Category: worldview

Why point the fire extinguisher at the flames. When will clergy of the major theistic religions work toward civil justice according to the civil laws and justice of that God they preach and teach?

How about aiming the extinguisher at the source of the flames? Here is a proposal:

AMENDMENT TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
_________________________________________


Table of Contents
_________________

1 Purpose
.. 1.1 Objections
….. 1.1.1 Effects no political change
….. 1.1.2 Prevents non-theist believers from being in government
2 The Amendment
3 Good that will happen


1 Purpose
=========

This amendment is to directly place God as the Supreme authority of
the United States, even over the authority of the first three words of
the United States Constitution (USC): “We the people”. By definition the USC defines a Constitutional republic of States and is not a pure democracy. To those who don’t believe in a Supreme Creator, Judge, and law giver begs some questions: “What then is the standard of political law over a nation?” and “Is it really just two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner?”


1.1 Objections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.1.1 Effects no political change
———————————

Some may say this amendment will effect no change in law. I would
admit, yes, by itself, there is no law that would directly be changed
by this amendment. Some will say you can’t expect to convert people with a top-down political rule. I would respond with another “yes” because this is certainly not the purpose of this amendment.


1.1.2 Prevents non-theist believers from being in government
————————————————————

This amendment says nothing about how states run their own elections.  In fact, when the USC was first adopted 9 of the 13 colonies had their own religious oath tests to serve at the State level and they were legal with regard to the USC. The amendment says nothing about a personal belief, but only that Federal political duties are to be conducted under the authority of God. Non-theistic believers are then eligible to serve within the United States government.


2 The Amendment
===============

Article VI paragraph 3 text:

; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.

be removed and replaced by:

. The only religious oath test is the one given in the
Declaration of Independence: God created the world, which
includes the foundation for morality, judges the world and
providentially intervenes in history.


3 Good that will happen
=======================

Even without this amendment passing, the proposal itself will force
conversation about the role of religion in government. With its
passing many, will be interested in knowing more of their chosen holy texts with respect to how God defines law and justice. Perhaps one of the first legal changes would be to allow, even encourage, Theistic arguments and texts such as the Pentateuch, Quran as well as the Bible, within the United States legal system and courts. This will open up doors for everyone to share their faith. Everyone, e.g., who believe in a heaven with God and how to know they will be there after death, will have ample opportunity to share their faith. Yes, even an atheist has faith: a belief in a different standard of moral justice and law. As the electorate meditates on what is godly justice and how to place it within our culture, media and sign one-liners with no context will be less effective in influencing voters’ decisions.  Thus, money will be less effective in buying votes.

There is so much, both for and against the Covid 19
vaccinations available. Most people seek out the
sources which feed their pre-suppositional worldview.
Who is the wise person willing to change their mind if
shown another belief makes more sense?

‘”Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him “What is truth?”‘ [Gospel of John
chapter 18 verses 37 and 38]. So, what is the truth
about Covid 19 treatments or vaccination options?

Certainly my effort here is not comprehensive nor
scientific, as in, referencing specific data. I’ve
been vaccinated myself but am trying to understand
others and their reasons why they are not vaccinated.

I have been trying to plan a trip to visit friends I
haven’t seen in years. The problem is my friends are
divided on the Covid vaccine issue. One, who is caring
for her 99-year-old mom said “I want to take no risks.
Make sure any adult you are in close contact with has
had their covid vaccine shots.” she says. Other friends
and relatives have refused the vaccinations for various
reasons.

Let’s put this reason behind us. I think it is too bad
a major reason people choose not to be vaccinated is
because CDC, WHO, Fauci, government, etc. lied to us at
the start of Covid in early 2020. So, the response
today is “why believe them now?”. If this is your
reason, even though it’s true, then realize this has
nothing to do with science.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
exists to document unwanted side-effects of vaccines.
Covid 19 vaccinations are much more dangerous than other
vaccinations. The risk of death is 50 times greater
with Covid vaccination vs a flu vaccination. But also,
remember the first ones to be vaccinated were the
elderly, and those with complicating other conditions.
So, this ’50’ may be high. To put that in perspective,
the risk of death with covid, (0.026), is roughly 22
times more probable than risk of death (0.0012) of flu
cases. Another caveat is that many people who get the
flu never report to medical professionals and simply
ride it out. This would make the true number of flu
“cases” much higher. So, the 22 times may be much
higher. Covid 19 vaccinations do entail quite a bit of
risk. Is this a good reason to avoid the vaccination?
Perhaps. Among different age groups most medical
professionals DO believe the risk vs benefit is too
great for children. For the elderly most medical
professionals agree the EUA vaccines are well worth the
risk.

