Looking Behind the “Purpose Driven” Sheep’s Clothing

by Christopher Adamo


The facade is beginning to peel back from the so-called ministry of Southern California Pastor Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Church” and “The Purpose Driven Life.” Unfortunately, many among his ample flock have far too much invested in him, both emotionally and otherwise, to admit their mistakes and cut their losses.

Moreover, he certainly faces no possibility of in-depth scrutiny from the “mainstream media,” as his brand of “Christianity” poses little or no threat to their liberal social agenda. Yet to the degree that anyone at all questions Warren as anything less than authentic, his response is thoroughly telling as to his true character, as well as the nature of his “ministry.”

Joseph Farah, editor in chief of the premiere Internet news site, “World Net Daily,” opened a can of worms by calling Warren to account over his fawning praise of the terrorist stronghold of Syria. While there, Warren lauded the brutish dictatorship as “peaceful,” claiming that the Islamist government does not officially sanction “extremism of any kind.”

When confronted by Farah, an American of middle-eastern decent who knows too well the history of horror and tragedy faced by persecuted Christians in that region of the world, Warren immediately denied ever making such statements.

Subsequently, Farah offered as evidence a “YouTube” video from Saddleback Church, where Warren is pastor, inarguably proving Farah’s statement. So Warren’s Church simply pulled the video from circulation and continued the denial, being unaware that a copy of the video file had been downloaded and is still in circulation. Warren’s follow up to this inconvenient circumstance is perhaps most telling of all.

In a concurrent set of moves, Warren sent a seemingly conciliatory e-mail to Farah, while distributing another to his “flock,” in which he characterized Farah’s pursuit of the incident as nothing less than “doing Satan’s job for him.” Throughout this sorry episode, Farah’s only error has been to suggest that Warren’s disturbing behavior represents some new departure from consistency.

In fact, Warren is actually being entirely consistent. Whether his audience might be Farah himself, Syrian Despot Bashar Assad, or the Saddleback congregation, Warren tells each exactly what he believes they want to hear. This pattern is the essence of what Warren is, and what has made him so “successful” from a worldly perspective.

For those among his congregation who sincerely want to know the truth, the evidence is ample. Unfortunately, it always has been available, and any present “confusion” merely results from past decisions to ignore that evidence.

For example, his letter to the congregation decrying the “attack” and making his defense by invoking Scripture is barely four paragraphs long. Yet in those four paragraphs, he employs three different “translations” of the Bible. Why, it must be asked, does he not trust any single translation to convey God’s message to humanity?

Could it be that he has his own message and agenda to advance, and that he has found it very convenient to utilize different wordings of different passages, not because they better convey God’s purpose, but rather his own? It would be better to ask, could his motivation possibly be anything else?

As Farah has refused to let this indefensible situation simply drop, Warren has responded by taking it to another realm, making personal attacks against Farah in an interview with the magazine, “Christianity Today.” But once again, by so doing Warren succeeds in revealing much more about himself than about his adversary.

Warren, who has not to date been known as any sort of standard bearer for Christian principle in the political arena, decries Farah (whose societal and moral views fall unambiguously on the right) and his ideological allies as part of a wrongful “political” encroachment on the faith.

In contrast, Warren’s forays into the political realm prove, not surprisingly, to be decidedly leftist. At a recent conference on the African AIDS epidemic, Warren invited the very liberal Senator Barak Obama (D.-IL) as a keynote speaker. He justified the inclusion of Obama, who avidly supports abortion and same-sex “marriage,” on the grounds that Obama offered a worldly solution to ostensibly curb the spread of the disease through condom usage.

The morally ambiguous message conveyed by the advocacy of condoms, along with their inherent unreliability, make them nothing less than iconic to the abortion industry, which fully understands how much new business they generate. In the face of such pragmatism, one has to wonder what will be next. Perhaps Warren’s Church will sponsor a “designated drivers ministry” at every bar in its locale.

Appalling though Obama’s inclusion in the conference may be, it is nonetheless entirely consistent with Warren’s behavior from the beginning. Leading a megachurch in the culturally disintegrating landscape of Southern California, Warren certainly knows that his prospects of maximizing the “flock” will be greatly enhanced as long as he shows proper deference to the real religion of the area, “political correctness.”

In this, his Christian populism movement has proven to be far more palatable to the God-hating secularists of the surrounding communities than such stodgy, old-fashioned, and “intolerant” notions as “Thou Shalt Not.” And the Warren influence has been predictable wherever it can be found.

If other Churches that abide in the Warren philosophy, such as Chicago’s gargantuan “Willow Creek,” were to truly uphold Christian values among their enormous congregations, they would certainly be a constant “thorn in the side” of their surrounding populace, acculturated into the modernism as those communities certainly are. Yet an amazing degree of compatibility and congeniality exists between the Warren Church model and the social structures of Chicago and Southern California.

The tradeoff between true Christian principle and acceptability to the locals is apparently worth the spiritual sacrifice it entails, with expanding parking lots, increasingly lavish facilities, and of course, fuller collection plates bearing witness. Meanwhile, such Churches offer ever less of a worthwhile and much needed alternative to the ailing world around them.

Ultimately, Warren gives conformist Christians, wearied from their ongoing battle with a world that is increasingly hostile to true Christian faith, an apparent “out” by offering a version that the modern world can find more acceptable while remaining in its present spiritual darkness.

