Guidelines for Voting According to a Founding Father by Noah Webster

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3752

Guidelines for Voting According to a Founding Father

by	Noah Webster

Good News About The First Amendment by Kevin Cain, J.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2548

Good News About The First Amendment

by	Kevin Cain, J.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. His current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts. A product of the distinguished Advocacy Program at South Texas College of Law, where he won multiple national and state championships and many speaking and brief-writing awards, Kevin is a former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals and serves as an Adjunct Professor at South Texas College of Law.]

Years ago, Anne Murray sang the words, “We sure could use a little good news today.” Have you ever watched the evening news and had this thought? Is there any good news out there? Sadly, human nature tends to focus on the negative. We slow down to see a police officer issuing a speeding ticket. We stop and stare at a serious car accident. As they say in the news industry, “If it bleeds, it leads.” We stare at despair. Yet, we know there is good news all around us. The problem is that we rarely hear about that good news.
From the legal arena, we often hear about lawsuit abuse, frivolous lawsuits, outrageous verdicts, criminals going free, and courts infringing on religious liberties. Surely there is some good news coming out of our judicial system that we simply are not hearing about. There is, and it comes to us from the Texas Supreme Court.
On June 27, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court held in Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert that a party cannot sue for emotional (non-physical) damages arising from a religious practice. In that case, 17-year-old Laura Schubert spent the weekend “participating in church-related activities” for the youth. On Friday evening, the atmosphere became “spiritually charged” when one of the teens announced that she saw a demon near the sanctuary. Another teen announced that she saw a “cloud of the presence of God fill the church.” These young people “testified” about these events on Sunday morning. After praying all afternoon without any substantive food, Laura collapsed. After the worship service, several church members physically constrained Laura and carried her to a classroom where she was not released until she said the name of Jesus. Laura stated during this episode that demons were trying to get to her (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).
Laura continued in church-related activities on Monday and Tuesday without any such similar events. However, on Wednesday, she fell to the floor in a fetal position because she wanted to be left alone. Youth members were summoned and held her down in a spread-eagle position holding her arms and legs. The senior pastor played a tape of soothing Christian music while laying his hands on Laura’s head and praying. During this incident, Laura suffered carpet burns and bruises on her wrists and shoulders (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).
Laura and her parents sued the church and its leaders alleging numerous causes of action [NOTE: a “cause of action” is a legally recognized claim, like negligence or breach of contract.] After pre-trial motions disposed of some of these claims, the case went to trial on the remaining claims of assault and false imprisonment. The jury found that Laura had been assaulted and falsely imprisoned, and awarded her $300,000 for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and medical expenses (for psychiatric treatment). While Laura did suffer physical injuries from this event (scrapes and bruises), the evidence at trial related only to subsequent emotional or psychological injuries (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).
The court began its analysis by looking to the federal case of Paul v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (1987) from the Ninth Circuit. Usually a reference to the Ninth Circuit is bad news, as this court is considered to be one of the more liberal federal appellate courts. For example, it was the Ninth Circuit that held that the pledge of allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, before the United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling (Newdow v..., 2002). However, in the Paul case, the Ninth Circuit was faced with the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses in shunning or excommunicating their members. The court held in that case that “[i]ntangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church” (Newdow v..., 2002). The rationale for this rule is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of shunning was based exclusively on their interpretation of Scripture. In other words, courts should not weigh in on the validity of these practices when doing so would require the court to engage in its own interpretation of Scripture.
The Texas Supreme Court noted that the adjudication of the claims in the present case would require an unconstitutional inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs (Pleasant Glade...”). However, the court emphasized that this rule would not allow church members to commit unlawful acts with impunity “under the cloak of religion”: “Freedom to believe may be absolute, but freedom of conduct is not” (Pleasant Glade...”). Physical harm, as such, resulting from a religious practice is not insulated from judicial review by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It is possible that extreme conduct in the name of religion, causing only mental anguish, may not be protected under the First Amendment, but the Texas Supreme Court was quick to point out that “this is not such a case” (Pleasant Glade...”).
So, what do we learn from the Pleasant Glade case? First, keep in mind the legal context of this case. As a state case, it is not binding precedent on any state other than Texas. While this case could be persuasive authority in state and federal courts in other jurisdictions, it is binding only in Texas. Nevertheless, this case represents a trend (see other instances in the Schubert opinion) that favors religious liberties.
Second, freedom of religion is not without limits. The court expressly recognized that a cause of action or lawsuit can be maintained for physical injuries that result from a religious doctrine and the practice that results from such teaching. For example, the Bible teaches that we are to baptize others (Matthew 28:19). However, if I, through violent force, baptize some unwilling person, I can be sued for any physical injuries that may result. But I cannot be sued for upsetting someone by teaching that their soul is lost because they are not baptized.
Likewise, the Bible teaches us to share the good news of God’s Word with the world (Matthew 28:19). Yet, if I chase someone down and tackle them so I can tell them about God’s grace and love, and injure them in the process, I can be sued for any physical injury that may result from my over-zealous evangelistic tactic. On the other hand, if I preach that one cannot be saved outside of Jesus and this offends Hindus, I cannot be sued for emotional distress. (Keep in mind that a person can be sued for anything, but a court should dismiss such a lawsuit as it violates the First Amendment. Clients frequently ask if they can be sued for doing something, and I always respond that you can be sued for anything. The question is will they prevail in their suit).
Third, religious error will usually get you into trouble in more ways than one. None of these unfortunate events would have resulted if the teens had not been artificially manipulated into an emotional, “spirit-filled” frenzy. Clearly, they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). These events are also a direct result of a failure to properly understand the role and duration of miracles and the laying on of hands (see Miller, 2003, 23[3]:17-23). A misunderstanding of the Scripture can result not only in spiritual ruin, but legal ruin also.
Inversely, notice that our civil laws protect religion as it is prescribed in the Bible. Righteousness, as it is defined in the Bible (Psalm 119:172), does not require us to physically harm those around us. While physical warfare was a part of the Old Testament system, such is no longer the case today as we live under a better covenant. Jesus made this point clear when Peter drew a sword and attacked Malchus. Jesus said: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52; cf. John 18:36). True Christian living that is consistent with God’s Word will keep us from intentionally physically injuring those around us. New Testament Christianity does not dictate that we kill God’s enemies, attack infidels, torture pagans into submission to Christ, or physically discipline unfaithful members of the body of Christ. God calls us to peace—peace with Him and our fellow man. This point could not have been made more clearly than when Jesus said, “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). By inspiration, Paul described the extraordinary way we should treat our enemies:

Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink” (Romans 12:17-20).

A person whose life reflects this mandate from Romans is certainly not lawsuit-proof (as no person is these days), but he is clearly not as likely to be convicted of wrong-doing.
This is consistent with the portrayal of early Christians, who, when accused of fabricated allegations of treason, responded that the Christian religion would, in fact, cause them to be better citizens (seeMattox, 1961, pp. 73,83). Likewise, conforming to God’s holy Word will most protected us from the laws of our civil government. Remember the words of Paul: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same” (Romans 13:3).
Finally, it is refreshing to see a court protecting our religious liberties, rather than tearing them down. But, what should we do if the unthinkable happens? What if courts held that the First Amendment did not protect us from lawsuits for preaching the truth on salvation, withdrawing fellowship from unrepentant Christians, or refusing to hire someone because of their “sexual orientation”? What should we do if, rather than protecting Christians, the law allows others to persecute us through legal channels for doing God’s will? What then?
We continue to do what is right, and we rejoice in persecution. The apostles were arrested by the high priest and Sadducees for preaching God’s Word (Acts 5:17-18). After being miraculously released from prison, the apostles immediately started preaching Jesus again (Acts 5:19-21). The apostles were arrested again and told not to preach in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:27-28). Peter and the apostles responded by proclaiming a fundamental principle of the Christian’s relationship with the government: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Initially, the Sanhedrin wanted to kill the apostles in response to this statement (Acts 5:33), but after some thoughtful reasoning, they beat the apostles and warned them to preach no more (Acts 5:34-40). After the apostles were beaten and warned, they left rejoicing, that’s right, rejoicing because they were considered worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus (Acts 5:41).
Consider the second verse of the national song “Faith of Our Fathers”: “Our fathers, chained in prison dark, were still in heart and conscience free; How sweet would be their children’s fate, if they, like them, could die for Thee!” How true, but we are more likely to face persecution in the form of a lawsuit than face death as a consequence of our devotion to God. We are more likely to be sued, than beaten, for proclaiming God’s Word and living it. Yet, whether we face peace or persecution, love or lawsuit, blessings or beatings, we must remain faithful to God, and continue to vote for men and women who are likely to protect our religious liberties (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
The good news is not that a court is protecting my religious liberties, although I am truly grateful for that. No, the real good news is that we, like the early Christians, are still in heart and conscience free to serve God. With or without the protection of the law, we must serve God. That is good news.

