Secularists have exploded over the passage of the "Louisiana Science and Education Act". The Act was recently signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal after having been passed by an overwhelming majority of the Louisiana legislature. The Act protects the freedom of “teachers, principals, and other school administrators” in elementary and secondary schools to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of a variety of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In other words, the act provides for the freedom and support of teachers and school boards to present varied analyses on these and other scientific issues. So why are the denizens of blogs like the Huffington Post in such a huff? Because “science” is their “truth,” and it is blasphemous to question their beliefs.

Secularists are unwilling to have their orthodoxy challenged. Just as Galileo had to fight against the church and government of his day, those who dare to question today"s “settled” theories are banished by scientific and political Inquisitors. The implications of being wrong are too much to fathom; therefore, the secularist worldview must go unchallenged.

Academic freedom and the pursuit of scientific knowledge are laudable goals and are often parroted by secularists in defense of their pursuits. But, when those pursuits veer from politically correct orthodoxy into the exploration of a differing opinion or analysis, secularists will not reciprocate that freedom. Their usual response is not to critique the substance of the opposing opinion or analysis, but to transmute any opposition out of the realm of science and into religion. Thus, any analysis that calls into question any aspect (no matter how small) of the theory of evolution becomes an educational and/or constitutional crisis.

The blog Little Green Footballs raises a typical response to the Louisiana law by referring to it as a “creationist bill” that will make “American educational standards take a huge step backward.” In following the secular script, the author dutifully transmutes the issue and predictably warns of impending educational doom. One would think that “logical analysis” and “open and objective discussion” when applied to any subject matter would enhance educational standards. Not this author. The only step possible is backward so, therefore, we must stand still.

Editors of the New York Times join in the fray by calling the law “Louisiana"s latest assault on Darwin.” The New York Times goes as far as to state that the “critical thinking” and “objective analysis”, which the law promotes but does not require, will have a “pernicious effect” on the theory of evolution by “implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” Why are the editors at the Times so sure that critical thinking and objective analysis will have a pernicious effect on evolution"s claims? If there are no valid competing claims, wouldn"t rigorous scrutiny reinforce that conclusion? If the editors are so sure of themselves, what are they so afraid of?

The Louisiana Science and Education Act clearly states that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine” or “promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs.” Moreover, the act includes an added check by giving the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education the authority to prohibit any supplemental materials they do not deem fit for the proper education of the state"s students. But these safeguards, no doubt included in an attempt to allay the hysteria of the hysterical, are of no matter. Secularists see any contrary hypotheses to their coveted issues as a direct threat to science itself. Somehow, in the minds of the so-called enlightened, allowing for the presentation and critique of differing views is unscientific (not to mention their fears that it could bring into dispute things they claim are “indisputable”).

The conflict over Louisiana"s new law is just another battle in the war over the truth and who gets to control it. In Galileo"s day, the Church reigned supreme. Today, it"s the anti-Church. But a funny thing about the truth is that no one can control it because sooner or later it reveals itself. No matter how many times Al Gore says the “science is settled,” more information arrives to unsettle things. Even Albert Einstein, a celebrated secularist, was not afraid of what the truth might be. He declared, "By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. It is evident that any restriction on academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge among the people and thereby impedes national judgment and action."

Secularists maintain that they put their faith in science. If so, one wonders why they resort to demagoguery to defend their so-called scientific positions. Undoubtedly, it is because they fear what “critical thinking,” “logical analysis,” and “open and objective discussion” might reveal.

No society has ever overcome poverty. In the US today, the question of how to help the poor is particularly controversial, with two partisan sides struggling vigorously to promote their own answers. The liberal camp argues that government is the best entity to help the poor at home and abroad. They think that it is the responsibility of the nation, through the mechanism of government, to care for its people and to help the poor in other countries. Libertarian conservatives, on the other hand, believe that government has no place in helping the poor and needy. They think that the responsibility to care for the poor rests on the shoulders of individuals. The two camps are dramatically opposed. Both think that the other's solution cannot work.

Christians have an obligation to serve the poor and needy. Indeed, their service to the poor is a reflection of their respect for God. Proverbs 14:31 (NIV) declares, “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." The question is, “How should they help?” Which of the two competing political solutions is the most "Christian"?

Michael Gerson recently wrote a column denouncing the idea of "The Libertarian Jesus." While he admits that government can be a flawed instrument for helping the poor, he goes on to declare that "the scale of these needs is sometimes overwhelming." He argues, "Private compassion cannot replace Medicaid or provide AIDS drugs to millions of people in Africa for the rest of their lives. In these cases, a role for government is necessary and compassionate..."

Gerson is trying to strike a balance between the liberal and libertarian solutions. His effort to induce compassion into the sometimes cold-hearted conservatism is to be commended, but he overreaches a bit in his assumptions.

Private citizens, churches and charities have more capacity to provide for the poor and needy, both at home and abroad, than is currently being utilized. Sadly, too many Christians have neglected their personal and corporate obligations to help the poor. They have not heeded the admonitions of Scripture to help the poor and they have lost sight of the implications of their failure to do so. There is no ambiguity in the Scripture about these matters: “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done.” (Prov.19:17 NIV) “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.” (Prov. 21:13 NIV) “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor.” (Prov. 22:9 NIV) “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.” (Prov. 28:27 NIV)

Many Christians fear their resources will be diminished by giving some of them away. God"s economy, however, does not operate on a zero-sum principle, but rather on the principle of sowing and reaping (i.e., you reap what you sow). Furthermore, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our service to the poor is service to God himself (“... whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40 NIV). The converse is also true (“... whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Matt. 25:45).

Christians need to be reminded of their responsibility to help the poor. Too often in America, Christians view private charity as an optional use of their money. As a result, many members of the Body of Christ choose not to give. Consequently, government steps in and coerces charity by levying taxes to help the poor. The government, of course, is notorious for its inefficiency. Government charity programs are scarcely ever as effective as well-run private charities or church programs. Moreover, all too often, government uses charity as a political device to “buy” constituencies for politicians or their parties.

Marvin Olasky examines the contrast between private and government aid in his book, "The Tragedy of American Compassion." Olasky identifies seven principles which undergird any successful charity: charity should encourage affiliation with the needy person's local community, church and family; it should form a bond between the needy and the charitable; it should organize the needy into different groups depending on their type of need; it should seek to establish the needy person in a long-term job; it should emphasize the freedom of being able to provide for oneself; and it should recognize the spiritual and not just material needs of the poor. These principles require the kind of personalized, individual, local and spiritual care which the government simply cannot provide.

Gerson admits that private charity is often superior to government charity, but he still maintains that government is necessary. While there is merit to what he says, Gerson misses the immense potential of private giving to meet the needs of the poor. Government has had to step into the role of provider because private citizens, and particularly the church, have failed to help the needy. Instead of passively accepting expanded government to fulfill charitable needs, we ought to aggresively encourage private giving and call ourselves, our churches and our neighbors to account for our lack of charity to the poor and needy.

Make no mistake about it, however: government does have an obligation to the poor. There are poor people in our midst and a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not ignore their needs. Government should not be merely an instrument for the rich and powerful. The tension is finding the right balance between public and private charity. That tension will be more easily resolved if Christians will step up and meet their obligation to help the poor.