Many among Warren’s vast following have made the mistake, in light of his “purpose driven” ministering, of presuming, at the heart of the movement, a Christ-driven purpose. Yet as Warren’s real character continues to be revealed, it is becoming apparent that members of that following are presuming too much.


Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.

Why I’m not an Atheist, Part 5: On science and miracles

by Robert E. Meyer


The Apostle Paul warns in 1 Timothy 6:20 : “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”

Several centuries ago, the German astronomer Johann Kepler, justified scientific inquiry in that such investigation was “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” The scientific method was bathed and developed in a culture that presupposed the existence of God. Many scientific originators of whole branches of science were themselves biblically astute believers.

From that point forward, there was a gradual diversion from that philosophical approach, to a newer, evolving view, deeming science and theology as antithetical disciplines. This view eventually came to a codified perspective in the 19th century, due to voluminous treatises authored by John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White, which chronicled the alleged war between science and theology. In that same era, Darwin’s Origin of the Species, provided skeptics with a pathway to become “an
intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

I have been puzzled, from the time of my earliest consideration of the matter, that science is used as a means of discrediting the existence of God. It should never be the objective of Christians to oppose the wonders of scientific progress, but only “science falsely so called;”  that is, metaphysics festooned as science.

History certainly documents numerous incidents where the church acted in embarrassing ways to hinder progress. Chief among these is the Roman Catholic Church’s ban of the writing of Galileo. But such a prohibition was never a scriptural necessity. Nothing in the Bible would have contradicted Galileo’s new cosmological model.

Recently, we have seen a court case which declared Intelligent Design Theory to be a religious dogma, rather than a plausible conclusion of scientific inquiry. That seems to imply that “true science” can never ask the question: “Is this occurrence too complex to be the result of chance or natural selection?” I doubt reason by itself would ever allow such interrogative principle to be excluded by default from any other field of inquiry.

This is one of the greatest areas of doublespeak, in the ongoing debates between atheists and theists. We frequently hear that science confines itself to a naturalistic explanation of events. That is fine as far as it goes. But, when people claim that there is nothing in the universe exclusive to natural explanations, however, they are arguing outside the realm of science, and have become purveyors naturalistic philosophy. That is no longer a methodology of objective inquiry, but a
religious-like, dogmatic assumption, upon which foundation only certain conclusions will be allowed to subsist.

Unfortunately, that is often the philosophical edifice of what is defined as “modern science.” From this launching pad, we are told that people of the biblical periods, were ignorant as to the workings of science or natural law, so they falsely attributed certain phenomena to the miraculous realm.

In Thomas Paine’s 18th century screed against Christianity, The Age of Reason, he makes an argument about miracles that reverberates from the lips of many contemporary skeptics, but which was never very convincing to me. To paraphrase him, he said that if one should hear of a very strange event like a miracle, the veracity of the claim could be answered quite easily. Have we ever seen a miracle he asks? In the same space of time we have heard millions of lies. The odds are then at least
millions to one that someone who claims to have seen miracle is a liar, or so he concludes. The irony is that even if all the miracles in the Bible are true reports, the ratio of lies to miracles over time would still be lopsided in favor of the lies.

The problem here is that Paine confuses the statistical correlation of two unrelated events with the possibility that a given event can occur. If we are going to merely prostate to statistical probability, then what about the mathematical challenges against the “molecules to man” type evolution occurring on earth, as was presented by Hoyle, Wickramansinghe and others? Arguments based on probability are shunned or ignored when they present stumbling blocks to the atheist worldview.

As a rebuttal to Paine’s charge, I could say that nobody has ever been hit with a brick falling off the Empire State Building; therefore the odds of it happening are highly unlikely (millions to one). But let’s change the circumstances surrounding the claim. Let’s say a team of masons procures numerous pallets of bricks on the observation deck. If single bricks are thrown off the deck in rapid succession, while a parade of marching bands perform on the street below, the odds become good that
someone will be struck. Since Paine believed that the initial creation itself was a miraculous event, why would he have doubted that miracles of a lesser intervention could also happen? It was because his concept of God precluded belief in them.

Often, the arguments that biblical peoples unnecessarily attributed unusual natural phenomena to God and the realm of the miraculous are made without sensible explication. For example, not many biblical descriptions of miracles are of this nature: A group of dessert nomads sees a Boeing 747 fly over their heads. They all bow down to pay homage to the “great silver bird God.” Or Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant with a child from God. Joseph says “Yes, gods impregnating women are quite possible,
so let’s not worry about it.”

There also seems to be an assumption that if one professes a belief in the supernatural, then it follows that the same individual views miracles as normative and frequently observed events. Such a person may be mockingly called upon to perform miracles, as a magician might dazzle his audience with a series of illusions. This is nothing but gang-tackling a straw man.

I once heard a debate with the late skeptic, Dr. Gordon Stein. He said that if there is a God, he should do a miracle so that anyone but a fool would believe. Such argumentation only shows the extent to which atheists are oblivious to the resilience of their own presuppositions. If Stein had actually seen a miracle, his own biases would likely have caused him to say that while he couldn’t explain the event which had just happened, some day he would be able to explain it via naturalistic
principles. The Bible on the other hand, is uncanny in its description of human tendencies. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the record indicated that while many believed, some still doubted. My conclusion is that people, who don’t want to believe, won’t be persuaded by appearances of the miraculous.

