OneNewsNow.com Blog

By: Jacob Dawson

 

During the Democratic Presidential debate number 765 lastnight, Sen. Barack Obama was asked about his close ties to known terrorist Bill Ayers.  His response was not one of regret or remorse for his association with Ayers, but one of partisan slander.  Instead of comdemning the bombings of Ayers, Obama decided to instead attack fellow Senator Tom Coburn for his Pro-Life stance against abortionist.

Coburn has always held that the taking of innocent life should constitute the stictist punishment of the law.  And if the law of the state is the death penality that should be the punishment.  Therefore Sen. Obama felt compelled to say the following

The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

So someone who beleives that life is charishable should equate to a terrorist?  Well according to Senator Barack Obama anyway.

 

 

 

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.

By: Mike Adams

In a previous installment of this series, I criticized Sam Harris for lumping together “old world” and “new world” creationists. But I must admit that before I became a Christian I was also guilty of over-simplifying the arguments of believers. Back then, I’m sure I appeared just as narrow-minded as Harris appears  throughout the pages of Letter to a Christian Nation. Nonetheless, statements like the following still grab my attention:

“Consider:every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian.”

That is an odd statement indeed. During a polite discussion,a Muslim fundamentalist admitted to me that Jesus led a sinless life and Mohammed did not. But he chose to become a Muslim, in part, because he did not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. I disagree. That is a large part of the reason why I am a Christian and not a Muslim.

On the other hand, I know of those who have reached different conclusions without even knowing that Islam teaches that Jesus lived a sinless life. Indeed, for many Muslims the decision is made out of fear of the consequences of rejecting Islam. Many are not even familiar with basic Christian arguments or the evidence supporting them.

Accepting Christianity, on the other hand, is far more likely to have come from a rational appraisal of the evidence. And it is far less likely to have come from the threat of the sword. That is important to remember when looking at statements such as this:

“Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.”

This is absurd. Radical Muslims view Christianity as a religion of peace. That is why they are not hesitant to attack Christians in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. But Christians, including George W.Bush, believe the opposite – that Islam is a religion of war. And that is why we know we must fight back when they attack us. If Muslims and Christians did not have such disparate views of one another – including, but not limited to, the capacity for violence – conflict would be less likely.

It is difficult to take Harris seriously when he says that he views Islam and Christianity in the same way. In order to draw such a conclusion, one would have to be an incurable moral relativist or simply profoundly ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. This quote suggests both interpretations are correct:

“The Golden Rule really is a wonderful moral precept. But numerous teachers offered the same instruction centuries before Jesus.”

Of course, this is not true. Numerous teachers offered the instruction that we should not do to others things we would not want others to do to us. But Jesus asks us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.Jesus’ reference to sins of omission – echoed in James 4:17 – is a reference to a newer and higher moral standard. To call it equal is to reveal one’s historical ignorance and to lend credence to the notion of moral relativism –as if moral relativism really could lend credence to any teaching.

But Harris is unable to maintain consistency in his relativistic statements:

“The Jains preach a doctrine of utter non-violence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe,they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition.”

Here, Harris indicates that he views Jains as superior to Christians. But, remember, this is the same Sam Harris who claims to see all religions the same way.

Harris continues with his secular praise of Jainism:

“(T)he doctrine of Jainism is an objectively better guide to becoming like Martin Luther King, Jr., than the doctrine of Christianity.”

This raises a couple of interesting questions: 1) Is it the intent of Christians to use Christianity to become more like Christ, or more like King? 2) Is Harris really prepared to admit to the existence of objective truths?

Harris goes on to say this:

“Anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas either about guidance or morality.”

The two key words are “best” and “we.” There is, therefore, a superior moral code by which “we” can all live. But it does not come from God. So what is the source of this superior moral code to which we may all subscribe? And have the principles of this code always been obvious to the civilized world? Read Harris’ statements about slavery:

“Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves.”

The key phrase, of course, is “now agrees.” There is a reason why the civilized world “now agrees” with the notion that slavery is wrong. It is because of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

Prior to the Old Testament there were no limitations on the institution of slavery. In the Old Testament there clearly were. And in the New Testament we see even greater limitations. Indeed, in the Book of Galatians,Paul clearly states that there is no longer a distinction between freed man and slave. He says that we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But, of course, Harris selectively quotes the Old and New Testaments in order to obscure these important points. And he also relies upon historical ignorance, hoping that the reader will assume that slavery in the Roman Empire was the same as slavery in

America .He does not mention that people often chose to be slaves in the First Century.Nor does he reveal that they were often in that state temporarily and as a means of paying off a debt – rather than as a permanent function of their racial identity.

Sam Harris’ opposition to slavery is due to the role the God-inspired Bible has played in shaping our Christian nation. Christianity taught

America that slavery is wrong,and America taught Sam Harris that slavery is wrong.