A group of prominent, self-proclaimed evangelicals, including Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and John Huffman, is attempting to clear up this ambiguity with the recently released "Evangelical Manifesto." They argue that evangelicals need to define themselves for themselves, rather than letting the media or politicians define them. They then go on to provide a definition of what it means, in their collective opinion, to be an evangelical, and they invite all evangelicals who agree to sign the Manifesto.

The document seems to have two primary purposes: to define evangelicals theologically and to call us to retake our proper place in the public sphere. The three-year effort that went into the Manifesto should be an encouragement to all evangelicals, even those who disagree with the stance of these writers. They are seeking to set theological limits on evangelicalism, and they are trying to correct the sometimes harsh voices of the culture wars by urging evangelicals to present their arguments civilly.

Rather than spending time finding nits to pick with the lengthy document, it would be better for evangelicals to think long and hard about our relationship to culture. Most of us would admit that evangelicals on both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum sometimes fail to maintain the proper relationship to culture. Conservatives often err by rejecting culture and trying to isolate themselves from it rather than putting in the effort to reform culture from the inside. Liberals, on the other hand, often err by embracing culture to the point where they "politely" hide their beliefs.

Evangelicals need to remember the importance of both what we say and how we say it. We need to be bold and firm in proclaiming our beliefs, while simultaneously presenting these beliefs civilly and respectfully. The authors of the Manifesto reference Augustine's understanding of the relationship between the City of God and the Earthly City. Christians have a higher end in sight than the present world, but we do have a duty to work with the citizens of the Earthly City for the common temporal good. This balance between the present and eternity is difficult, and it is all too easy to ignore the Earthly City or to try to establish the City of God on earth, but Christ left us with no illusions that our tasks would be easy.

It is important to recognize that the authors of the Manifesto are not so much commenting on the specific political positions evangelicals should take, as on the relationship evangelicals should have to the general public sphere. The authors are calling evangelicals back towards a careful, charitable and respectful public discourse with those with whom we disagree, including atheists, people of other faiths, and even our fellow believers. Such careful discourse is the duty of every evangelical, regardless of their political opinions.

Evangelicals are called to be respectful and charitable in the public sphere, but we are also called to be firm in preaching truth. Both can be achieved, but we should not be surprised when presenting the truth, even respectfully, sometimes stings the ears of those who listen. Evangelicals will continue to be called judgmental or mean-spirited, regardless of their approach to politics, but our attempts at respectful civil discourse are not to please other men, but to please our heavenly Father.

The Evangelical Manifesto presented a clear call to evangelicals to define themselves and their place in the world. We ought not bristle at such a call, for it is our duty to examine ourselves humbly when we receive the admonition of fellow believers. We would do well to examine the theology preached from our pulpits and the principles we advocate in politics, to ensure that both are presented truthfully and civilly. We ought to be, after all, people of good will. Nevertheless, let no one confuse our good will with a lack of will. Truth matters, whether people acknowledge it or not.

The state's high court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage passed by a whopping 61.4 percent of voters in 2000. By a slim 4-3 majority, the court nullified the vote of the citizens of California and substituted its own judgment for that of the people. The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection clause of the constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Never mind that, since time immemorial, marriage has represented the union of one man and one woman. And never mind that the California Constitution does not create an exception to the rule for same-sex couples.

The American people have become all too familiar with the drill. The legislature passes a law banning abortion and the court overturns it. Children try to pray in school and the courts forbid it. The citizenry takes a stand for heterosexual marriage and the courts undercut it, branding them "bigots" in the process.

Activist judges are substituting their judgment for that of the American people and undermining the right of the people to govern themselves. In doing so, they are misrepresenting the requirements of the Constitution, and the American people are standing idly by as if there is nothing they can do about it. The other two branches of government—the legislative and executive branches—are standing idly by as well. Indeed, they have aided and abetted the judicial usurpation of authority by cowering at the feet of judges who are misrepresenting the provisions of the Constitution. The elected branches have done nothing to implement the checks and balances available to them to rein in a runaway judiciary. They simply furrow their brows and wring their hands while judicial activists run away with our democracy. In its place, these activists are substituting a judicial oligarchy.

Some believe that the solution to the problem is to pass constitutional amendments aimed at overturning the court decisions. They believe that adding new words to our state and federal constitutions will solve the problem. They are wrong!

There is nothing wrong with our existing federal and state constitutions. What is wrong is that judges are wrongly misrepresenting the requirements of these documents. Indeed, they are rewriting the documents by misconstruing them in order to satisfy their own social and political agendas. Through remarkable powers of extrasensory perception they divine new meanings in the words of the foundational documents and perceive rights that are not to be found in the texts themselves. Newly-found rights to privacy are gleaned from existing documents and those rights are translated into the right of women to kill their innocent unborn children and of venal husbands to starve their disabled wives to death. Equal protection of the law means that same-sex couples have a right to marry regardless of how noxious that notion is to the majority of our citizens and notwithstanding the destructive impact of such a ruling on the family, the foundational unit of civilization. These are judges who view words as wax to be shaped and fashioned to suit their own agendas. Is it reasonable to think they will be constrained by new words when they have failed to heed the meaning and intent of the existing ones? Do we really expect that these judges will fall prostrate at the feet of the new words and submit to their plain and ordinary meaning?

This contest is not about words, it is about wills. It is about the wills of activist judges intent on fashioning a society to fit their own vision, and it is about the will of the people and their elected representatives who used to cherish and believe in the right to self government. Do we still have the will to govern ourselves? Or will we submit like sheep to judicial elites who think they know what's best for everybody else? Will the executive and legislative branches, acting like co-equals, step up and rein in these errant judges, or will they blindly submit like a subordinate stepchild to a higher authority? Will legislators impeach judges who fraudulently misrepresent the requirements of our foundational documents? Will executives refuse to carry out the decisions of judges who make hash of the Constitution? Will voters refuse to retain judges who are unfaithful to the language and intent of the laws and constitutions? Will they insist on electing executives and legislators who will go nose to nose with the courts on the language and meaning of the laws of our states and our country?

Americans have not always had the view of judicial supremacy that prevails today. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that judicial review included review of the acts of the President and Congress, but he thought those branches had a right to decide for themselves whether to accept the high courts' ruling. Andrew Jackson, disagreeing with a decision of the high court on an Indian removal issue spotlighted the differences between the role of the judiciary and the role of the executive when he remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Abraham Lincoln, in the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, acknowledged the danger of judicial despotism in his First Inaugural Address. Lincoln stated, "The candid citizen must confess that, if the policy of the government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decision of the Supreme Court... the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Judicial tyranny by any other name is still tyranny. Do Americans still have the will to resist it? Only time will tell.

Proponents of euthanasia understand the power of language in shaping debate. Therefore, instead of using the term "physician-assisted suicide" to describe the practice they advocate, they use euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" to sugar coat the reality of the killings they have in view. They know the term "physician-assisted suicide" does not poll well, so they try to disguise the real nature of what it is they are championing. Since people are inherently uncomfortable with the notion that those trained in the healing arts would aid and abet the killing of their patients, euphemisms are used to conceal the true nature of what's involved. Everyone wants to die with dignity. Thus, like abortion, killing oneself with a doctor's assistance becomes just another "choice."

Many in the medical community are complicit in this deception, and, although doctors were once trained to "do no harm," they are now fostering it through the deceptive use of rhetoric. A recent New York Times article, written by Jane Gross, describes one such deception. The article explains that a new practice called "slow medicine" has gained support in medical communities in recent years. The goal of slow medicine is to encourage "physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limited rewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses...." [emphasis added]. Thus slow medicine seeks to aid doctors, families, and patients in resisting medical efforts to cure treatable illnesses.