REFERENCES

Mattox, F.W. (1961), The Eternal Kingdom (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Reason & Revelation, 23[3]:17-23, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 313 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2002).
Paul v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).
Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, S.W.3d, 2008 WL 2572009 (Tex. 2008), [On-line], URL: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/062708.asp.

From Gary... My treasure

There can be no doubt where this dog's treasure is.  Further, he is absolutely content with what he has. But all that he has can be taken away from him at any moment if someone were to close the trunk. True, he would be happy for a moment, but when he ran died of thirst, that would be that.  Jesus said:

Matthew, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 19  “Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal;   20  but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don’t break through and steal;   21  for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

Think of things eternal, for only those things can never be taken from you.  That is the heart of the matter.

From Mark Copeland... "GOD’S WILL FOR YOU" In Everything Give Thanks

                          "GOD’S WILL FOR YOU"

                       In Everything Give Thanks

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous two lessons, we saw that it is God’s will...
   a. That you rejoice always
   b. That you pray without ceasing

2. As we return to our beginning text (1Th 5:16-18), we learn that it
   also God’s will...
   a. That we give thanks in everything - 1Th 5:18
   b. "give thanks in all circumstances" - ESV
   c. "be thankful in all circumstances" - NLT

[Not only are we to be thankful in everything, but for everything (Ep
5:20)!  To understand why this is God's will for you, let's consider...]

I. THE NEED TO GIVE THANKS

   A. INGRATITUDE DISPLEASES GOD...
      1. It is included among other sins that would be prevalent in
         "perilous times" - 2Ti 3:1-5
      2. The wrath of God will be revealed against those who are
         unthankful - Ro 1:18-21

   B. WE ARE TO HAVE THE ATTITUDE OF GRATITUDE...
      1. Thankful for what the Father has done for us - Col 1:12-14
      2. Abounding in thanksgiving - Col 2:7
      3. A part of the "garment" we are to put on - Col 3:12-15
      4. A complement to our prayers - Col 4:2; 1Ti 2:1

   C. THANKFULNESS IS KEY...
      1. To overcoming anxiety - Php 4:6
      2. To obtaining the peace of God which surpasses understanding
         - Php 4:6-7
      3. To pray without ceasing, and to rejoicing always - 1Th 5:16-18
         a. When we give thanks in everything, we will pray without ceasing!
         b. When we pray without ceasing, we will rejoice always!
      4. NB:  thankfulness in everything -> praying without ceasing ->
         rejoicing always!

[If we desire to have the peace which passes understanding, that joy
which is inexpressible (1Pe 1:8), then we need to develop the attitude
of gratitude, being thankful in everything!  Some thoughts on...]