Now, what about the recent FDA full approval for
Pfizer’s vaccination. Well, Pfizer’s original vaccine
production rate was for many more people getting the
vaccination than have done so. Thus, much is sitting in
refrigerators somewhere. The FDA fully approved the
Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, or did it? The original
vaccine still is under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
where the government prohibits lawsuits against Pfizer
for its use. The newer BioNTech (Comirnaty) vaccine
from GmbH is supposed to be identical but IT is the one
FDA actually fully approved. I think Pfizer has too
much of the old stuff in stock and is looking to use it
up ASAP, with no legal problems for the dangerous side
effects.

What about other Covid 19 treatments like
hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? Hydroxychloroquine
was used by medical professionals early in 2020 to treat
Covid cases where nothing else worked and they had
moderate success. There were no official FDA studies
done on its efficacy though. Everything was hearsay: so
and so got better, or it didn’t help or it had fatal
side effect(s) due to treatment, etc. Anyway most
medical professionals moved away from hydroxychlorquine.
Those medical doctors willing to try – anything –
latched onto Ivermectin. It is very inexpensive. But,
similar to hydroxychloroquine there were no studies
using placebos, control groups, etc. to determine the
efficacy of Ivermectin. Also, the patent owner, Merck,
washed their hands of it for Covid use by saying it was
not designed nor approved for Covid use. My guess is
that Merck used the billions of dollars in research
funding they received from one of those Federal
Government trillions-of-dollars giveaways to tweak
Ivermectin to come up with a ‘new’ drug for Covid; one
they could sell for far more than Ivermectin.

Dr. Joseph Varen in Houston, TX, has reportedly been
using Ivermectin on thousands of patients. He claims he
has seen no serious negative side effects but also
admits that Ivermectin is combined with other vitamins,
drugs, and treatment. Again, those who want to
disparage Ivermectin as a Covid treatment will point to
those few cases where death has happened.

My conclusion is to get vaccinated or if you don’t want
the vaccination then buy a Covid 19 at-home test kit
such as “BinaxNOW”. Buy some Ivermectin. Be trained in
how to use the test kit. Be trained in how to
administer Ivermectin. Research how Dr. Joseph Varen
uses it. Don’t overdose on vitamins. Vitamin A can be
lethal in humans.

Other thoughts. Keep in mind the highest hits, or those
links at the top of searches are put there by the owners
of those search engines. But, you do have a worldview
and you already knew that. 🙂

Gregory Koukl wrote a book called _Tactics_ about how a Christian may share their faith with others.  In conversation with those who don’t accept Christ as their sole means of salvation he states his objective is to “put a stone in their shoe” simply by showing an interest in the person and asking questions.  There is a biblical equivalent to this.

In my adult years I have always been interested in the
intersection of old and new testaments. The place I often
begin is obviously when an old testament passage is quoted
within the new.

One such passage is found in Romans 12:20: “If your enemy is
hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to
drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his
head.” This is a quote of Proverbs 25:21&22.

In my daily Bible reading I read Psalm 140. What came to
mind as I read this was Paul’s description of the “armor of
God” in Ephesians 6. See verse 2 about the heart without
the breastplate of righteousness. Verse 2 says that heart
“devises evil plans”. See verse 4 about the feet. The
wicked “plan to trip my feet”. But, we are commanded to be
on our guard to move while we spread the “gospel of peace”
in Ephesians. But, the eye-opening parallel comparing this
Psalm with Ephesians 6 is the “helmit of salvation”.

Verse 7 is an unmistakable description of a helmet covering
the head: “O Sovereign Lord, my strong deliverer, who
shields my head in the day of battle,”. When we meditate on
the words of this verse this is indeed a description of
“salvation”. What about the wicked? Well this psalm
mentions their head covering in verse 9 “Let the heads of
those who surround me be covered with the trouble their lips
have caused”. Any person who rejects the gospel of Jesus
Christ as well as His Sovereign authority over their life
has replaced salvation with an anti-Christ worldview.

Our conversations with others in this condition is serious
business. Verse 10 says “Let burning coals fall upon them;
may they be thrown into the fire, into miry pits, never to
rise.”

Now, returning to Romans 12:20, the context says to live
peaceably with all men as much as possible and let God
handle revenge. Don’t allow his head covering (evil lips
speaking anti-Christ venom) to overcome you. The burning
coal on your enemy’s head is good. Overcome evil with good.

Is there a way to know if and when ‘secular conscience’
fails? In other words, When does the secular conscience
definitions of core values go so far astray that truth
cannot be recovered? How does a secular conscience define
honesty, integrity, and justice? Is all morality relative
and/or evolving? In our democratic republic how does this affect the voter’s trust in our own government?

Using the 14th amendment ideas such as: freedom of religion,
liberty and justice for all, USC not mentioning Christianity
having any legal power, just a part of evolving morality,
just my opinion; are all used as a basis for secular natural
law, i.e., conscience, i.e., core values, today.

Is their any cultural thread holding onto a fixed standard
of morality any more? Consider the traditional Southern
Baptist position on morality, i.e., core values. They
believe in ‘Sola Scriptura’ for all of life.

In line with historical Scriptural exegesis, some Baptists
still believe sodomy is immoral and certainly homosexual
marriage should be illegal. However, considering both the
Baptist strong belief in a separation of church and state as
well as recent SCOTUS decisions, there is no legal leg to
stand on for prohibiting homosexual marriage or making law
that says sodomy is a crime.

Just recently 2 SCOTUS judges reprimanded the SCOTUS
majority for not reconsidering a 2015 case which punished
Kim Davis for not issuing a marriage certificate to a
homosexual couple. These 2 SCOTUS judges claimed the
decision was contrary to the “freedom of religion” of Kim
Davis and thus against her first amendment rights.

There is an unsettling, akin to illogical “quicksand”,
acceptance of this progressive core value: homosexual
marriage.  Using a pluralistic (secular) argument who is
to say marriage may not be a contract between any 2
consenting adults? You may think that is just what I said.   But, wait, what defines “adult”? Why is the
18th birthday the core value of when a child becomes an
adult? That sounds like some standard is being applied.
Why not use an after-puberty age? Morality is evolving,
right? Wait again. Why not permit this contract between 2
or more consenting adults? Why is the core value of
marriage only between 2 adults? Morality is evolving,
right? Law, based on definitions of ‘core values’ has now
become a pool of opinions contradicting one another since
the secular standard continues to evolve.

Consider core values as redefined by the SCOTUS LGBTQ
decision. There are multiple contradictions in this
‘secular conscience’.

The feminist movement fought hard to pass Title IX where
females are given the same federal sports scholarship money
as the males. But with LGBTQ in place males are allowed to
compete as females and in some sports are winning first
place because of it. The Black Lives Matter (BLM), by this
phrase, are elevating the black skin color. What does this
mean for Judge Clarance Thomas or doctor Ben Carson? The
BLM even disagrees with Dr. Martin Luther King’s position
which did not want to elevate any race above another
[[https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/14/the-civil-rights-legend-who-opposed-critical-race-theory]]
Next, consider the lock downs and face mask requirement and
then the rioting in Portland, and elsewhere. How much has
Covid 19 increased in Portland due to this crowd assembly?
SCOTUS is about to consider the legality of homosexual
couples to adopt children, even as I write. How long will
it be legal for parents to “indoctrinate” their own children
that same-sex acts are sinful? I could go on about the
illogic of core values today.

The Bible, in Romans, arguably, is the first to define
natural law. Let’s examine what it has to say. Did the New
Testament change civil law? Did the absolute standard
change such that Nineveh in Jonah’s day was held to a
different civil law standard than we are (or should be)
today? Let’s look into the context of Natural Law mentioned
in the New Testament to see if it agrees or not with Jonah
and Nineveh as well as other Old Testament applications.
Here then is the definition of Natural Law or conscience as
given by Paul in Romans chapter 2 verses 14 and 15.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do
what the law requires, they are a law to themselves,
even though they do not have the law. They show that
the work of the law is written on their hearts, while
their conscience also bears witness, and their
conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Here is the context starting in Romans chapter 1 verse 18.
I’m using [[https://www.esv.org]] as my Scripture source. Also,
notice how the gospel, summarized by John chapter 3 verse
16, cannot be omitted here. “For God so loved the world, he
gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not
perish but have everlasting life.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their
unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be
known about God is plain to them, because God has shown
it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the
things that have been made. So they are without
excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not
honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became
futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were
darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping
things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their
hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies
among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth
about God for a lie and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever! Amen.

Paul begins by writing about God’s commandments being
broken. Notice how he states that evidences of God’s
existence and authority impregnates every one’s conscience.
From verse 18 we understand there is a progression of
continuing rebellion, i.e., unrighteousness, causing more of
God’s truth to be ignored and hidden.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. For their women exchanged natural relations
for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the
due penalty for their error.

Paul sets up a “marker” in this progression of
unrighteousness and hidden (distorted) truth. It is the
acceptance of homosexuality.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,
God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not
to be done.

This “debased mind” implies a seared conscience which no
longer may be depended upon to discern between good and evil
in the conscience.

29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness,
evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty,
boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they
know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such
things deserve to die, they not only do them but give
approval to those who practice them.

Paul identifies unrighteous behavior of all kinds. Then,
closes this section by identifying the sin: teaching others
that unrighteous behavior is fine.

Chapter 2

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you
who judges. For in passing judgment on another you
condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the
very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God
rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do
you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice
such things and yet do them yourself — that you will
escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the
riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not
knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to
repentance?

Here Paul drops back into the life-blood of natural law: the
gospel. After committing sin, i.e., saying no to God by
going against one’s conscience, I must realize I am guilty
of unrighteous behavior and must repent to receive God’s
mercy believing the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus
Christ was a just punishment for my own sin.

5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are
storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when
God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will
render to each one according to his works: 7 to those
who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor
and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for
those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth,
but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and
fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every
human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the
Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who
does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God
shows no partiality.

Here is where Paul by the Spirit says “all lives matter”.
God doesn’t show favoritism. Everyone who continues doing
evil, rejecting the truth their conscience tells them will
ultimately suffer just punishment. Everyone who repents and
does good will receive God’s forgiveness and blessing.

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also
perish without the law, and all who have sinned under
the law will be judged by the law.

After Jonah’s preaching everyone in Nineveh knew they were
guilty of sin; even without the (written) law, i.e.,
biblical law.

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are
righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will
be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the
law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law
to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15
They show that the work of the law is written on their
hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and
their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16
on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the
secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So, for those without the written law, their conscience
which accuses a person of evil, i.e., sinful, actions is
only useful if one pays attention, i.e., refrains from the
evil action. Verse 15 here sounds like chapter 1 verse 28
above. When one goes against their conscience continually
their conscience becomes useless. The mind, being debased,
now excuses evil behavior.

More to follow.

Continuing with the same examples in the previous blog: chattel slavery and homosexual marriage, let’s try to answer the question about what forms the legal basis of defining ‘core values’ in the United States today.

Chattel slavery was legal before the civil war in South
Carolina. It was always illegal in New York. This is a
case of the states having that absolute power over the
Federal government at the time. The Federal government did
not have jurisdiction and thus the states had more power
than the Federal government in this core value. The civil
war amendments to the United States Constitution (USC)
changed this law. It gave absolute power in this core value
question to the Federal government.

Likewise recent SCOTUS decisions have given the Federal
government absolute power in defining homosexual’s core
values. No state is permitted to prohibit homosexual
marriage. Everyone who issues marriage licenses are
prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals and must
issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples who request
them. As Kim Davis knows the government can and may legally
punish those who refuse.

Our Federal Government is a constitutional republic. The
United States Constitution (USC) is the civil authority over
our nation. As examples above show, law derived from this
authority has changed over time because of amendments. The
USC has very little moral law written within. Just as the
question of chattel slavery, 99% of moral law was governed
by the states. But because of amendments, particularly the
14th civil war amendment, many “Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS)” judgments define core values now.

What does the USC place as the authority to define civil
(legal) justice of moral core values? This is where things
get very interesting. Arguments have continued for a long
time about this. On one side we hear “original intent”.
Often cited are the references to the Christian God as
creator, lawgiver, and Supreme Judge as stated in our
Declaration of Independence. This is often referred to as
natural law under God but with a vacuum of civil law
specifics about core values. On the other side we hear
religion is excluded by the first amendment: “freedom of
religion” and the USC Article 6 paragraph 3: “no religious
oath test”.

Nine of the thirteen states had religious oaths of their own
when the USC was adopted. The natural-law-under-god group
was so loose an alliance it fell apart early in a legal
justice sense within the United States. These 9 states
removed their religious oaths rather quickly.

Can we conclude the USC is a secular contract distancing
itself from Christianity having any judicial authority over
core values? Actually, I don’t know. Many historians have
studied and written about this. Perhaps the most cited
book, other than the original documents themselves, is _The
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of
the United States_ written by Benjamin F. Morris where we
find this:

This Constitution, … contains no recognition of the
Christian religion, nor even an acknowledgment of the
providence of God in national affairs. This omission
was greatly regretted by the Christian public …

But, less than a page later says

Notwithstanding this omission, the record of facts now
to pass before the reader will demonstrate that the
Constitution was formed under Christian influences and
is, in its purposes and spirit, a Christian instrument.

All that can be said for certain is that many of the recent
SCOTUS 5-4 decisions may be simplified as ‘original intent’ vs
14th-amendment progressive interpretation. The reason this
split in USC decisions exists and has become more acute, I
believe, is because the USC is vague on what it, itself,
says is the foundation of the rule of law beyond what the
USC specifically says.

What about the Christian or Biblical roots of civil justice?
Even Christian constitutional lawyers drift from ‘original
intent’ siding with some 14th-amendment progressive thought.
In Gitlow v. New York in 1925, the majority opinion of
SCOTUS said the 14th amendment restricted states rights to
limit free speech. The Bill of Rights was beginning to be
applied to the states. Recently John W. Whitehead of the
Rutherford Institute wrote that SCOTUS

has expanded the definition of religion under the First
Amendment to include various religions and philosophical
systems. Therefore, the First Amendment protects all
religions and religious expression in guaranteeing
freedom for all (and rightly so).

The conclusion is that our justice system is pluralistic
when it comes to religion. Our justice system today is a
secular conscience. Natural law without its Christian
Scriptural founding is the Supreme authority over core
values in the United States today. This was never the
“original intent” when the USC was written. Recall that at
the time the USC was adopted, 9 of the 13 colonies had their
own versions of Christian (state) oaths.

More to come.

Civil law is put in place to force some moral code upon
everyone within this civil jurisdiction. I think both those
who believe in an unchanging, fixed, moral code as well as
those who believe in an evolving moral code use the term
‘core value(s)’ to describe this. I’ll be using this term
from now on.

Consider these two examples: chattel slavery and homosexual
marriage. Chattel slavery was permissible in some southern
states leading up to the civil war. After the civil war,
the 14th amendment made chattel slavery illegal. The core
value that all men (no matter their skin color) had the
right to liberty and pursuit of happiness had changed across
the United States.

Sodomy was illegal in Georgia up until 2003. In 1986, in
Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) upheld Georgia state law which criminalized sodomy.
Then in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, SCOTUS ruled that law
against sodomy infringed on personal rights and choice. On
Oct. 5, 2020, SCOTUS justices Thomas and Alito scolded
SCOTUS for not taking up Kim Davis’ appeal of the 2015
Obergefell decision where homosexual marriage rights were
affirmed infringing upon her 1st amendment
freedom-of-religion rights. Thus, core values of homosexual
behavior and their rights made an about face somewhere
between the 1980’s and 2020.

Where do core values come from? Those who believe these are
fixed will point to some external absolute standard. This
means they have explaining to do with regard to previous
core values they have accepted in the past but now believe
should be changed. This explanation must pick one of two
choices. Either the external absolute standard changed due
to some circumstance or they were wrong about the previous
core value ever being correct.

Let’s return to the two examples: chattel slavery and
homosexual marriage.

The ‘fixed’ morality camp would either say the core value of
allowing states to permit chattel slavery up to our civil
war was wrong from the beginning or that the absolute
standard was modified – some how. If one in this
fixed-morality camp were truly rational, he would have some
answer.