When first confronted with the slow medicine approach, patients understandably find it offensive. The New York Times article reports that Kendal at Hanover, a retirement community which encourages the slow medicine approach, "begins by asking newcomers whether they want to be resuscitated or go to the hospital and under what circumstances." Brenda Jordan, a nurse practitioner at Kendal, explains, "'They give me an amazingly puzzled look, like "Why wouldn't I?"'" This reaction is completely natural and in keeping with any patient who values their own life. Even Dr. Tom Rosenthal, UCLA's chief medical officer and a believer in slow medicine, admits, "The culture has a built-in bias that everything that can be done will be done."

To overcome that instinctive cultural bias, the Kendal staff steps in to explain things to its patients. While the explanation is couched in quality of life terms and foreboding statistics, underneath lies a utilitarian concern never overtly addressed. In her article, Gross explains, "The costliest patients—the elderly with chronic illnesses—are the only group with universal health coverage under Medicare, leading to huge federal expenditures that experts agree are unsustainable as boomers age." Thus, there are financial benefits that flow from every elderly person's decision to "die with dignity."

Recent experience in The Netherlands illustrates where deceptive language about euthanasia can lead. When The Netherlands first legalized euthanasia, it was only allowed in rare cases of "intolerable suffering." "The guidelines were designed specifically to keep assisted suicide occurrences few and far between by establishing demanding conditions that had to be met, at the risk of criminal prosecution." Yet doctors soon began interpreting these guidelines broadly, and the government and the courts did almost nothing to prevent it. Now the Netherlands, under its euthanasia law, allows the killing of infants with non-life threatening birth defects. Additionally, Dutch doctors are euthanizing patients without their permission. Repeated studies have demonstrated that 900-1000 patients experience "termination without request or consent" every year. The Dutch government usually turns a blind eye to this illegal practice as well.

If The Netherlands is any indication, the citizens of the United States ought to guard aggressively against the rhetorical gyrations of euthanasia's proponents. No matter how flowery their language is, they promote the killing of human beings. They propose a "right to die" but, in actuality, they want the right to kill.

In our postmodern world, however, many scholars are learning the hard way that "academic freedom" has become an Orwellian term meaning "academic tyranny." Today, in the academy, one is free only to advance notions that are consonant with the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. Challenges to that orthodoxy are often met with denials of tenure, refusals to renew contracts, or expulsion.

Nowhere is this more evident than when the notion of Darwinian Evolution is questioned. And nowhere are the limitations of academic freedom more in evidence than in the debate over Intelligent Design. In his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles the fate of scholars who dared to proffer the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) as an explanation for the origin of life. Their efforts were rebuffed with Gestapo-like tactics carried out by the politically correct police who brooked no challenges to Charles Darwin's theories. The heterodox were deemed unworthy of membership in the academy and were expelled. Tenure was denied and their contracts were not renewed. Challenges to the existing "academic consensus" are simply not allowed. Thus, a scholar's freedom of inquiry has been transmogrified to freedom from inquiry.

History is replete, however, with great advances made by scholars who challenged the existing "academic consensus." Names like Galileo and Kepler and Einstein come to mind. Progress, after all, often requires thinking outside the box.

Stein's documentary contains interviews with some of the world's leading atheists who are also proponents of Darwin's theories. Of course, they do not acknowledge Darwinism to be merely a theory; to them it is settled science. Yet their notions of the origin of life can hardly be called "scientific." Michael Ruse posits in the film that life on earth evolved on the backs of crystals and Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, hypothesizes that life was planted on earth through space aliens. Men such as these are deemed "leading lights" in the academic community, but Stein's cross-examination makes them appear to be rather "dim bulbs." Intelligent Design seems eminently plausible compared to the ravings of these scientists who appear educated beyond their intelligence.

In Expelled, Ben Stein also interviews Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE's mission is "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools," and Dr. Scott is the self-appointed Chief of the Politically Correct Thought Police. Although a putative proponent of academic freedom, she maintains that there is no room for discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom. She comes across as Darwin's Eva Braun in the film.

Instead of encouraging free inquiry, the scientists interviewed in the documentary mock ID as "pseudo-science" or "religion masquerading as science." These barbs are based on their assumption that the notion that God (or a designer) created life somehow contradicts rational thought. They argue that ID is based on belief—not rational science—but they neglect to mention that their theories on the origin of life are also based on an element of belief. Indeed, the acceptance of any theory of origins necessitates belief (or faith) in that theory.

The NCSE's dogmatic dismissal of alternative theories of our origin in an attempt to preserve "science standards" smacks of the censorship Galileo suffered at the hands of the Church when he defended the theory that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system. Perhaps most telling is Dr. Scott's claim that the NCSE will not rest until the last brushfires of controversy over evolution are put out. These efforts to extinguish controversy and to mute dissenting voices are antithetical to traditional notions of academic freedom. But that doesn't bother the scholars who are interviewed in the film. In the academy, it's 1984 and, in their world, freedom is tyranny.

Sadly, Mr. Obama's views are not uncommon among the elites who walk the corridors of power in the Federal City. These are the people who think Washington knows best. They think they are smarter than everybody else. They believe they can spend your money better than you can. And they know more about raising their children than you do.

Rural folk are seen as uninformed and unrefined. Their values are antiquated and their beliefs are passé. If one worries that they are going to be displaced in their job by someone who doesn't speak English and who will work for a cheaper wage, they must necessarily harbor some form of animus against those who are foreign-born. The idea that guns would be used for recreation is a foreign notion to the elites. Why on earth would you need them for protection, when big government exists to take care of you?

Senator Obama's comments are indicative of the lack of understanding many politicians have about the middle and lower classes. Democrats and Republicans alike speak of promoting the values and livelihood of the middle class, but few of the candidates seem to know what really drives these people's lives. Mayhill Fowler, a Huffington Post blogger who first leaked Obama's comments, argued that Obama's approach emphasized stereotypes instead of providing his wealthy audience with a window into the lives of blue collar workers.

Obama's remarks show the increasing distance between small town conservatives and those who control our government, media and major businesses. Obama says that the simple ideas of small town people are merely a result of their under-privileged economic status. As David Paul Kuhn of Real Clear Politics explains, however, this misunderstanding of rural culture has undercut liberal efforts for decades. In reality, the middle and lower classes in middle America are not "clinging" to their beliefs because they're poor or struggling. Their beliefs are fundamental to how they live their lives, and until liberals begin to understand this, they will not attract middle-America voters.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have long appealed to the moral concerns of these middle-state voters prior to each election, but their failure to come through on their promises (because their real agenda seems to be to advance the interest of the moneyed elites) has undercut much of their previous support among the small town conservatives. These voters are truly conservative, believing in the importance of limited government, low spending, local control and public morality. Their understanding of faith, morality and liberty informs their daily lives and political beliefs. These ideas compose the core of small town conservative communities—they are not merely a result of lost jobs.

The view of the middle class presented by Obama is not new or unique to him—it traces back to the prominent American progressives of the early 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men." Progressives have long thought that the fundamental factor determining cultural virtue was the economic stability of the American people.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have come to share this misunderstanding of rural conservatives. While they hold to different economic principles than Democrats (though increasingly less-so), Republicans today see culture in terms of dollars and cents. They believe culture will function smoothly and virtuously if everyone is allowed to participate freely in the market. While these economic principles are important, they still miss the true cultural foundation of America.