The problems with appeals to science to buttress atheism, is that they require extrapolations of naturalistic philosophies outside the realm of science, and assume the exclusivity of empiricism. I’ve already argued against that.


Robert E. Meyer writer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Why I Can’t Be and Atheist

Robert Meyer
December 6, 2006

As a Christian believer, I am quite content to let the atheist believe what he or she wants. My rationale for this and other pieces on the subject of atheism is a response to the often hostile and aggressive charges made against Christianity as a system of thought.

Some time ago, I was contacted by the proprietor of some irreverently named atheist website. Apparently he took issue with a certain piece I had written months earlier regarding my conclusions about a biblical passage from Matthew chapter 6 (one can only wonder why an atheist would want to dispute about biblical exegesis). I responded to his inquiry thinking that was the end of the discussion. The next day, I got a wave of E-mails making rather disparaging remarks, which had little to do with the topic in question. Based on what I could glean from the responses, their apparent Modus Operandi , was to roast a selected individual in an attempt to solicit an angry visceral response. If that didn’t work, they would bring in their “cleaner” to finish the job, as I discovered yet the following morning. Here was his “love letter.”

“As an unrepentant blasphemer, you see me and those like me as damned. Good for you! Enjoy it, Bob. But what you need to know is that all atheists see you as a delusional, intellectually inferior, weak-willed, gullible sucker who’s incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and we laugh at you because of it. I would never hire an evangelical Christian. They believe in nonsense and as such can’t be trusted with things of importance. If I were a customer prospect, I’d never buy a thing from you. (I wouldn’t trust your ability to support your customers in an effective and intelligent manner.) If I were a loan officer, I’d never put a dime in your hand. (I wouldn’t trust your ability to manage your finances or maintain a job through which you could repay me.) If you were a daycare owner, I’d never leave my child with you. (If I couldn’t trust you with money, how could I possibly trust you with my child?) In fact, I wouldn’t even trust you for the time of day if I had to catch a plane. Your intellect, and that of people like you, is sorely compromised, and I’d never allow your kind to affect me personally in any way shape or form. If the rest of the “god-believing” world wants to trust your intellect, then good for you. You shall have their trust, their employ, their business, their money, and their respect. Kudos!

Enjoy your delusion.”

At first, since I did not recognize the author’s name, I thought it was a prank that came from an adolescent child. Then I realized how it fit in with the other comments I had received from that group. Just about every survey taken to measure the religious beliefs of the U.S population concludes that 15% or less of the total population are infidels. It made me wonder how tolerant a society we would have if such people were ever in charge. It made me ask myself if this was a display of the logic and reason atheists so often claim to have cornered the market on. It gave me no reason to think that the implementation of their “enlightened” utopia would produce a better society than the one created in spite of the “rampant religious abuses” that they so bitterly condemn.

We might ask the question, how would things be different if atheists were in charge in terms of consensus? I wonder about this: what will happen to those who dissent against the prevailing zeitgeist? Will such people end up as subjects inside asylums for the criminally insane? Will they be done away with in some other fashion? Letters such as those above, though they likely represent a vitriolic minority, don’t give me pause for confidence that the virtue of tolerance will be better established under the “enlightened” canopy of atheism.

What will become of scientific investigation? Early scientists saw their inquiries as a method of “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Without a construct in place which binds technology to ethics, what limits on social and scientific experimentation will inform the distinctions between what can be done, versus what ought to be done? Will we see the continued incorporation of the naturalist philosophy and dogmas girding the structure of scientific inquiry? We see this scenario placed out in the current “stem-cell” debate.

Atheists often complain that people of religious faith say that you can’t have morality without religion. They will go on to say that there are many “non-religious” people who are moral. Some religious people might well make such arguments, but that’s not the precise indictment against atheism’s perspective on morality. The point is that the atheist has no transcendent foundation for his claims of what is moral or amoral in the first place. A materialistic universe offers no unmistakable moral absolutes of right or wrong. What happens is determined by the random movement of matter in motion, or a chain of cause and effect, the source of which is often unknown.

Of course, the atheist may stipulate a morality based on some popular construct; i.e. Natural Law, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, “Do anything as long as it doesn’t hurt others” (a truncated version of what is often referred to as the minimalist ethic), a preference to pleasure over pain, etc. These are merely constructs based on some individual preference. What ultimate authority confirms their truthfulness, besides the coercive power to enforce the adaptation of a particular view? The person who discovers such morality to be fiat, such as Marquis de Sade, is positioned to promote self-serving exploitation. The sadist may get pleasure from pain, the masochist may enjoy torturing and bringing about pain, but on what basis can the atheist declare these alternative perspectives to be “morally wrong” only because they differ from his selected social construct?

The same is true when it comes to the attribution of atrocity to certain systems of thought. Christianity often is accused of mass atrocities in the past. While this is a legitimate criticism, the Christian in turn can say that non-theistic worldviews acted out, caused more mayhem in the 20th century, then all the religious misdeeds throughout history. The question is not whether atheism will always cause genocide, or whether your local atheist will wake up tomorrow and become a serial axe-murderer. The real question is on what basis can the non-theist condemn such crimes and atrocities given a lack of transcendent moral authority, and his own materialistic assumptions? The atheist will protest against such attribution of atrocities, saying people such as Mao, Pot-Pot and Stalin were fanatics, but they didn’t commit atrocities because they were atheists or because of a non-believing ideology. Still, they certainly had a worldview that enabled them to carry out and justify their purges.