II. HOW TO BE THANKFUL IN EVERYTHING

   A. REMEMBER THAT ALL THINGS WORK FOR GOOD...
      1. If we love God and have responded to His call - Ro 8:28
         a. Loving God presumes obedience to His will - 1Jn 5:3
         b. Responding to His call presumes obeying the gospel - cf. 2Th 2:13-14
      2. We can therefore glory in tribulation - Ro 5:3-5
         a. Knowing that it produces character
         b. Which in turn produces hope
      3. We can therefore rejoice in persecution - Mt 5:10-12
         a. Knowing that the kingdom of heaven is ours
         b. Knowing that our reward in heaven will be great
      4. We can therefore rejoice in trials - Jm 1:2-3
         a. Knowing that trials produces patience
         b. Knowing that patience produces perfection and completeness (maturity)

   B. EXPRESS THANKS IN EVERY PRAYER...
      1. We are to include thanksgiving with our prayer requests - Php 4:6
         a. Every time you pray for something, first thank God for something
         b. "Count your many blessings, name them one by one,
            And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done."
            - Johnson Oatman, Jr., 1856-1922
      2. Even when we are facing hard times - e.g., Dan 6:10-11
         a. Daniel made the giving of thanks part of his daily prayers
         b. Even when facing life-threatening crisis, he gave thanks as always

CONCLUSION

1. William Hendriksen has beautifully expressed the importance of giving thanks:

   When a person prays without giving thanks, he has clipped
   the wings of prayer, so that it cannot rise.

2. Do you want...
   a. The full benefit of prayer in your life?
   b. The ability to rejoice always, in every circumstance?

Then take the time to thank God in everything, indeed, for everything
(Ep 5:20), knowing that God can use it for your good (Ro 8:28).

Do this, and you will not only do what is God’s will for you, but you
will become "more than conquerors" through the love of Christ and the
love of God...! - cf. Ro 8:35-39

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Proof of Bible Inspiration: Shaking the Head by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1674

Proof of Bible Inspiration: Shaking the Head

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Can mere humans predict future events? Not in actuality, since no human being knows the future. Only Deity can do so, or empower a human to do so. For example, living at the beginning of the 21^st century, who could possibly provide very detailed, very specific information about the execution of an individual in another country and culture a thousand years into the future? Such ability is beyond human capability. Yet, the Bible portrays just this quality, thereby demonstrating its divine origin.
For example, in a clearly Messianic psalm, King David quoted the Messiah as saying: “All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!’” (Psalm 22:7-8, emp. added). In another psalm, a similar allusion is made: “I also have become a reproach to them; when they look at me, they shake their heads” (Psalm 109:25, emp. added). The individual or individuals who wrote these statements had been dead for centuries when Jesus came to the Earth and fulfilled their predictions. Historical fact verifies that the Psalms were complete centuries prior to the first century A.D. And the actions that were fulfilled were not fulfilled by sympathetic persons, but were, in fact, fulfilled unwittingly by hostile enemies of the Messiah. Consider Matthew’s account of what happened at the cross:

And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing (Matthew 27:39-44, emp. added).

How in the world could anyone predict that those who attended the crucifixion would “shake their heads” at Jesus? Lucky guess?
Well over 300 prophecies are scattered throughout the Old Testament that refer specifically to the Messiah. Such a number could not be gleaned artificially from the Old Testament and made accidentally to match the host of circumstances that characterized the life and death of Jesus Christ hundreds of years later in the first century A.D. This point is especially weighty when one sees the specificity of the predictions, from His birth village to His tormentors spitting on Him. Jesus’ disciples were scattered and hiding in fear (yet another feature predicted—Zechariah 13:7), with most of them likely not even attending the crucifixion (Matthew 26:56; John 16:32). They lacked the facility, opportunity, and wherewithal to identify hundreds of minute details about Jesus’ life and death, and then find matching components in the Old Testament text. A few coincidences might have some counterweight, but 300+ such predictions that entail minute details of Jesus’ life on Earth are overwhelming proof of the supernatural element. Indeed, there is an unprecedented cumulative impact of so many details converging into one Person. Only one conclusion is possible: the only way a writer could pinpoint such specific details is if he was guided in his writing by a divine, transcendent Being. This is the only logical, rational, plausible explanation. The Bible is, indeed, the inspired Word of the God of the Bible.