Wilhelm Röpke was a firm believer in the free market, but he also saw the vital importance of principles of morality in society. He said in A Humane Economy, "The free world will prevail only if it succeeds in filling the emptiness of the soul in its own manner and with its own values.... What we need is to bethink ourselves quietly and soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity and respect of human life and the ultimate values." Röpke understood that economic standing is not the basis of a sound culture. Ultimate values are far more important to the well-being and success of a nation than the condition of its markets.

Sadly, neither Mr. Obama nor the elites of the dominant political parties grasp these traditional conservative truths. Obama lumps together religion, xenophobia, the right to bear arms and prejudice—thereby displaying his liberal view of culture. The political elites, on the other hand, ignore traditional small-town conservatives in favor of their big donors whose primary concern is their own personal economic gain. The real hope for America, however, lies in the deeply-held faith and moral principles of these "simple" small-town folks. That faith and those principles will enable them to remain steadfast in their ways despite the politicians and the media who treat them so dismissively.

Science is unquestionably a worthwhile pursuit, but many have come to view science as an end unto itself. The unbridled pursuit of science and technology is glorified, and any who suggest constraining science within limits of morality or propriety are condemned. Raising the simple question of whether something should be done is considered taboo. Radical science advocates are only interested in whether something can be done.

Central to the "science without limits" view is the notion that man is merely an animal, the product of random chance. God is removed from the creation equation and the notion of moral truth is abandoned. Notions of right and wrong are relegated to the spheres of theology and philosophy and do not constrain the consciences or actions of radical scientists.

The latest example of the results of radical science is the blending of human DNA and animal cells in Britain. There scientists extracted the DNA from a human embryonic cell and injected it into a "emptied" cow egg. This process, it is argued, produces a 99.9% human embryo from which scientists can harvest stem cells for further research and analysis. A group at Newcastle University led by Lyle Armstrong produced one such "cybrid" embryo (cytoplasmic hybrid) on April 1. It lived three days and grew to 32 cells. The ultimate goal is to extend a cybrid's life cycle to six days, at which time stem cells can be removed.

Current British law makes it illegal to allow these cybrids to live longer than 14 days or to implant them into a human womb. The use of animal eggs is justified by the shortage of human eggs and the danger to women in harvesting them. The process is authorized upon receipt of a license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The creation of cybrids by the scientific community represents a frontal assault on human dignity. The mixing of human and animal cells for the purpose of creating a 99.9% person is a grave violation of the natural order and strikes at the heart of what it means to be a human being. If the practice is allowed to persist, the percentages will inevitably change based on the utility of the various combinations of humans and animals. The average person recoils at such a practice, but not the radical scientists.

Scientists working in embryology have long clamored for the complete freedom to create, manipulate and destroy embryos as they see fit. On top of this clamor, they demand a blank check from the government in pursuit of this research and are indignant at any restrictions. The British government recently considered a ban on the creation of cybrids, but quickly "retreated after a revolt by scientists."

The scientists hold out the promise of "cures" for diseases and disabilities in order to circumvent ethical concerns. These supposed future cures are the carrots with which the scientific community is manipulating the politicians.

Sadly, the truth about these ghoulish practices is usually buried under complex scientific verbiage and ambiguous promises. Professor Neil Scolding of Bristol University, a Catholic researcher into stem cells, stated that the practical prospect of human and animal DNA working in harmony and producing a useful organism is "a big ask".

Professor Scolding also refers to the new, more successful developments in adult stem cell research as an approach which could hold great cures while also avoiding the ethical problems of "cybrids" and embryonic stem cell research. He comments that these promising adult stem cell developments make it "all the more inexplicable why a small minority of UK stem cell scientists wants to pursue the extraordinarily complex and frankly speculative hybrid approach."

Unfortunately, the British Commons has completely acquiesced to the limitless pursuit of embryological science. Instead of seeking to ban this practice, they have proposed a "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill" which would give an official stamp of approval on the manufacture of cybrids.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, responded effectively to the idea that morality and restraint should be sacrificed on the altar of "cures". He said, "It is worth remembering that France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalise. Could it be that the citizens and politicians of those countries care nothing for the chronically ill among them? Perhaps they don't want to develop cures for therapies; perhaps they are simply anti-scientific luddites! Or could it be that we are wrong and these democracies see no reason to attack the sanctity and dignity of human life when many alternatives exist?"

The Cardinal is right to sound the alarm. Human dignity will be lost completely if mankind does not act to create ethical boundaries for scientific investigation. Respect for human life must be the pole star that guides science and technology. The foundation of human dignity is that human beings are created in the image of God. If we lose sight of that fact, all humanity will suffer and radical science will become one of the chief instruments that produces that suffering.

Unfortunately, slavery is still a widespread practice all over the world, including the US. The Civil War may have removed the public sanction of slavery, but it is still a common underground practice. Journalist Benjamin Skinner undertook four years of undercover investigation into "human trafficking" (a euphemism for slavery) in order to increase awareness of this international injustice. His research and experiences are chronicled in his recent book, "A Crime So Monstrous." Skinner posed as a customer at underground brothels in several countries in order to get a better picture of the realities of the slave trade. He was exposed to many heart-wrenching human abuses, including being offered a young woman with Down syndrome for a used car.

Skinner's interview with Salon magazine provides a disturbing look at a widespread practice of which most Americans are unaware. Skinner explains that, "'There are more slaves today than at any point in human history.'" Indeed, according to the recently released Department of State's "Trafficking In Persons Report", the International Labor Organization (a UN agency) "Estimates that there are 12.3 million people in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude at any given time; other estimates range from 4 million to 27 million."

These numbers are not confined to third world countries. The same Department of State report estimates that 800,000 persons are trafficked in the United States every year. Of these, 80% are female, and over 50% are minors. A CIA report indicates that 45,000-50,000 of the trafficked women and children were brought into the US under false pretenses and pushed into prostitution or forced labor. The worldwide circumstances of slavery vary widely. Many of the slaves in the United States are "employed" in brothels, striving to repay a debt to those who brought them into the country—a debt with terms that can never be fulfilled. In other countries indentured servitude is common—men, women, and children strive for many years, even lifetimes, to work off the "terms" of a small debt incurred by their parents or grandparents.

These numbers are sickening and hard to grasp, but more disturbing are the failures of the justice system to stop this profitable "industry". In 2000, only 76 cases of slavery were prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice, and there is not a single shelter for trafficked persons in the United States. While the US has taken some steps in the right direction, according to Skinner the U.N. has remained "tepid and afraid of offending member states." In 1999, the U.N decided to forego the term "slavery" in favor of "intertribal abductions" in order to be more diplomatic.

This weak response to slavery is outrageous. The modern slave trade has become a $9 billion industry, and human beings are traded for as little as $1000 or a used car. Not only is the justice system failing, but so are churches, private charities, and individuals. Most are not even aware of this plague of injustice, and very few are taking action to stop the trade or help the slaves.