Clearly, it is time for Sam Harris to admit the source of his belief in objective morality. Sam Harris derives his beliefs from God, not the other way around. God never told Moses to say to the people of

Israel “Sam I Am has sent me to you.”

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus

The latest news from Hot Air is that a student at Yale, art major Aliza Shvarts, wanted to make a "statement" with her senior art project.  Therefore, starting Tuesday her project will be on display in the gallery of Green Hall.  And what is this display, this major statement that Ms. Shvarts is making?  It is a large cube "suspended from the ceiling . . .  Shvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting. . ."  [Emphasis added].

 

A statement from the Yale Daily News says, in part:

The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages…

 

Understandably, groups on both sides of the abortion fence are shocked.  Last week, when fellow senior art majors attended a forum and were told of the project it sparked an outcry among those students.  The pro-life group Choose Life at Yale (CLAY) and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale (RALY) were both previously unaware of the project.  CLAY member Jonathan Serrato said that while CLAY does not have an official response to the project, he personally thinks that the concept is "surprising" and unethical."  "I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it,"  Serrato said.  Alice Buttrick, a member of RALY, said that while RALY had no official opinion on the exhibit, in her opinion Shvarts is "abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body" and "[i]t discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."  No kidding.  Shvarts is trying to totally trivialize abortion and reduce it to no more than a scratch one might cover with a Band-Aid.

 

For her part, Shvarts says her goal with the project was not "shock value" but rather she wanted to "spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body."  Yeah, of course she didn't want to shock anybody . . .  Let's see, for my senior art project, I want to have sex with several different guys to get pregnant on purpose, take the morning after pill to abort the baby, and then chronicle my body aborting the pregnancy for all the world to see.  Not a bit shocking or scandalous.  I don't really know where to start because I am still so shocked by this whole story.  I'm not sure whether to be mad that some professor actually allowed this crazy idea of a senior project, or upset that Shvarts actually came up with and carried through with the idea in the first place.  Some commenters at Hot Air think that it can't actually be anything except mostly blood, because of the time frame required from actual conception to the time the baby gets bigger:  even at three months the baby would still be tiny (and yes, it is a baby, not a blob of fetal material).  I suppose for me it doesn't matter whether it was mostly blood or not:  she purposefully set out to kill as many babies as she could in the name of art.  In my opinion, if there is a law in existence to cover a crime like this (murder or manslaughter, perhaps?), then Shvarts should be charged with it. 

 

Update:  In the firestorm of controversy that erupted yesterday, I have more information to add to this story.  Yale put out the following statement:

 

"Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art," a Yale spokeswoman, Helaine Klasky, said.  "She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages.  The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman's body.

Ms. Klasky went on to suggest that yale would not have permitted a project of the sort described in the student newspaper.  "Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." 

 

However, in another separate statement, Shvarts said this:

 

Shvarts stood by her project, calling the University’s statement “ultimately inaccurate.”…

Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.

 

“No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,” Shvarts said, “because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties.”

 

Apparently when this statement was released, Shvarts also showed some footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit.  What do the tapes portray?  Shvarts in a shower stall bleeding into a cup. 

 

During last night's Democratic debate, co-host George Stephanopoulos asked Barack Obama the following question:

But first, a follow up on this issue, general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you were “friendly.” Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

Courtesy of Hot Air.  The fact that Stephanopoulos asked this question upset Keith Olbermann, who said on his post-debate edition of Countdown:  "The campaign may have seemed dirty.  It had nothing on one of the moderators of the debate tonight."  Olbermann also said "[t]he real story of his debate may not be found where they found the answers, but where one of the moderators found his questions . . ."  To be fair, both Sean Hannity and another radio host (probably Steve Malzberg) encouraged Stephanopoulos to ask Obama about his connection with William Ayers.  Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's show Monday, and was pushed by Hannity to ask Obama the tough question.  However, neither Hannity or Malzberg twisted the arm of Stephanopoulos and made him ask the question.  He must have thought it was a very relevant question or he would not have asked it of Obama.  At any rate, I'm not sure what infuriated Olbermann more:  the fact that Hannity and Malzberg posed the question to Stephanopoulos, or that Stephanopoulos actually asked it. 

Obama's response to the question was basically that Ayers was very young when he committed these actions and that he didn't think they were pertinent.  Obama then went on to compare Ayers to Rep. Senator Tom Coburn.  Obama stated that he was friendly with Tom Coburn, ". . . who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions."  Huh?  I'm not sure how equating Ayers' bombing of buildings with Coburn's belief that abortion is murder and that a convicted criminal should face punishment is at all relevant, but I guess Obama had to start somewhere.  The point is not that the group actually commited these bombings years ago and it's water under the bridge, or that Obama was much younger when Ayers was part of this group.  The point is that Ayers refuses to apologize, and in fact says that he thinks the Weather Underground didn't do enough.  There is definitely much truth to the old saying "you are known by the company you keep," and the company Obama is keeping here lately is definitely dragging him down.