There is yet another distinction here between atrocities in the name of God and those of the non-theist camps. As a Christian, I can stand beside the secularist and condemn the wrongs in God’s name. However, I can theoretically correct these wrongs through a proper application of the Christian worldview. On the other hand, if Lenin says, “you’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet,” and Stalin accomplishes that mandate with his purges, how do you correct his evolutionary perspective on the sanctity (or lack thereof) of human life? Stalin acted consistent to his non-theistic, evolutionary prospective. The atheists who condemn Stalin and other mass murderers are simply borrowing from a Judeo-Christian perspective in order to condemn such acts.

How does someone with a metaphysical narrative depicting humanity as a meaningless speck on a clump of dust in a vast universe, suddenly derive the concept of human dignity when it comes to protesting the arbitrarily disposing of some of the specks?

I expect we will get some answers when we read the responses after this piece is published.

Why I can’t be an atheist, Part 2: Appeals to reason and logic
Robert Meyer
December 11, 2006

It is quite possible that atheists as a group are more intelligent than the community of theists at large. I don’t have statistical evidence to support this claim, but anecdotally, I can believe that it is quite likely. Many, who become atheists, probably arrive at a crisis, where there are points of tension in reconciling Christianity with their own constructs of logic and reason. The atheist may say that this migration occurs because intelligent people gravitate toward a worldview distilled from logic and reason, as opposed to one conjured from superstition and unquestioning acceptance. That seems a bit self-serving and laced with hubris, though. Based on my observations, both groups are intellectually stratified – ignorant theists, astute atheists, and vice-versa. You realize that apologists for theism are themselves intellectual giants, when the best are pitted in debate against their atheist counterparts.

The positive argument about intelligent people is easily reversed. I could conclude that greater levels of intelligence present a pitfall of conceit that the atheist steps into. High levels of intelligence can cause a belief of invulnerability and hubris – that humanity will solve all problems and eventually gain a comprehensive knowledge of the universe – thus God is, or will become, unneeded and unwanted. This is the faith (though they might call their faith claims “confidence based on experience,” if that is a distinction with a difference) of naturalism. That “faith” is justified according to its devotees, in that once upon a time, empirical knowledge existed as a small corpus of information, yet today it has snowballed into a juggernaut. While is it true that empirical knowledge has grown exponentially, few are sagaciously differentiating between that which is presently unknown and that which is by definition unknowable (as theists might say, hidden in the mind of God). The atheist’s confidence to comprehend the “unknowable,” comes from a belief that empirical investigation can eventually explain everything conceivable. This impression must assume that there is no truth outside the realm of empiricism.

Atheists often claim their belief system is based on logic and reason. Again, this is almost a tautology that goes something like this.

We believe that logic and reason is the only revelation of truth.

Theism isn’t logical or reasonable.

Therefore, theism must be false, hence, atheism is reality.

We could throw in some corollary statements, also. What they infer is structurally sound if the premises are true – but are they?

Many atheists I’ve dealt with, only accept empirical evidence as proof for the existence of anything. “Logic and reason” are defined as tantamount to empiricism. But what justifies this position? Where does that put us when we want to prove the existence of things like love, self-awareness, personal identity throughout life, the mind, or even the very concepts of logic and reason themselves; all of which are abstract entities? In a materialistic universe, these abstractions would be mere sensations caused by the reactions of nerve endings and chemicals in the brain (essentially, this is what Francis Crick claims in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis). That is where the atheist must reside, if held to his metaphysical truth claims.

In a world where only empirical evidence is allowed, we must eventually ask how we empirically prove that only empirical evidence should be allowed. The universal solvent dissolves the container it is stored in. Notice I didn’t deny that empirical evidence is a way to prove certain things; I merely questioned whether it was the one and only meaningful way.

The other night, I asked my wife if we had any ice-cream. She opened the freezer, took out the container, to show me that there was less than one serving remaining in the carton. The question was answered through the simple “look and see” process. The atheist/empiricist makes the mistake of assuming that all factual questions can be distilled to this simple observational analysis.

Let’s test this philosophically with an assumption about my own hypothetical experience. One night I walk out to the mailbox for the mail. As I am about to return to the house I hear the audible voice of God telling me to write this editorial. For a minute, presume this actually happened. Exactly what empirical fingerprint can I show you to verify my talk with God, thus proving I’m not a crackpot? None. That is my point. Empirical methods cannot test for all truth or truth claims, because of the metaphysical nature of the entity subject to investigation. Any truth claim can be philosophically cross-examined for logical cogency, however. I have shown theoretically, that truth can exist outside the parameters of empirical analysis. A denial of this claim is not based on objectivity, but a presupposition and bias toward empiricism.

The problem with appeals to logic and reason, are that they mistakenly become a devise for questioning whether supernaturalism is credible, yet seldom are used to critique the internal coherence of atheism as a system of thought. We examine that in a future installment.


Why I can’t be an atheist, Part 3: Expedient definitions and bogus illustrations

Robert Meyer
December 17, 2006

Defining atheism is a daunting undertaking. It can be an elusive moving target, with constantly varying definitions and ramifications. The dictionary of philosophy defines atheism as: “Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.”