The slave trade strikes at the core of human dignity—it encourages those involved to view people as mere property to be bought and sold. This practice degrades human dignity and fosters the view that slaves are property whose lives are worth only as much as their practical value to their owners. The Apostle Paul condemned slave traders, listing them among perjurers, murderers, perverts, and those who kill their parents. (1 Tim. 1:9-10 NIV)

Those who trade men and women like animals devalue their human nature. Inequality of human worth is at the heart of slavery—a trader who buys or sells other people views them as mere tools for labor, monetary gain, or sexual perversions. The American Founders proclaimed the equality of all human beings, and their declaration has been realized increasingly throughout the history of the United States. This realization can be expanded if people wake up to the reality of today's underground slave trade.

The fact that 800,000 people are trafficked in the US annually is a sad testament to the justice system in a nation which has supposedly banned slavery and affirmed the equality of all human beings. The slave traders themselves ought to be the targets of severe punishment—not, as is all too common, the slaves themselves. The mockery, punishment, and neglect of sexual slaves (among others) adds to the injustices of slavery. Men, women, and children are unlikely to flee their captors if they have nowhere to go. Herein lies a great opportunity for churches, charities, and individuals to minister to the poor and needy. Christians ought to extend lifelines to those who are enslaved, providing food, clothing, and shelter to those in need. Through such aid, these oppressed individuals can take the first steps to becoming free, independent, and self-sufficient members of society.

In the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln called for the elimination of slavery on the basis of human justice. He declared that granting the slaves freedom was "sincerely believed to be an act of justice," and he invoked "the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Those who seek a just society must call for the end of the underground slave trade and insist on vigorous prosecution of those who trade humans like cattle. They must also extend works of mercy to the individuals who suffer from this pernicious practice.

The act (S. 1810) mandates that health care providers provide the mother of an unborn or newly born child with "up-to-date, scientific, written information concerning the life expectancy, clinical course, and intellectual and functional development and treatment options for a fetus diagnosed with or child born with Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions." In addition, the health care provider must provide "referral to supportive services providers," including hotlines, resource centers, and support programs. These measures seek to ensure that medical advice to parents of developmentally disabled children is accurate and balanced.

Sadly, in today's post-Roe environment the news that a child is likely to be born with a significant handicap is often a death sentence. According to The New York Times, about ninety percent of unborn children who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Moreover, when a prenatal cystic fibrosis test was developed, the number of children born with cystic fibrosis in Massachusetts dropped by fifty percent. No studies have been done to asses the cause of the drop, but the odds of this being simple coincidence are quite low. A likely cause is the prevalent cultural notion that "flawed" human beings do not have lives worth living.

Parents whose child has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis are often apprehensive and frequently terrified. They have little idea what to expect for the future and even less understanding of the resources available to assist them in providing for their child. Unfortunately, their fears are often heightened by doctors who present the news as a tragedy or encourage the parents to pursue an abortion. In their time of trial, many of these parents are not given sound information about the reality of raising a handicapped child.

Sadly, we have entered a period in our history when children who do not measure up to someone else's subjective standard of perfection are consigned to the ash heap of history. Roe v. Wade has produced a disposable man ethic which holds that if people are less than perfect or unwanted, they may be disposed of with impunity. What will be required in the future to secure our membership in the human family? Will we have to be as smart as a Supreme Court judge or as beautiful as Miss America? Will we have to be able to shoot baskets like Michael Jordan or ride a bike like Lance Armstrong?

And have we become so soft and so self-centered that we can't bear the burden of providing for those less fortunate than ourselves? Are we unwilling to learn the life lessons that come from serving the weak and frail and the handicapped? Have we come to the point where we seek only our own comfort and our own pleasure rather than the good of others? Is there no room in our society for those who are counted among the least of our brethren?

Only time will tell. But in the meantime, Brownback's and Kennedy's bill seeks to dispel the myths associated with disabilities and to let parents of handicapped children know that they are not alone.

There were times in America's past when neither blacks nor women were regarded as full fledged members of the human family. As a result, they too were deprived of the full panoply of rights endowed by the Creator to those created in his image. Those were not the best of times in America's history. Thankfully, however, there were other times when Americans were willing to pay the price to see to it that both blacks and women received the protections they were entitled to by virtue of their humanity. Will we be willing to pay such a price for the unborn and the handicapped in our time? Again, only time will tell.

That remains to be seen and a lot has to do with who is doing the talking.

In the case of Jeremiah Wright, the answer is emphatically no. Wright served as pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for decades and has been Barack Obama's pastor for 20 years. His rhetoric on race reveals him to be a race baiting, America hating demagogue who used his pulpit to fan the flames of racial hatred rather than use the Gospel as a balm for racial healing. His imprecations to God to damn America, his condemnation of "rich white people", and his placement of the blame on America for the terrorist acts of September 11 represent anything but an attempt to bridge the racial divide that has long existed in America.

And because racism is contagious, many Americans have come to fear it may have infected Sen. Obama, a protégé of Rev. Wright. Recognizing the political liability of guilt by association, Sen. Obama delivered a poignant address on race in America aimed at defusing the crisis created by the Reverend"s hateful rhetoric. Sen. Obama spoke in measured tones about the need for real dialogue between all Americans about past racial injustices and the potential for future reconciliation.

All Americans should welcome the opportunity to have a thoughtful and sensitive dialogue about race in America. While our country has made great strides in leveling the playing field between blacks and whites, the inescapable fact is that the after effects of slavery and racial discrimination persist in our society today. While we can't change our history, we can shape our future and the best way to do so is by candidly acknowledging where things stand in the present.

Although great progress has been made in ending racial discrimination in this country, many African-Americans are presently impacted in negative ways by our past history of discrimination. For them, the past truly is prologue. Today, many blacks begin life in America at a lower rung on the socio-economic ladder than whites because of the injustices suffered by their forebears. As a result of our country's history of slavery and racial discrimination, their ancestors did not have the same educational and economic opportunities as their white counterparts. Consequently, they did not have equivalent opportunities to accumulate financial or educational capital to pass on to succeeding generations. The result is that many blacks do not begin life at the same point on the starting line as whites. This reality, which is beyond the control of the present generation of African-Americans, is often a source of frustration and resentment for members of the black community. White people would do well to acknowledge these realities and look for constructive ways to ensure that blacks are afforded opportunities to offset this disadvantage.

Many of the remedies, however, proposed by the black community and aimed at overcoming America's history of racial discrimination are viewed by whites as punitive to a generation that did not commit the wrongdoing. Affirmative action and payment of reparations are but two examples of proposed remedies that many whites feel would punish the current generation for the sins of their fathers. These are people who reason, "I have not engaged in the discrimination complained of. Therefore, I should not have to pay the price of someone else"s misdeeds." It offends their sense of justice that the innocent should be punished for the sins of the guilty. Many blacks feel, on the other hand, "You are the beneficiaries of prior wrong doing. You enjoy an advantaged position over me because of the disadvantage your forefathers created for my forebears; therefore, you should be required to disgorge some of your ill gotten gains so that I can be placed in a better position."

And on and on the arguments go. They are arguments that generate intense passion and strong emotions. And, they can quickly degenerate into personal attacks on people who have committed no offense. Demagogues like Reverend Wright use them as bludgeons to drive the races apart rather than as tools to lead people to common ground.

Is the current inequality between blacks and whites the fault of the current generation of white Americans? Generally, it is not, but that does not change the reality that generations of black Americans have often been born into social, educational, and economic circumstances that are worse than those of whites. One simply cannot ignore that past racial injustices have a trickle-down effect that impacts the present.

Senator Obama correctly pointed out that there is anger on all sides of the racial divide. Blacks are often upset that they are born into less-privileged circumstances than many whites because of previous injustices, while many whites are angered by affirmative action standards which sometimes prevent them from obtaining jobs or getting into college because of their race. These concerns are both valid, but we must not allow the invective they can produce to foster injustice and hatred.

The only way to resolve this divide is through open and frank discussion. Only by recognizing these differences and injustices can Americans take steps to understand each other's problems and move forward towards reconciliation.

This reconciliation is particularly important among believers in Christ. The Apostle Paul speaks to the unity of mankind regardless of race: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28-29 NIV)

Similarly, the Founders recognized that a civic brotherhood based on equality is both a moral good and necessary for a strong community. They proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Americans must never forget these truths. We ignore them at our peril. These issues are far greater than any partisan divide, for they cut to the core of what it means to be human. In pursuit of equal human dignity regardless of race, every man, woman and child should engage in an open and honest discussion about the mistakes of previous generations and demonstrate a willingness to move forward to close the gap represented by the racial divide. Only in this pursuit can anger and discrimination give way to love and justice.

This is exactly what happened when the Eliot Spitzer scandal broke on Monday. Within the next few days, hundreds if not thousands of articles and blog posts were written, countless hours of tv commentary were logged, and the public came to know every last detail of Spitzer's affair and the life and background of the young woman he was with. On Wednesday, Spitzer resigned from office, apologizing to the people of New York for not living up to the standards of the office. In less than three days, his entire life was destroyed.

A few days earlier, Eliot Spitzer had been at the top of his game, with some talking about a possible Presidential run in the future. He had been very successful in life, attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, followed by Harvard Law School. His met his wife at the latter, graduated, formed a non-profit, and joined a law firm. He helped bring down the Gambino family while part of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He went on to win election as New York State Attorney General, and from there became governor of New York in 2006. All of this work was gone in an instant because of his indiscretions.

This whole scandal should come as no surprise, for all humans have flaws. Some think man is inherently good—that a man would never do wrong if he were given all of the right opportunities. They say that it is the conditions in which men live that cause them to go astray. The truth is that the heart of each man causes him to sin, not his surroundings. Human nature is flawed by sin. The apostle Paul himself recognized this saying, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." (Rom. 7:18 NIV) All human beings are plagued by their sinful natures. It is this same root which causes all to sin.

In Spitzer's situation, there is a lot that could be condemned, much moralizing that could be done, and many headlines that could be written. Nevertheless we should think twice before heaping invective on Mr. Spitzer. We should look into our own hearts to see the evils that lie there. Are we so certain that we wouldn't make similar mistakes, given the same opportunities? We are assured by the apostle Paul that, "There is no one righteous, not even one..." (Rom. 3:10 NIV) This is a sobering reminder that we are no holier than Eliot Spitzer. Nor does our common sinfulness make individual sin any less wrong—it simply makes all men equally corrupt.

Thankfully, there is a solution for our sins. Paul goes on to say, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8:1-2 NIV) Salvation through belief in Christ will not make us sinless (1 Jn. 1:8), but because He has paid the price for our sins (Rom. 6:23), we are not required to pay the price ourselves.

Our reaction to this latest scandal should not be to add more logs to the fire of condemnation from which Eliot Spitzer is already suffering, for we, too, have sin in our own hearts. Instead, we should pray for him and his family. We should also pray that we will not commit the sins of which we are capable.

Ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, the media has been labeling evangelicals "values voters." The assumption has been that evangelicals are concerned with a limited set of values, that they always act on the basis of those limited values, and that they are, therefore, less complicated or sophisticated than the rest of society. In the past few decades, the media has spotlighted abortion and homosexuality as the primary evangelical issues. Now with the waning popularity of the Bush Administration—an administration that has gotten a lot of mileage out of those issues—the media is trumpeting the downfall of traditional evangelicals and the rise of a new "centrist" or "leftist" evangelicalism. The old evangelicals who put Bush in office have lost. They are dying and being replaced by a new evangelicalism that is concerned with the environment, poverty, and human rights.

Charles Colson and Anne Morse respond to this supposed shift eloquently in Christianity Today. They argue that evangelicals have always had a broad set of concerns, including Sudanese slavery, sex trafficking, AIDS in Africa, and prison rape, in addition to abortion and homosexuality. Colson and Morse believe that the limited perception of evangelicals was put in place by the media, who like to build up and then destroy groups because "it's good copy."

The reality is that evangelicals are not characterized by one or two "values" any more than any other large voting group. Most voters have a number of concerns on which they base their voting. These issues can vary: leadership, abortion, war, foreign relations, experience, economic policy, marriage and family, bioethics, welfare, healthcare, etc. Diversity among evangelicals on issues is no less common than among other large voting groups. Some evangelicals have always leaned left while others leaned right.

Expressions of concern about the need to protect the environment or to fight poverty do not indicate a gigantic shift among evangelicals. They do not represent abandonment of the old for the new. Christian duties are far more numerous than the two-to-three issues subsumed under the label "values voter." Concern for people dying from AIDS in Africa does not negate concern for babies dying in the womb in America. Sensitivity to these issues stems from evangelicals' main source of guidance: the teachings of the Bible.

The beliefs of evangelicals are the basis of their actions. The media has long picked up on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage while ignoring their root: belief in the Bible. This is why so many members of the media have trouble understanding and predicting the actions of evangelicals. Right now, they see evangelicals as shifting their core values or giving up the culture war. But if they would dig down to the root of evangelical issues, they would see that both the old and the new are based on a biblical ethic.

Many also misinterpret the evangelical shift away from the Republican Party. Evangelicals are not leaving the Republican Party because they've changed—they're leaving because the Party didn't come through on its promises. Evangelicals joined in with Republicans because they were in sympathy with the party on a number of issues, including ending abortion, strengthening the family, eliminating scandal, and restoring fiscal accountability in government. The Republican Party made grand promises in all of these areas; yet when the Party gained power, it ignored many of these concerns for the duration of its tenure (except for short spurts right before elections). A retreat from the Republican Party does not suggest a fundamental evangelical shift—it suggests their disillusionment with the Republican Party.

There is, however, one positive and real change that the media has picked up on. While evangelicals aren't changing their concerns, they are changing their approach. They appear to be moving away from some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the past. Increasingly, they are approaching the political sphere with carefully reasoned arguments. In 1995, William Buckley was interviewed by Michael Cromartie on the subject of the "growing influence of religious conservatives." Buckley saw no real danger in evangelicals participating in politics. In fact, he saw their positions as consistent with their beliefs. On the motivations of evangelicals, he said, "They've figured out that our foundations need restoring, and I have never doubted that those foundations are religious."

Buckley's only concern for evangelicals was that they would be careful which answers they presented and how they presented them. He emphasized careful rhetoric, saying, "What frightens people most about the Religious Right is the rhetoric that is sometimes used." His advice seems to be affecting evangelicals today. Young evangelicals are still concerned with the same broad set of issues, but they appear to have embraced a rhetoric which is more reasoned than bombastic.

Evangelicals have a broad array of concerns that flow from the truths of the Bible. They are every bit as complicated as any other voters. Until the media understands evangelicals on their own terms, they will continue to misunderstand their political effect.

Another principle that under girds conservative thought is the notion that people ought to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. Conservatives know that accountability and responsibility run hand in hand. If wrongdoers are not held accountable for their wrongdoing, they will persist in their bad behaviors.

The faithful application of these principles has helped create the freest and most prosperous country in the world. Sadly, however, these principles are crumbling and, surprisingly, many a conservative is wielding the sledgehammer.

For the past few years, the Bush administration has been waging a war of "preemption" against state and local government control. Preemption is a doctrine that holds that when Congress legislates extensively in an area relating to commerce, state or local governments are precluded from enacting any conflicting requirements. In other words, Congress is deemed to have "preempted the field", and state and local governments have no further say in the matter. Preemption is a power that should be sparingly applied because it undercuts state and local control. Conservatives have long been proponents of local control because they know that government closest to the people works best. Federal bureaucrats far from the scene are unlikely to be responsive to the concerns of people at the local level.

It should, therefore, be disconcerting to conservatives that bureaucrats in various federal agencies in Washington , D.C. (agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) have been expanding their control by including preemption language in bills that increases the scope of their jurisdiction. Often this language is inserted at the last minute in order to avoid detection and debate. Once in effect, the preemption language is used to eviscerate the authority of the states to regulate in the areas that are under the control of the agencies.

One example of the erosive effects preemption can have on the rights of individuals is evident in the Supreme Court"s recent decision Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. There the Court held that an individual injured by a defective medical device which had been approved by the FDA prior to being marketed could not recover for his injuries even though he had a remedy under state law. In other words, approval of the product by federal bureaucrats (notwithstanding defects in its design or manufacture) immunized the manufacturer from accountability for its wrongdoing.

Principled conservatives should be outraged by this result. It takes control away from the people at the local level, allows wrong doers to avoid the consequences of their neglect, and shuts the doors of state courthouses to the victims of the wrongdoing. The decision of FDA bureaucrats trumps the judgment of lawmakers and jurors in the communities where the injuries occurred.

Do you think the executives at Medtronic learned any lessons?

The big winners, of course, are the corporations which the FDA regulates. Sadly recent events suggest that FDA bureaucrats view the corporations they regulate as their principal constituency, rather than the American people whose safety is affected by the drugs and devices they allow to be put on the market. The blessing of the FDA in cases like Riegel immunizes corporate wrongdoers from accountability and tramples upon the rights of the individual. The great equalizer between the weak and the powerful, the local jury, is not an option for an injured victim. Neither is petitioning one's own state or local government for relief since their traditional authority has been preempted by the feds.

Wherever conservatives gather, state's rights and smaller government has been the mustering call. But when it comes to protecting the right to seek redress before a jury of one's peers, a quintessential conservative principle, the ranks are slim. Though conservatives maintain they trust the people, many do not act that way when it comes to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Conservatives have often been in the foreground of undermining the right to trial by jury. As that right erodes, however, the principles of limited government and personal accountability will crumble.

Frustrated at her opponent's success in the quest for her party's nomination for President of the United States, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Barack Obama is all talk and no action. Obama's soaring oratory has translated into record crowds, provoked unprecedented turnout, and catapulted him into front runner status for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Clinton, who is not known for her rhetorical flourishes and who often appears wooden on the stump, has lashed out at Obama suggesting that words don't count and that a candidate's record is more important than their rhetoric.

Mrs. Clinton is right that mere talk is not enough to qualify one to serve as President of the United States, but she is wrong in underestimating the importance of rhetoric on the campaign trail. Rhetoric is profoundly important. Words really do matter.

Words are the vehicles through which we transmit ideas, and since ideas have consequences, words have consequences. Words shape our beliefs, and what we believe determines how we behave. Therefore, words inspire behavior. Mark Twain understood this when he said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." Obama has been more like the former. Mrs. Cinton increasingly seems more like the latter.

High among those who have shaped the course of human history, are people who understood and harnessed the power of language. America's founding began with words. The words of the Declaration of Independence inspired men to give their lives in pursuit of the ideas embodied in it. Abraham Lincoln changed the course of history when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Martin Luther King's oratory inspired the nation to finally live up to the ideals of its founding. Edward R. Murrow, in lionizing Winston Churchill, said that he "mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." Three simple words, "Duty, Honor, Country", have inspired many a member of the long gray line to lay down their lives for their country.

Words are not empty vessels. They are pregnant with meaning and laden with content. They evoke images and transmit feelings. They can hurt or heal, and cause anger or heartache or comfort. The writer of Ephesians understood this when he adjured his readers, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Eph. 4:29 NIV) The writer of Proverbs acknowledged that words have impact when he wrote, "Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing." (Prov. 12:18 NIV)

America seems to have lost sight of the importance of rhetoric in shaping culture and politics. Sadly, rhetoric is a subject rarely taught today in our public schools. Yet, as far back as ancient Greece, rhetoric was considered an essential part of education. Indeed, it is one of the three pillars of a classical liberal arts education (along with grammar and logic); pillars upon which all learning and understanding are based.

Mr. Obama's words will inspire ideas and those ideas will have consequences. Whether they are the right ideas for our time will be up to the voters to decide in November. In the meantime, however, we should be thankful for the renewed interest that his campaign is sparking on the importance of rhetoric in the shaping of a society.

The Anglican/Episcopal divide is old news and I am sure the Archbishop finds it tiresome. But what is at stake is the authority of Scripture; whether the Word of God is binding on its adherents or not. Williams has hardly distinguished himself on this essential issue. His response has been ponderously slow, confusing in its assessment, and much more accommodating of textual "relativism" than most members of the Communion would like. In short, he has punted on the issue by cravenly trying to accommodate both sides.

Now Williams is making another craven attempt at accommodation, but this time he has raised the ire of his countrymen, and not just that of his communicants. In a recent BBC interview, Williams found dangerous any understanding of law which says, "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts." Rather, he thought, the British government should consider adding new Islamic laws for the rising number of Muslim communities in the nation.

Essentially, what Williams is advocating is a parallel system of justice in the British Isles; the common law for the common folk and Sharia for the Muslims. Of course, Sharia law governs every aspect of daily existence for a Muslim so adding "some aspects of Muslim law", as the Archbishop has suggested, is not practical. If Williams' muddle-headed suggestion is adopted, equal protection in Britain would no longer exist. Neither would the idea that the nation is one of "laws" and not "men", since different laws would apply to different men (or women), depending on their ethnicity and religion. Given the draconian impact of Sharia law on women, they would have a great deal to fear.

Concepts like the "rights of man", "equal justice", "freedom of conscience", and the notion that "the law is king"—hallmarks of the British justice system—do not exist in Islamic countries. One need only compare the principles of due process that exist in British courts with those that are used in Islamic courts (there are none) to get the picture. The protections of the British justice system are no doubt one reason why Islamists are flocking to Britain. Undoubtedly, they also likely account for why there does not seem to be a similar exodus of Brits to Islamic countries.

Additionally, Islamic countries that have instituted Sharia do not allow for freedom of religion. Muslims must stay Muslim or be subjected to the death penalty. Christian evangelism is strictly prohibited. Thus, the Archbishop, in the name of relativism, is willing to promote a system that openly opposes his claimed faith. Of course, when an Anglican Archbishop asserts that Sharia law is derived from "revealed texts", one is left to question what faith he really claims.