Human Suffering by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=840

Human Suffering

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

All one has to do is walk through the halls of the nearest hospital or mental institution to see people of all ages suffering from various diseases and illnesses. Suffering is everywhere, and thus such questions as the following inevitably arise. “If there is a God, why am I afflicted with this illness?” “If there is a God, why was my son not allowed to see his sixteenth birthday?” “If there is a God, why are my parents afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease?” These and hundreds of similar questions have echoed from the human heart for millennia. They are as old as the first tear and as recent as the latest newscast.
For many people, the existence of pain and suffering serves as a great obstacle to belief in God. Skeptics and infidels, both past and present, have held that the existence of evil is an embarrassment for those who believe in God. One philosopher, J.L. Mackie, in an article titled “Evil and Omnipotence,” set out to show “not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational,” and “that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.”
How do theists reconcile the presence of suffering with the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God? Some have argued that illness and other kinds of suffering are illusionary and spring from a false belief. Others have maintained that no explanation is necessary, because mere mortals should not have to justify the ways of God to men. But most Christians acknowledge that suffering is real and that it is a problem that deserves careful attention. Even though man cannot explain in specific detail all of the reasons for human suffering, the Bible gives enough answers to allow man to come to grips with the problem in general. Contrary to what many in this world believe, there are a number of logical reasons why people experience mental and physical pain. One of the main reasons is rooted in the fact that God is love (1 John 4:8), and that love allows freedom of choice.
Adam and Eve were presented with a choice in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). Israel was given the choice of serving the Lord or foreign gods (Joshua 24:15). Even today, man is a free moral agent with the ability to make his own choices (Revelation 22:17). God did not create man as a scientist creates a robot that automatically follows his master’s instructions without the choice of doing otherwise. Would God be loving if He created intelligent beings and then programmed them to slavishly serve Him? God granted mankind free will as an expression of His love. Sadly, man frequently brings suffering upon himself because of the wrong decisions he makes. The apostle Peter wrote: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters” (1 Peter 4:15, emp. added). When people suffer the consequences of their own wrong choices, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Man also suffers because of the personal wrong choices of others. If God allows one person freedom of choice, He must allow everyone that freedom to be consistent in His love for the world (God is no respecter of persons—Acts 10:34). Uriah the Hittite suffered because of David’s sins (2 Samuel 11), and ultimately was killed because of David’s attempt to hide the wrong decisions he had made. All of Egypt suffered because Pharaoh decided to keep the Israelites in Egypt when Moses told him to let them go (Exodus 7-12). Today, families may suffer because a father is thrown in jail for drunk driving. In such a case, he is the cause of the family’s suffering. If a man smokes all of his life and then eventually dies at an early age because of lung cancer, both he and his family suffer because of his decision to smoke. God is not to blame for man’s personal wrong choices, nor is He to blame for the wrong decisions that others have made.
We today also suffer on occasion because of the personal wrong choices of former generations. If man is able to reap benefits from the work of former generations (medical discoveries, technological advances, etc.), then it is only logical that he be able to suffer the consequences of the sins of former generations. [Although man does not inherit the sin of Adam, he does suffer because of the choice Adam made to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.] Who is partly to blame for millions starving in third-world countries today? Answer: Some of their ancestors. Years ago, because people accepted the false doctrine of reincarnation, they began teaching that it was wrong to eat cows because they might be eating a long-dead-but-now-reincarnated relative. The doctrine of reincarnation has deprived millions of people throughout the world of good health. Is God to blame when people will not eat the meat that could give them nourishment?
When one experiences suffering in his life, it often is because he has chosen to sin. He might be suffering the consequences of his own wrong decisions, the wrong decisions of others, or the wrong decisions of former generations. But regardless of the reason for the suffering he endures, God is not to blame.