Yet when this definition is applied, the atheist objects profusely. The atheist wants to instead define his position as merely lacking belief in a God, not one that positively asserts there is no God. The atheist will sometimes say that the proofs given for the existence of God are insufficient – they are unproven not disproved. The atheist clings to this standard because he realizes the utter difficulty, if not, virtual impossibility of proving a universal negative. In a sense, he has pulled the rug out from under himself by taking this minimalist approach. One must rightfully ask how atheists who define themselves this way constructively differ from agnostics, and we ought to chide him for his own insufficiency – satisfaction with a willingness to prove less than he ought to prove.

First of all, he has reduced the question of God’s existence from an objective to a subjective standard. By calling the proofs offered for God’s existence, which are to him ”insufficient,” he actually makes no claim that can be universally acknowledged. What one person calls insufficient evidence, another will find to be quite sufficient. That leaves us in a position where we are almost forced to conclude that any such claim of insufficiency is necessarily arbitrary.

Also, by taking this subjective posture, he assumes the default position, which declares that the existence of God must be assumed false in the absence of positive evidence which he will find persuasive. No such evidence of an evidential nature will likely suffice, since the atheist often begins with the biased presupposition that God doesn’t exist. Any evidence presented will be impermeable to his reality filter, because it violates his foundational assumptions. All evidence is reinterpreted to fit his dogmatic perspective. This is practically a tautology. Atheists demand proof that God exists, yet when it is presented, they casually disregard it as proof they can accept. What justifies this default position on burden of proof in the first place, other than that in the structure of formal debate, the theist will generally occupy the affirmative position? Such is an academic stricture telling us nothing about ultimate truth.

Often atheists contend that the “God idea,” is not significantly different from a belief in The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Gebo the omniscient flying wombat. But how many websites or organizations do you see dedicated to the disproof or ridicule of those who believe in these listed symbolic figures? If they were all equivalent, there should be a more even distribution of critiques proclaiming the fictitious nature of these various cultural icons. There should also be a faithful contingent of superstitious disciples in similar proportion defending the existence of the same. But do you see any notable examples of that phenomenon? We can’t neglect observing that it is most frequently the Judeo-Christian conception of God which is attacked with a heaping surplus of vitriol and sarcasm. Comparing belief in God to belief in Zeus might be comic relief for the converted choir, but it is sermonized ignorance to an astute congregation. Atheists don’t have the same intensity of distain for the small minority of folks who actually are devote followers of obscure deities. That should tell you something significant about the implied similarities or the true objectivity for critics of the supernatural. The atheist/theist dialogue suffers unnecessarily, for the gratuitous use of this “Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus” comparison. It is difficult to take seriously anyone who insists on using it.

I remember how I came to disbelieve in the Easter Bunny as a child. First, I began to question his existence. Then one year my father went out the side door. A moment passed and the doorbell rang. On the front porch were Easter baskets from the Easter Bunny with a note in my father’s handwriting. I then put two and two together.

It would be foolish to believe in the Tooth Fairy once I had determined how money got under my pillow, or how the baby tooth I placed under it also disappeared. But you can’t replace something with nothing. We shouldn’t readily accept an answer that refutes a current belief, only to be displaced by a myth of greater foolishness. Is the Tooth Fairy any more mythologically unreasonable than a belief that the tooth merely dematerialized and the coins under the pillow suddenly materialized out of nothing? When the atheist claims that he does not need to offer a cogent explanation for the origin of matter, he is displacing the “myth” he despises with his own tale of greater credulity. Even given the existence of matter, he must explain how it acted upon itself to produce morality and intelligence. If his metaphysical legend is truly the historical case, I am going to check my pockets more often for the sudden appearance of gold bullion coins.

An atheist once told me that he didn’t know for sure how the universe came to be, but knew for certain it wasn’t the way that I believed it had happened. Can that sort of logic span the narrowest philosophical crevasse?

I think not.

Why I can’t be an atheist Part 4: some philosophical considerations
by Robert E. Meyer


Many of the critiques I have received so far, have focused on debunking analogies I have used, more so than refuting specific points against atheism. If you are an accomplishing logician, you can probably find logical fallacies in virtually any polemic. It is simple to explain why this is the case. Whenever two things are compared which are not identical, or at least not substantially similar, someone opposing your perspective who wants to maintain the antithesis between the two views, will
critique the analogy by only citing the dissimilarities. The individual making the argument, on the other hand, is emphasizing the commonalities.

Now I will focus on some of the philosophical elements of this topic.

Why should someone be an atheist? Some who want to take the intellectual high ground will say they are forced into that conclusion because religious beliefs are inherently irrational. But are they really? They are only irrational if one must try to prove them using the presuppositions held by the atheist. If you get aboard another traveler’s tour bus, you will go to his destination. The quintessential question in examining either atheism or theism as a system of thought, would be determining
whose presuppositions are justified.

For me, atheism has a logical problem of philosophical cogency. The atheist worldview has an epistemology that won’t comport with its metaphysical narrative. If the universe is actually nothing but matter in motion, Francis Crick is right when he says that abstractions would be mere neurological sensations caused by the reactions of nerve endings and chemicals in the brain. The concepts of morality, meaning, self-awareness, personal identity, logic, justice, etc. would also be the result of
specific stimulations of nerve endings and eruptions of brain chemicals.

