One Nation Under God - 3

Thank  you  for  joining us in another of our series of studies dealing with  the  situation  in  America  today.
Before   beginning  today's  discussion,  I  would  like  to acknowledge that, obviously, all of the  information   I  am using  has come from other sources.  Much has been gathered, for  example,  from  the  Journal  of  the  American  Family Association.
It  is  a  familiar  theme  from  television  and movie screens.  A  man  or  woman  is  obsessed  with  gambling.
Everything  is  lost.   Then, in one last desperate attempt, the house is mortgaged or loan sharks are approached.  All is made to ride on one horse race, one more card game, one more roll of the dice.
'No!' we all cry out.  That is a totally  irresponsible approach.  Besides, it's stupid.
Taxes  are high, and needs for social services continue to rise.  The government turns to gambling as  a  source  of painless revenue.  It will be so easy.  And everyone will be so happy.
"Yes!" we all cry out.
An  individual  is  desperate.   Or maybe working for a living is too slow and  painful  a  process.   That  lottery ticket  can  change everything.  And using the grocery money to  buy  more  lottery  tickets  will  just   increase   the probability  of  winning.   Besides, we can always depend on the government for food and housing.  And when the obsession becomes an addiction, the government can be responsible  for rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, this  is no longer a movie screen.  The big  government  revenues  never   materialize.    But   the nightmares do.  Instead of solving all the budget worries we are faced with the most unmanageable fiscal situation ever.
Schools   are   entrusted   with  instilling  in  young Americans a solid work  ethic.   The  only  way  to  lasting success  is through honesty and hard work.  At the same time we have been told that our schools could  expect  tremendous income  through  gambling  instead of through difficult, but honest, taxes.  After all, it is all right  for  governments to turn to gambling to solve a financial crisis.
What  is seen as the solution when gambling doesn't pay the bills?  Let's have more gambling.  And let's try  bigger and better gambling games.
Very  few government officials have had the backbone to say, "Enough is enough!
What's wrong with gambling, anyway?  What a person does with his own money is his own business, isn't it?  Well,  it isn't  hard  to realize that, as they say in the movies, "It just ain't so.   You see, when all is said and done, we  are the  ones  stuck  with  the responsibility of picking up the pieces.  When part of the population winds up with no money, who is going to pay the bills?  Is it the big winners?   No, they  are  still tying up our courts trying to collect their money.
Then, as was  already  mentioned,  gambling  is  not  a responsible  way  to  put  money  in  the  bank.   And it is certainly not a responsible way to finance a government.
Where do lottery winnings come from, anyway?  They come from the losses of others.  The one who  wins  profits  from the  suffering of the rest.  How would we react if a teacher tried to tell our children that the way  to  succeed  is  to step on everyone else, especially when they are down?  Sure, the  money  comes  from  some  extra pocket change.  It also comes from the tables of hungry children.  When we cash  the winner's  check,  can  we request to receive only the "good" money and decline the "bad?"
With the gambling question, as  with  everything  else, the  discussion  invariably gets around to, "What I do is my business."  It always turns to, "My rights!"
There was a day when we were taught that  my  right  to swing  my  arm  ends  where  your  nose  begins.  Remember a teacher saying that somewhere down the line?  The  sentiment today  focuses more on the feeling that where I swing my arm is my business.  If your nose gets in the way,  that's  your problem.
We hear  a  lot  about  "Freedom of Speech," don't we. Actually, we see it abused in ways that were never intended.
For example, the United States  government  spends  millions   of  dollars  every  year  to  fund  the  National Endowment of the Arts.  This money is  doled  out  in  large chunks  to  finance  projects that hardly qualify as art and certainly would not survive without government support.
We won't offend you with descriptions of the  so-called works  of  art  and  performances  financed  by the National Endowment of the Arts.  Be assured, though,  that  your  tax dollars  are  being  used  to finance things which are worse than you can possibly imagine.
Whenever an attempt is made to  remove  the  government from  this  albatross,  the  cry  of  "Freedom of Speech" is heard.  After all ,  the  government  must  not  censor  free expression.
Actually,   the   situation  has  nothing  to  do  with censorship.  It has to do with sponsorship.  It is one thing to preserve for posterity through museums works of art which have been proved by the test of time.  It is something  else entirely  to  bolster  a  project  which is repulsive to the public.  It is not the job of the government to establish  a form  of  state-supported  art.  But then, providing massive amounts of money doesn't mean  the  government  approves  of this art, or so we are told.
Why  is  it,  then,  that  the  same  people cry "State support of religion!" when a single prayer is uttered  at  a graduation  ceremony?   By  the way, has anyone figured out, yet, why shouting  obscenities  in  a  public  gathering  is protected  by  the  constitution  while  saying  a prayer is outlawed by the same document?
While we are on the  subject  of  censorship  and  free speech,  we  might want to consider the case of Forrest Mims III, author of 70 books as well as more  than  500  articles printed in publications including National Geographic World, Science  Digest,  Physics  Today,  The  American  Journal of Physics and Scientific American.
"There's no question  that  on  their  own  merits  the columns  are  fabulous," Scientific American editor Jonathan Piel commented.  "I trust you,"  Piel also stated.    "You're a man of honor and integrity."
When  there  was an opening for a regular column in the magazine Mims appeared to be the hands-down favorite..   Then it   came  to  light  that  Mims  had  written  for  several "christian" periodicals.  The editors of Scientific American refused to hire Mims if he  did  not  accept  the  Darwinian theory  of  evolution.  All agree that Mims is a good writer and that he knows his subject.  They  just  don't  like  his religious views.
After  making token statements denouncing what happened to Mims, both the American Civil  Liberties  Union  and  the American  Association for the Advancement of Science refused to become involved.
"Technically Mims was never hired and therefore had  no legitimate  complaint," Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said.  "It  isn't unusual , "  she  added,  "for  a  physical scientist to doubt evolution because of his or her lack of training."
This last observation should be of interest to the many physical  scientists  who  reject  evolution  in  favor   of creation.   In  fact,  the number of physicists and chemists who accept  creation  has  grown  to  the  point  that  some biologists  have  been  heard  to  claim  that theirs is the science of origins and that scientists from  other  branches have  no place in the discussion.  Of course, their claim is not true,  but  it  is  the  best  they  can  do  under  the circumstances.
But,  it  appears  that there are some biologists, too, whose "lack of training," as the executive director  of  the NCSE put it, is causing them to doubt evolution.
Dr.  Charles  B.  Thaxton  once held a position  in the philosophy of  science  department  as  Harvard.   He  is  a leading authority on chemical evolution.
Dr.  Percival Davis is co-author of several widely used college-level biology textbooks.
Dr. Dean H. Kenyon is a professor  of  biology  at  San Francisco   State   University.    He   is   the  author  of best-selling books dealing with biochemistry and origins.
These three joined forces  to  produce  a  supplemental biology text book entitled, "Of Pandas and People.."  In this book  they  compare  the theories of evolution with ideas of intelligent design.  The book does not mention God,  Christ, the Bible, church or creation
"I would heartily endorse the adoption of this book for use in the schools," Dr. David Shotton, professor of biology at Oxford, stated.
But  when  the  November  1989  issue  of  The  Science Teacher,  published  by  the   National   Science   Teachers Association,  carried  an  ad  for the book, an evolutionist complained.   The  magazine  banned  the  ad   from   future editions
John Buchanan, chairman of People for the American Way, called the book "a creationist tract."
When  the book was presented for use in Alabama, it was first argued that consideration of  the  book  had  violated protocol.   Then  they complained that it did riot compliment the  course  of  study.   Finally  they  labeled  the  book, "religious  creation"  science in spite  of  the fact that scientists from Oxford, Brandeis, Yale,  Princeton  and  the University of Alabama explained that the book's presentation of  " intelligent  design" could not be equated with creation science.
In  spite  of  the  fact  that   state   law   requires instruction  in  alternative theories of the origin of life, the board continued to side with the opposition and the book was finally withdrawn from consideration.
Bill  Aldridge,  executive  director  of  the  National Science  Teachers  Association,  suggested that the book was not accepted because the authors "were not qualified experts in the field of biology."
"Any bozo can get a  Ph.D  in  molecular  biology,"  he added,  "and  any  idiot  can  write  a best-selling college textbook."
For more than 15  years  Dr.  Robert  Gentry  conducted research  on polonium radio halos.  His findings were widely published.   But when it  appeared  that  the  research  was headed  toward  findings  supporting creation, he was denied further funding by the National Science Foundation.
The CBS television network has consistently refused  to sell time  for christian programming, even to Billy Graham.
But they are paying Norman Lear, founder of People  for  the American Way, to produce a new series called SUNDAY DINNER.
An  American Airlines publication refers to the program as a "spiritual sitcom."  According to the  publication  the program  "addresses  God,  debates  religion arid delves into spirituality."
Could it be that our "One nation under God" is becoming a  nation of double-standards"?  Does it appear that many do not want to be confused by the facts?
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes," the  wise man Solomon observes in Proverbs 12:15.
"There  is  a  way which seems right to a man," Solomon notes in Proverbs 14:12, "but its end is the way of death."
"For the  word  of  the  cross  is  to  those  who  are perishing  foolishness,"  Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Even today, and even among scientists, there are  those who  prefer  falsehood.   They  refuse  to even consider the truth.  They prefer to be enslaved by pre-conceived ideas. They  even  censor  those who try to examine the truth.  And this is sad.  Because it is only the truth which will set us free.

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."