Others would include the evolving-morality camp as well as
those who claim to believe in fixed morality but don’t
bother to rationally think through why their mind had
changed. These others may just say this core value which
permitted chattel slavery evolved to civil law prohibiting
it. Reasons may be given. Factory work in the North was
much less conducive to slave labor than the agricultural
south and economic advantages of slavery were decreasing.
Maybe this core value evolved just because the North won?

Let’s consider homosexual marriage now.

The ‘fixed’ morality camp would either say the core value of
homosexual behavior and rights was wrong from the beginning
or that the absolute standard was modified – some how. What
was this absolute standard in 1776 vs 2020? Many people
identified with a Christian church have changed their minds
on what used to be the fixed standard calling homosexuality
not just evil but illegal. What has changed? Did the
fixed-standard change or has belief in a fixed-standard
waned? Has the majority of conservative Christian America
been dumbed down? They don’t understand the rational decision
to allow homosexual rights goes against a fixed standard they
claim to believe? Let that sink in.

Of course it’s impossible to have multiple “Absolute”
standards. Not everyone believes in the same absolute
standard. The fact that some believe in a fixed unchanging
standard vs some who believe in an evolving standard itself
tells us this. Consider Worldview. It dictates our actions
based on those things we take for granted, i.e., believe in,
i.e., are impossible to disprove. Even if people don’t
self-examine or rationalize this ‘belief’, everyone has one.
Worldviews are visible by the way we act.

More to come.

I am responding to Jim Stovall’s article in Tulsa Beacon
September 17, 2020, “You have to admit to your own bias”.
The article title is true. World views are not optional.
Everyone has one. For instance, answer these questions: Is
there more to me than flesh and blood? If yes, then what
happens to me when I die? Everyone acts in accord with
their belief in their answers to these questions.

In closing Jim says “If you’re going to combat your own
bias, you have to admit you have one and deal with it on
every front. … develop your thinking by keeping an open
mind.” What does this mean? If it means changing one’s
world view such as Antony Flew did in 2004 then I’m in
agreement.

Everyone should test their world view, i.e.,
presuppositions: those ideas we believe cannot be proven but
simply accept as truth.

Probably most of the readers of Tulsa Beacon would say they
hold a Christian world view. The historical truth of Jesus
Christ is most accurately recorded in the Bible. What parts
are replaced by something else in your world view? Why?
What reasons or logic have you used to choose to believe
something else rather than the Biblical record?

The New York Times morning news and opinion email advances an “Idea of
the Day” called “Cancel Culture” with both pro and con snippets. This
got me to thinking about how culture does influence a person’s
reputation and thus the ability of employment. I would express this
more with a simple ‘ABC’: ‘Always Bias in Culture’.

Consider racism. In the past, because of laws involving blacks unable
to be employed or buy homes in better parts of towns and suburbs, they
have been, and are in many places, “pushed” by culture to live in
cities, usually in subsidized housing where schools are poorer. This
resulted in many blacks with much lower education levels than other
races. Those blacks who were able to escape this situation, being
well educated and able to think, know this. Education is the most
significant variable related to incarceration. The US culture has
changed quickly recently in this area mostly as a result of the
ubiquitous George Floyd video snippet.

Consider the LGBT movement. US culture was biased against LGBT a
generation ago. Over time US culture has condoned it and recently
even legalized those within this camp. I would not be surprised if
some on the political right who continue to call LGBT activity ‘sin’
would find it harder to buy a home or land a job in some places. Bias
in US culture has made an about face within one generation.

Free speech has provided shovels to dig the trenches and bullets to
load guns in this ‘ABC’ warfare. The reason the New York Times and
media outlets like it are winning this war against those forces of
conservatism, e.g., Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College’s
Imprimis, is because neither side refuses to surrender to the Supreme
Authority. Borrowing a recent popular book title, “A Higher Call” is
being ignored. Both sides have accepted and pushed (religious)
pluralism. The US culture has abandoned absolute Truth accepting an
evolution of morality itself instead.

In conclusion, I choose to take God’s cultural bias as Paul preached
to the philosophers in his day at Athens.

 "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all
 people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which
 he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has
 appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising
 him from the dead." [Acts 17:30&31]