If this is stark reality, then atheists must borrow from the theistic worldview to account for the existence of anything non-material by nature. In denying the Creator, the atheist ought to throw out everything that is contingent on a theistic worldview. In effect, by using abstract concepts, they have thrown out the baby, kept the bath water, and now try to explain why the bath water is meaningful.

Whenever the atheist tries to insert teleology back into his worldview, as if it belongs there, I think of my friend at the Kentucky Derby. His rider is thrown off the mount at the starting gate, but his horse dutifully runs around the track, and bolts down the home stretch, appearing to win by a nose. My friend dances with glee, boasting that the replay will show his horse won the photo finish. Then I wonder if he has had too many Mint Juleps, since he didn’t realize a horse without a jockey
is automatically disqualified.

I find atheism dissatisfactory and inadequate because it cannot deal with the outworking of four critical concepts in a way that I find humanly essential. On the issues of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, I can find no copasetic conclusions with atheism.

What can the atheist offer us about the origin of the universe or our own origin? He is likely to conclude that matter is eternal, or that the universe doesn’t need an explanation. How might that be functionally different then saying that the universe just popped into existence? The existence of something rather than nothing shouldn’t be thought irrelevant. Many atheists are also evolutionists. If humanity’s ancestor crawled out of an ocean of primordial soup on an insignificant speck of dust
within a vast universe, and is not created in the image of God, why should our contemporary existence be esteemed greater and more dignified than our beginning?

How does the atheist build a moral code on a materialist reality? “Hume’s Gap,” also known as the “naturalistic fallacy,” claims that it is impossible to reason from what is, to what ought to be. We can’t proscribe morality from describing the case of human discourse. Simply because people behave in certain ways, doesn’t mean they should behave that way. That is why no theory of natural law can by itself imply a system of morality.

Is our death the final reality-the end of our relationship with a friend or loved one? Many atheists believe that a hope of a heavenly life after death is an emotional crutch. But this is a double-edged sword. It would also be a hopeful advantage for the atheist if there were no sweet hereafter, since he knows that if the Christian is correct, he wouldn’t partake of that eternal bliss.

Once I was debating with someone who told me they weren’t impressed with Pascal’s Wager. I am sure this individual was sincere in his claim. The problem is that, even so, he can’t escape its implications. If I find my life’s fulfillment through a Christian worldview, and am no worse off in death than the unbeliever, why would I become an atheist?

In that stream of thought, I often hear the argument that theists are weak-minded, and need a psychological crutch to comfort them through the harsh realities of life. But let’s look at it from another perspective. People don’t seek God so diligently when everything is going well. Could it be that our struggles in life, our moments of brokenness, and our observation of human tragedy, are all really innate designs of the Creator to insure that his creation seeks him? The normal yearning for
truth, the bitterness of injustice, the quest to understand the hidden mysteries of life, the manifold sorrows, may be the natural cries from the heart of people seeking their God. Those viewing such searching as a crutch against bravely facing the despair of ultimate meaninglessness, could be the ones in denial and guilty of suppressing their natural proclivities. 

Some atheists will say that Christians try to obey God, either to get eternal rewards or to avoid eternal damnation. This is an oversimplification, if not an entirely false impression. Christian theology already asserts that Jesus Christ has taken care of the issue of final judgment for he who believes. Christians obey God, because, according to the scriptures, that is how we show our love for Him.

Along these same lines, the reasoning goes further, asserting that the non-believer may be even more commendable than the believer, since the non-believer behaves morally without the impetus of either a reward or punishment for his actions. The problem of course, is how one derives a specific system of morality from a paradigm of materialism in the first place.

Do some atheists have a motive for their belief or lack of belief? Why do many react as though they are religious and dogmatic in their positions? Two quotes I find interesting are posted below. I’ll let you come to your own conclusions.

NYU professor Thomas Nagel in his 1997 book The Last Word, “…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise, Ends and Means, says the following: “For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Other than the fact that I will be accused for taking these two men out of context, what do I expect from this piece? No doubt it will end up on some atheists’ blogs. There it will be dissected and analyzed in such a fashion that the piece is distorted and misconstrued so that even I would agree with the critique, provided that most of the mischaracterizations were actually true. Then the multiple disciples of this erudite atheist guru will all offer their profuse adulations for their mentor
while castigating and belittling the superstitious and ignorant writer under discussion.


Robert E. Meyer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

The Religious Left in Bible Times (Part 2)

by Don Hank

The religious Left, which cherry-picks the Bible to support an ungodly agenda, is as old as mankind. Their antics and the price mankind has had to pay for this misbehavior are, arguably, the salient theme of the Bible. Satan was the first to introduce confusion into man’s interpretation of God’s words. 


Old Testament


Pluralism in the 6th Century BC


America is truly a perfect mirror of Jeremiah’s Israel.  We seem poised  God save us to plunge into total darkness, and hence, into captivity.  We seem to have lost the will and desire to obey God and hence to save ourselves.  Like the Babylonians back then, the Islamists have plans for us today.  And they too practice slavery. It’s a perfect setup if that is in fact what God has in mind (we already have a congressman who wants to be sworn in on the Koran. Is anyone paying attention?). Pray hard not that God will spare us (that would be futile) but that we will not fall into such depravity as to deserve such punishment.


