ed. Aledo, TX : WallBuilder Press, 1996, S. 139

Juno: Remarkably pro-life

Kristen and I grabbed a couple friends and went to see the movie "Juno" Monday evening.  Generally, I stay away from critically acclaimed movies because critically acclaimed most often stands for boring and/or pushing the limits of decency.

Although Juno does serve as a reminder that Hollywood believes four letter words are supposed to make me laugh, I was more impressed by the remarkably pro-life message.  The main character, Juno (Ellen Page), is sixteen and now pregnant.  She immediately decides to get an abortion.  However, after visiting the clinic, she changes her mind.

No one necessarily condemns abortion in the movie.  Juno's  stepmother suggests that she have one and her friend encourages her.  Her visit at the clinic is interrupted, though, by a different school friend of hers who is protesting abortion.  Although she initially dismisses her friend's viewpoint, Juno is impacted by her friend who yells "it has fingernails."  She attempts to go through with it, but is bothered by this fingernail comment and changes her mind.

The other thing I thought was interesting was the remarkable pro-life portrayal of the abortion clinic.  It's a portrayal that I'm sure Planned Parenthood wouldn't approve of.  Juno notices that they don't care that she's 16, or that her parents don't know, or that she may be using a fake name.  They treat the decision to abort as if she's announced that she's going to dye her hair or re-organize her sock drawer.  No one attempts to discuss the psychological impact of her decision or the emotional difficulties she must be experiencing.  The clinic is cold, impersonal, and dirty.  The movie-version clinic is, in fact, what the pro-life community maintains it is: death for profit.

I'm not sure how this pro-life movie got made in Hollywood, but perhaps it portends something positive on the horizon.  While some other socially conservative positions are relatively unpopular with youth, recent studies have indicated that young people are increasingly pro-life  (here too).  This is good news for the pro-life movement.  Let's hope Juno impacts more youth and encourages them to make responsible decisions, despite whatever pressures tell them that abortion is OK.

Trailer is below (Note to parents, before you take your kids, the PG13 label is a little misleading):