A fearless 16-year-old named Kristen Byrnes is taking on Al Gore and other climate change scientists, and their claims that people are making the world warmer.  See NPR.  Kristen believes the earth is getting warmer, but she does not attribute this warming to human beings.  Instead, she believes it's just part of a natural climate cycle the earth is going through.  Kristen has her own website called Ponder the Maunder, which contains indexes of El Nino, isotope measurements and diagrams of temperature records from the earth.  The word maunder in her website is a obscure reference to a dip in solar activity, which actually occurred in the 1600s.  This dip is referred to by scientists as the "maunder minimum." 

 

Kristen says she can't really remember how old she was when she first heard about climate change, or global warming.  She says "[i]n middle school I remember everyone was like:  'Global warming!  The world is going to end!'  Stuff like that . . . so I never really believed in it."  Kristen put her skepticism to good use at the age of 15, when she started to delve deeper into the claims being made by many scientists.  She conducted research via the internet and began to look at the scientific evidence.  She began to write down her findings, going over the scientists' arguments and adding her own thoughts and conclusions.  Pretty soon, she and her step-dad, Mike, decided to post the results of their own research online.  Once Kristen posted her findings and beliefs, emails started coming in from people challenging her science, but she says "[a] few of them gave up and figured they can't win against a 15-year-old."   After Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth came out, Kristen posted a critique of his movie, which resulted in so many hits to her website that her family's internet service provider gave them a warning.  According to Kristen her site received half a million hits in one month alone.  She also went after Jim Hanson and his conclusions on climate change.  By the way, Jim is one of NASA's top climate scientists.

 

Kristen is used to skeptics - even her friend Chrissy believes that humans are contributing to climate change, but Chrissy's not sure why.  Kristen thinks it is because "the media . . other scientists, are making everybody believe . . ."  that humans are causing the earth to warm up.  This is one brave girl.  I know I would not have had the courage to stand up at the age of 15 and take on the prevailing view of scientists from across the globe.  However, Kristen doesn't seem to be fazed by her critics or the publicity her website has inspired.  She still makes top grades in school and loves to talk about normal teenage topics such as friends and clothes. 

 

NPR has been featuring a special on climate change called "Climate Connections" and profiling different people each day to discuss the climate and other similar topics such as the entrepreneurial carbon market.  NPR featured Kristen on their Morning Edition yesterday.  You may click on her photo below to listen to the audio of the interview. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday I reported that St. Thomas University, a Catholic university in St. Paul, Minnesota, denied permission for pro-life speaker Star Parker to visit the campus.  Today, the school announced that Star Parker would be visiting the campus, after all.  Courtesy of Hot Air  The school statement reads, in part:

 

St. Thomas extended the invitation Monday after the decision was made to use St. Thomas funds to pay her speaker’s fee and related expenses, thus giving university officials more involvement in managing the event.

 

Parker, a syndicated columnist, is active in the pro-life movement. Critics of St. Thomas’ original decision not to invite Parker said the decision diminished the university?s position on pro-life issues.

 

“St. Thomas proudly functions within the Catholic intellectual tradition,” said Dr. Mark Dienhart, executive vice president and chief administrative officer.  “We are now and always have been fully supportive of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. This issue has always been about what is the appropriate involvement of the university in scheduling speakers, not about any particular speaker or his or her message. We are glad to have reached this agreement with Ms. Parker.”

I notice that the statement claims that the issue was not about the "message of the speaker" but rather what the appropriate involvement of the university was in scheduling speakers.  The truth is that the Young America's Foundation has been active on the campus of St. Thomas for a long time now, and Ms. Parker's visit was going to be co-sponsored by YAF and the St. Thomas campus newspaper.  Remember, Vice President Jane Canney told the Students for Human Life group that as long as she was the VP at St. Thomas, they would not deal with the YAF.  Is the university claiming that no speaker has ever been sponsored by any outside group?  At any rate, the University President Father Dennis Dease and VP Canney were not mentioned at all in the statement.  I'm sure this decision by St. Thomas has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Pope is visiting the U.S. this week, and that Father Dease is planning to meet with him. 

 

In a speech designed to reaffirm Barack Obama's commitment to the common man, he decides to send out... uh Michelle.  The very same lady that said her husband running for president is the first time she has ever been proud of her country.  Is this guy trying give just GIVE his campaign away?  I have some advice for the Obama Campaign, just be quiet until the nomination is over... better yet just be quiet, and you will probably win.  But having your wife say something like this while trying to defend your elitist comments does not help.