Creation in Medical School Curricula? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3798

Creation in Medical School Curricula?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Elsewhere in this issue of Reason & Revelation (Brooks, 2011), Will Brooks discusses a recent issue of The Scientist in which Leonid Moroz argues that courses on macroevolution should be included in the curricula of medical schools and biomedical Ph.D. programs (Moroz, 2010). Brooks convincingly argues that the debate over macroevolution has no place in such curricula. Although Moroz argues that viewing biology through the lenses of evolutionary theory is critical for optimal performance in medical and bio-medical fields, Brooks notes that even some evolutionists concede that biology makes sense in light of creation as well. He notes from a discussion he had while in graduate school that his advisor agreed that “the way in which we conduct biomedical research is unchanged” regardless of one’s stance on the creation/evolution debate (p. 19). In other words, the discussion is irrelevant for such curricula. My graduate research in the bio-mechanical field attests to this fact as well. Not once was evolutionary theory mentioned in any coursework or research—it was simply irrelevant to the task at hand.
That said, in actuality a strong case can be made for the inclusion of the creation model. The implications of the evolutionary principle known as “the survival of the fittest” were horribly carried out on the Jewish population by the Nazis in World War II in an attempt to create the “master race” (cf. Stein and Miller, 2008; Butt, 2001). In contrast, it is the Christian religion that enjoins principles that are in keeping with patient well-being. While genocide, abortion, and euthanasia are in keeping with the ideals of evolution, the Bible promotes compassion for the weak, sick, and hurting; sacrificing oneself to help others; treating others the way we would want to be treated; and doing our best at whatever we put our hands to—all hallmarks of the medical field. It is the Christian religion that has caused the number of hospitals to grow throughout the world and medicine to be given, often free of charge, to those in need. The American Red Cross, founded in 1881 by the deeply religious, Clara Barton (“A Brief History…,” 2010; Barton, 1922, 2:317-325), is heavily involved in helping others at home and abroad. According to the official American Red Cross Web site: “Today, in addition to domestic disaster relief, the American Red Cross offers compassionate services in five other areas...” (“About Us,” 2010).
Support of such compassionate efforts would certainly be considered among the ideals emphasized by Christianity. In fact, the emblem of the Red Cross is so synonymous with Christianity that it is not used in those countries where the logo is “by its very nature, offensive to Muslim soldiers” (“The History of the Emblems,” 2010; cf. “A Downside to Symbols…,” 2010). Many of the strides that have been made in the medical field in the last 200 years for the benefit of the world were made in this nation, which until the last 30-40 years essentially taught “Christian Biology” in schools. God, Christ, the Bible, and Creation were believed by most Americans and biology was taught through those lenses. The field of medicine or bio-medical research hardly suffered by not teaching evolution, but instead teaching Creation for all those years.
The atheistic evolutionary viewpoint would say, like Scrooge, if someone is not fit enough to live, they ought to die “and decrease the surplus population” (Dickens, 1843, p. 11). Christianity, on the other hand, results in self-sacrificial physicians. That’s the kind of doctor I want working on my family. Christianity fits very nicely in the medical field. Perhaps it should be a part of medical school curricula once again.

REFERENCES

“About Us” (2010), American Red Cross, http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default.
“A Brief History of the American Red Cross” (2010), American Red Cross, http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.86f46a12f382290517a8f210b80f78a0/?vgnextoid=271a2aebdaadb110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD.
“A Downside to Symbols: Cultural Mismatches” (2010), History of Graphic Design, Symbols: The Alphabet of Human Thought, http://www.designhistory.org/symbols.html.
Barton, William E. (1922), The Life of Clara Barton: Founder of the American Red Cross (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Brooks, Will (2011), “Does Evolution Belong in Biomedical Curricula?” Reason & Revelation, 31[3]:18-20, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?&article=3796.
Butt, Kyle (2001), “Ideas Have Consequences,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=528.
Dickens, Charles (1843), A Christmas Carol (New York: Aladdin Classics).
Moroz, Leonid (2010), “The Devolution of Evolution,” The Scientist, 24(11):36.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
“The History of the Emblems” (2010), ICRC Resource Centre, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm.