The GOP is dogmatically anti-science. They reject the conclusions of manmade global warming, which has been accepted by virtually all scientists. And they deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution. They are anti-science, anti-knowledge, and anti-progress.  The possibility of an anti-science candidate getting elected to the White House is a terrifying prospect for it would put our economic, environmental, and political state into potential disaster. For the sake of the next generation, please don’t elect such a candidate!

If you believe this rendition, it’s likely you’ve been following the incessant portrayal of the GOP in the media. Consider a few recent headlines:  “Republicans Against Science,” “Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation,” and “Rick Santorum is King of the GOP’s Anti-Science Presidential Candidates.” The list could go on. But the message is clear: the Republican Party is full of ignorant science-deniers who are a threat to the future of America (of course, exception is made for John Huntsman, who has tried to cast himself as the pro-science Republican alternative by accepting evolution and manmade global warming).

Genesis 32:28 records the conclusion of the wrestling match between Jacob and the angel of the LORD.  The angel tells Jacob his name will “no longer be Jacob, but Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and you have overcome.”  The name Israel means he struggles with God and the previous two blog entries demonstrated the history of the nation of Israel struggling in their relationship with God, and with men.  Although hermeneutically the text of Genesis 32:28 tells us that Jacob himself did overcome the battle with the angel of the LORD, I do not think it is farfetched to understand this verse as a prophetic utterance about the future of Israel.

Historically Israel has struggled greatly, and this has been going on for millennia.  Though there have been times of great hope, faith, and survival, there have also been times of great hopelessness, faithlessness, and oppression.  Today Israel is threatened repeatedly by Iran.  A nation who openly professes they would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.  The peace and security of Israel is a matter which will not be resolved anytime soon, nor by any current political arrangements.  Whatever kind of peace arrangements accomplished through modern day politicians will be temporary.  This is not to mitigate the importance of striving for peace, for peace benefits many, but rather to understand that the real program for long and lasting peace for Israel and its neighbors is one that will be accomplished by the word and hand of the Lord. The question becomes how will Israel overcome?

A few weeks ago at the GOP presidential debate, some in the crowd cheered as Rick Perry defended his record on the death penalty. It was a horrifying thing to watch. Why is anyone cheering for the death penalty? Regardless of one’s political stance on capital punishment, it seems to me that at best it is a necessary evil–but certainly not something to be celebrated.

Perhaps sparked by the Rick Perry / audience cheering debate, the Washington Post has featured an array of columns on the issue of capital punishment in its “On Faith” column in recent weeks. Among other things, the columns have illustrated just how diverse the opinions are on this issue, even among Christians.

As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I have noticed some confusion within myself as to how to deal with the tragic events which occurred on that day ten years ago.  One is how we have identified that horrible day by numbers on the callendar instead of a name.  Perhaps this reflects our tech savy age?  Past generations do not identify with 12/7/41 or even 12/41.  What am I referring to?  The Bombing of Pearl Harbor, or perhaps “the day that will live in infamy”.   To prior generations, a day of national significance in our nation’s history marked merely by a number would resemble something more along the lines of communicating in morse code.  Althought 9/11 triggers a memory of what we experienced both collectively and individually, to identify the day with a date instead of a name leaves a certain amount of ambivalence.

In the two previous blogs I approached to the Constitution’s address of where religion fits into the civil society, as it was one the topics broached at the previous Republican Presidential Primary debate held in New Hampshire a few weeks ago. The final question of this series on the nature of the Constitution’s First Amendment is what good has been brought to the civil society when religion has been removed from the public sphere of life? 

There are many today in our society, through all levels of society, who believe or promote the notion that the Constitution’s First Amendment teaches the separation of church and state.  This opinion has lead to a modern day isolationist mentality where one’s faith should be kept private from the public arena.  However, a clause which declares “the separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution.  The First Amendment does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but “establishment” and “separation” are two completely different definitions. 

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death.”

The preceding sentence was said by the late President John F. Kennedy and in many respects it’s the theme of this blog. My desire is to explore the power of ideas as well as the expression of those ideas. Why? Well, because I believe I am a work in progress (and maybe I am not alone) and that I live in a world that is trying to make progress. Undergirding all of this progressive optimism are ideas.

Many Christians call the systematic formulation of these ideas a ‘worldview’ and that’s not a bad phrase. But, some ideas, if we’re honest, aren’t always that clear in our head and so it’s difficult to organize them neatly and label them effectively.

In my previous blog I wrote in response to the understanding of the U.S. Constitution’s establishment of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause.  The motivation for writing this came from CNN’s broadcast of the Republican Presidential Primary debate held in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago.  John King, the moderator of the broadcast, asked Congressman Ron Paul, “Does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?”  This brings me to the second part of this topic by addressing whether or not it is possible that any person’s core beliefs can be separated from other parts of their life?

 In the book of James there is a great passage which wrestles with this question.  It has to do with a person’s faith, which would embody a person’s core beliefs.  James 2:14 says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?  Can such faith save him?”  If there is no action behind what we claim to believe, is our faith a true faith? 

Last night I tuned in to watch the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary debate.  It is not the goal of this writing to inform you of who to vote for, but to comment on the Constitution’s First Amendment of the separation of church and state, as this was a topic brought up at the debate.

The issue was brought to the candidates as a question from a member in the audience who asked of how the candidates understood the definition, and how it would affect their decision making.  In my opinion the second part of the question is rather negative as it implies one sphere of life cannot carry over into the other.  In other words, whatever your faith is, it should be kept in isolation, and kept separate from the affairs of government.  How else can this question be interpreted when CNN moderator John King asked Congressman Ron Paul, “Does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?”

Earlier this week was the 100^th birthday of former president Ronald Reagan.  Whether or not you believe in Reagan’s philosophy of governing by “Peace through Strength”, there was a more foundational side to lasting peace, strength, and stability Reagan believed in.  Although Reagan championed peace through strength by forming a stronger military against the Soviets, he also penned in a letter written to Monsignor Meyers on January 19, 1984, “I believe that a spiritual renewal is the necessary precondition for the accomplishment of any good if it is to be lasting and pervasive.”

Reagan understood that he was up against more than a military conflict with the Soviets.  He was battling out an oppressive ideological force as well, that of communism.  The religion of such a regime has no room for a creator God to look to.  It is atheistic.  I believe Reagan’s confidence in being able to defeat communist regimes, came from his belief in America being on a stronger moral foundation.