Archbishop Williams, who accurately describes himself as a "hairy leftie", wants to impose the same visions of moral and legal relativism on his country's judicial system that his apostate U.S. congregants want to impose on the Anglican Communion. The British will do well to ignore the ravings of this muddle-headed cleric. If they don't, they will witness the disintegration of their country, even as the Archbishop is witnessing the disintegration of his church.

Picture above licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License.

It should be a cause for embarrassment that less than half of Americans registered to vote turn out when the highest office in our country is up for grabs. This country was founded on the hope that freedom could be preserved for all. This freedom is preserved through a representative system of government established on the basis of free elections by the common people. Voting is part of our duty as citizens to preserve our freedoms for future generations. Yet half of the people of this country find other things to do on our most important election day—a day which only comes once every four years.

This latest election turnout, however, is an encouraging sign that people may finally be taking their civic responsibilities more seriously. Through Super Tuesday, 27% appear to have turned out. If this trend continues, it would break the previous record of 25.9% set in 1972. Moreover, America's youth are turning out to vote at record pace. For instance, in Georgia, young people tripled their 2000 voting turnout, and in Tennessee the youth turnout was quadruple that of the 2000 turnout.

Perhaps this larger turnout is due to the significance of this election. It will, after all, decide the first new leader to come into office since the start of the War on Terror. It could decide the next several Supreme Court Justices, and thus the future of legal protections for unborn children. It will install a new a leader in the midst of turbulent economic waters. These concerns have contributed to the intensity of this election, as millions try to figure out who will best lead the country for the coming four years.

The War on Terror grew out of the roots of the September 11th, 2001 attack—an attack which changed the way Americans live. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been underway since shortly after the attack, and are still continuing to this day. The efforts in Iraq seem to be making progress, while reports from Afghanistan are less encouraging.

The troop count in Afghanistan is set to increase by 3200 Marines this spring, but officials are concerned that this will put too great a strain on the military unless Marines are siphoned away from Iraq. Meanwhile the total number of troops in Iraq is around 160,000, with another 28,000 in Afghanistan. With military forces strained and two conflicts not yet won, the next President will have difficult decisions to make in apportioning troops and taking steps to conclude both wars.

Of equal or perhaps even greater importance is the appointment of future Supreme Court Justices. Four of the current justices are over the age of seventy. By the end of this next President's term, the oldest justice, Stevens, will be 91 years old. This election may decide the face of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.

The importance of judicial appointments should be obvious when one considers the weighty matters on which Supreme Court justices have come to rule. Matters of life, liberty and human dignity are decided at their feet. What could be more important than deciding who among us will make those decisions?

The import of the Court's decisions is evidenced by the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of her unborn child. Since that ruling, the death toll from abortion has climbed to 48.5 million in America. With recent decisions about the rights of unborn children, there is a very real chance that Roe may be overturned by the Supreme court in the coming years.

In addition, important ethical decisions are required now that technology has unlocked our ability to manipulate human life in a petri dish. The possibilities are great, and ethical lines must be drawn to restrict "research" which destroys human life. Otherwise, our technology may soon come to undermine our own dignity. Undoubtedly, many of these bioethics decisions will come before the Supreme Court for review.

While the war and the Supreme Court have long been on Americans' minds, the economy has recently risen to the forefront. Nothing grabs the attention of a voter like his pocketbook, and the economy has certainly affected that. Activity in the service industry, which is measured by the Institute for Supply Management's non-manufacturing index, saw its steepest drop ever recently as it slid to its lowest point since the 9-11 attacks. Since the service industry accounts for three-fourths of the American economy, this is a sign that the nation is in significant financial trouble.

A turbulent economy always produces anxiety, and when people are anxious, they often look to the federal government for help. Most recently, the government responded to current economic anxieties by slashing interest rates and putting together a $152 billion stimulus package. Like it or not, the President has great sway over the financial well-being of the country. These coming four years will be characterized either by more taxing and spending or by trimming spending and lowering the deficit. Both policies will claim to fix the economy—but only one will provide true long-term solutions.

The War, the appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the Economy are but three of many concerns on the minds of Americans as they go to vote this Presidential election season. But the weight of these three alone should demonstrate to all the importance of taking seriously their civic responsibilities.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." Americans will do well to heed the good Justice's words and to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

As President Bush explained in his State of the Union address, scientists recently "discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells." This development holds the promise of new, ethical research and may eliminate the "need" for research that destroys embryos, produces clones, or harvests women's eggs. These adult stem cells provide hope for human life in a culture that seems willing to destroy its young to heal its old.

This willingness to destroy life began when scientists clamored for funding and attention as they explored the potential of embryonic stem cells. The media and many politicians were only too happy to oblige, trumpeting the "promises" of embryonic stem cells long before anything was actually tested. Moreover, any resistance to the idea of leaping into embryonic stem cell research was immediately labeled "ramblings of the religious right" and promptly dismissed.

This hasty move dismissed the need for care and wisdom in medical ethics, but that's not surprising in a culture that kills millions of its own when they become "inconvenient." If we can kill the unborn because they are inconvenient, why not kill even younger humans if they can provide us with cures for diseases?

No one proclaims the fact that embryonic stem cell research has yet to provide one approved treatment. The research moves forward on the basis of hope. Ethical and fiscal concerns are ignored on the basis of hope—hope that old humans will one day be able to harvest cures from the lives of small, young humans.

Thankfully, science itself has provided a practical hope for those who find their culture's embrace of death deplorable. In September, Toronto researchers used stem cells derived from skin cells to treat the spinal cords of rats. These cells, termed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), have most of the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells, but forming them does not require the destruction of embryos. In November, James Thomson, a Wisconsin scientist, was able to do produce the same pluripotent stem cells from human cells.

In addition to removing the "need" to destroy human embryos, the creation of iPSCs from adult cells holds the future possibility that a diseased person could be treated with stem cells derived from their own cells. This would solve the "need" for cloning, since cloning is performed in the hope that it will produce stem cells which are not rejected by a patient's immune system. Stem cells derived from a patient's own cells would not be rejected by their immune system. Moreover, the iPSC method would eliminate cloning's ethical problems: the common destruction of embryos, the harvesting of women's eggs, and the possible ethical nightmare of cloned humans.

The potential of iPSCs is so great that it may very well eliminate the "need" for typical embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Embryos would not be destroyed, because similar stem cells would be produced from regular adult cells. Cloning would not be "needed", because these adult stem cells would be accepted by the patient's immune system.

There is much to be excited about in this development. So much, in fact, that two prominent scientists have already declared that the future lies with iPSCs. Professor Ian Wilmut, whose work in cloning originally produced Dolly the sheep, said in November that he was turning away from cloning in order to focus on the better prospects of iPSCs. Dr. James Thompson, who developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines, declared that the development of iPSCs was a huge step forward that would probably make the stem cell wars a distant memory: "Isn't it great to start a field and then to end it?"

The development of adult stem cells is a great technical boon that may allow the culture to move beyond the ethical questions of the stem cell debate, but as wonderful as this technology is, there are deeper questions which remain unresolved. Americans have been unwilling to impose strict moral limits on the progress of science. In fact, such efforts have been labeled foolhardy and fundamentalist instead of what they really are: careful and wise. But much evil has been done in the name of progress or science—one need only recount the terrors inflicted on Jews prior to World War II. The progress of science should be undergirded by sound moral and ethical principles.

Americans have abandoned a full understanding of human life. The destruction of human life for convenience through abortion has run rampant