Like the ancient Israelites, more and more American “Christians” embrace the religious Left’s ideal of a pluralistic spirituality.  But God has said: thou shalt have no other gods before me.


Liberalism, Israel‘s undoing in 600 BC, is its own punishment.  That is a constant, and an absolute.


Any nation that embraces liberalism says “all ways, all cultures, all religions, all gods are equal. My nation’s roots are irrelevant; we are all world citizens.”


This laxness, this lack of obedience to God Almighty, led to the Babylonian captivity.


Jeremiah 2:17 – Hast thou not procured this [punishment] unto thyself, in that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, when he led thee by the way?


5:19–Just as you have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours.


6:19: hear, o Earth, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.


To biblical Christians, America is in fact already a strange land and the West is far from home.  Eleven of us have already been arrested and threatened with 40-50 years in jail in America for preaching what the Bible teaches on homosexuality.  Employees have been fired in corporate America for publicly advocating traditional marriage. Pastor Aka Green was arrested and threatened with life in prison for preaching against homosexuality in Sweden.  Pastors in Canada have been fined heavily for speaking the truth.  And this is just the beginning.  The religious Left wants us silenced so they can assert their State religion once and for all.  And the American people seem ready to accept the unacceptable. In fact they seem to relish it. Again, nothing new here, for according to Jeremiah:



Jeremiah 5:31– the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so. (my emphasis)


“Christian” leftist Jimmy Carter, who sniffs in his book “Our Endangered Values” that  American fundamentalist Christians are too publicly biblical for his taste, makes no bones at all about yoking himself with the likes of Leftist leaders Hugo “Smells-of-Sulfur” Chavez and Brazilian President Lula da Silva, neither of whom is too far left or too authoritarian for his taste. To give you an idea of what swell guys these are (well, you already know Chavez), they both wholeheartedly embrace and negotiate freely with the FARC, the outlaw army from Colombia that finances itself by selling billions of dollars worth of drugs destined in large part for American children and routinely commits acts of terror throughout most of Latin America when it feels it is being crossed. But never mind that.  Jimmy is so enamored of Chavez that he declared Chavez’ re-election a fait accompli after a recall vote in which Carter and his team of election-monitoring busy-bodies checked up on only about 1% of the polling places in Venezuela! And that despite the fact that “massive fraud” was alleged by other groups. Carter sees no evil. Besides the fact that Carter is pathologically naïve, he believes seeing evil is gauche and impolite. He loves to talk of peace, never mind that human rights are being abused and innocents murdered wholesale. Who cares? Just talking about peace with people who want America wiped off the map garnered him a Nobel Peace Prize. Life is good. No wonder Jimmy wears that permanent possum-eating grin!


Jeremiah 6:14 – they have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly saying, peace, peace, when there is no peace. 


Deceit : Another Timeless Feature of the Religious Left


Jeremiah 9:8: their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit; one speaketh peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in heart he lieth in wait.


When it comes to involving the government in stopping the killing of the unborn, the religious Left can think of a million reasons why that’s wrong, including, in particular, the tired “separation of church and state” mantra cut from whole cloth by Democrat Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black back in 1947 and slapped unceremoniously, like a big pressure sensitive sticker, onto the First Amendment, which up to that time, had been about preserving religious liberty.  Yet when it comes to eliminating poverty, “Christian” leftists don’t mind imposing on us little people, through coercive means, the doctrine of debt forgiveness, for example, which, as history shows, does more to enrich corrupt government officials than to help the poor. Later we can count on them to impose an updated version of welfare and socialized medicine, all in the name of Christian kindness.


Further, the religious Left rails against real Christians (yes, that’s what I said real Christians. The Left can call themselves Christians all they want but who am I to judge that they really are? That would be judging, a sin I think) for opposing gay marriage.  Yet these stalwart proponents of “separation of church and state” see no harm in overriding the public’s quaint views on marriage by judicial fiat in order to impose their progressive “Christianity” on the rest of us. Some day, at the rate we are going, Neo-Evangelicalism will be the state religion and questioning it will carry a stiff penalty! That will suit them fine because they know their hypocrisy won’t bear scrutiny.


“But what if they are right that government has a god-given mandate to fight poverty?,”  you say.


I say: we have tried the Left’s poverty solution before, namely, the War on Poverty (=welfare).  30 years after this war was declared, every social indicator screamed that it was a colossal failure: 600% more violent crime, 100% more fatherlessness, 250% more divorce and a several thousand percent increase in child abuse and drug abuse.  Oh, and not to mention New Orleans. Yet the Left, like a dog turning to its vomit, wants more of the same!


It was the religious Left that led Israel into captivity and caused the Diaspora 2500 years ago, by inducing people to worship a plurality of gods, thereby angering the one true God.


Friend, after reading up to here, if you are still wavering between choosing the crumbs of the religious Left and the biblical Bread of life, remember


Matthew 8:36: for what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?


Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that feeding the poor is the way to salvation. Nowhere does He prescribe any remedy to sin other than his own blood and body sacrificed for sinners.


Christianity, as taught by the bible, is uniquely individual. If you are interested in fighting poverty, as we all should be, get a good education and a good job and work to support your family. Tithe ten percent and earmark a goodly percentage of it for godly groups that help the poor in Christian love while preaching the unadulterated Gospel and teaching responsibility at the same time. That is the Biblical way of fighting poverty and, much to the chagrin of the Left, it works.


God’s prescription for poverty is this: Hard work, a healthy lifestyle, godly education and traditional family, with everyone pitching in and helping in times of trouble, prayer of thankfulness in times of plenty and prayer of thankfulness and supplication in times of need. The American Left, on both sides of the aisle, has undermined this godly plan by introducing the satanic idea of entitlements. And we are reaping the harvest of laziness, both mental and physical, godlessness, drug abuse, rampant promiscuity, government dependence, fatherlessness, spiraling divorce rates and a withering lack of purpose among Americans.


Verily I say unto you: anyone who prescribes any method other than the God-given one for curing poverty as a way to gain entrance into Heaven will some day surely hear the words:


Depart from me, I never knew you.


Contact the author:





The Religious Left in Bible Times (Part 1)

by Don Hank

The religious Left, which cherry-picks the Bible to support an ungodly agenda, is as old as mankind. Their antics and the price mankind has had to pay for this misbehavior are, arguably, the salient theme of the Bible. Satan was the first to introduce confusion into man’s interpretation of God’s words.

New Testament

The Bread of Life Versus the Crumbs of the Left

In John chapter 6, we read that Jesus, who was teaching by the Sea of Galilee, took a boy’s lunchbox and with it fed 5,000 people.

The multitude were so impressed with the menu they wanted to make Him King, and sensing this, He departed alone to a mountain. 

That evening his disciples went down to the sea and took a ship bound for Capernaum, without Jesus. When they had rowed about 20 or 35 furlongs (modern English: pretty far), they saw Jesus walking on the sea and were afraid.                                  

But Jesus said “it is I. Be not afraid.”

And he boarded the ship, which immediately miraculously appeared in Capernaum.

A group of the above-cited multitude came down to where Jesus’ ship had departed from and when they saw that Jesus was not there, they also embarked on ships and arrived by and by at Capernaum seeking Jesus.

Jesus was unimpressed by this bunch, and as soon as he saw them, he said you seek me not because you saw the miracles, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.

Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter and other members of the religious Left were there in spirit and they were counting on Jesus to preach about ending poverty and to end it right then and there for them.

But instead, he said to them: Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; for him hath God the father sealed. 

But they paid no mind to these words, persisting in their social agenda.  They didn’t want the Bread of life. They were privileged to meet Jesus in the flesh, the Bread of Life, but all they wanted were some miserable crumbs. So they slyly asked: What sign will you show us? Our fathers ate manna in the desert.  As it is written: he gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Now these guys had seen more signs than you and I will ever see in this mortal life.  All 5,000 were fed from a kid’s lunchbox, for crying out loud! They knew Jesus healed the sick.  But they were clearly intent on filling their bellies again.  And that is all they wanted.  Rank materialism without a stitch of spirituality.  They wanted their entitlements.  Their ancestors had eaten at God’s table.  Now they thought free eats was their birth right, and they weren’t backing down.

But Jesus went on and on about the Bread of life, speaking about spiritual things. And all they’re thinking is: Where’s my fish sandwich?

John 6:65 and he said: therefore said I unto you, no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father.

And from that time on, as we read in the next verse, many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more.

Do you think it irked Jesus to have lost these fly-by-night disciples?  Quite to the contrary. He was pleased to see them go.  His last words had actually amounted to: “get lost, Lefties!”

You see, friends, the religious Left wants the physical bread.  They have no interest whatsoever in the Bread of life.

That’s why they do not walk with Jesus.  Yet they pretend they do when it suits their agenda.  And they twist His words and say that Jesus was about satisfying social needs and feeding the poor.  But here in John 6, Jesus clearly and explicitly said that that was not what He was about.  And he clearly separated himself from the socialists of his day. He didn’t invite them to speak at His Camel Back conference. He didn’t lisp “everyone has something good to contribute,” or “there’s a little good in everyone.” He just sent them packing.

Thus, the religious Left hasn’t a Biblical leg to stand on. Jesus personally put them in their place 2,000 years ago. You’d think that would have settled it once and for all. Yet they’re still up to their old tricks.

If you go to Jim Wallis’ website, you will see that Jesus’ words no man cometh unto the father but through me are conspicuously absent.  The religious Left has no stomach for the idea that we all owe allegiance only to the one God who created the universe or that only through His Son can man find redemption. These crumbs want the bread with a small b.

Being pluralists, they are squeamish about the commandment: have no other gods before me. 

At Wallis’ website we see a link entitled “Spirituality” where we find teachings of other religions but almost nothing about Christianity. And if you want to join the subscription list, there is a long list of titles to click from, depending on your persuasion, including Pastor, Rabbi and Imam. You see, for Wallis, all religions lead to the Way and that way is warmed-over Marxism.

Does Jim Wallis care about the poor? If he did, he wouldn’t advocate victimization politics, which kills incentive and pushes the entitlement mentality.  Does he care about world peace? If he did, he wouldn’t preach appeasement. Neville Chamberlain taught us that doesn’t work (liberals never seem to recognize that name. I wonder why).  Does he care about eliminating AIDS? If he did, he would help other Christians get out the word that the gay lifestyle is dangerous, and he would advocate abstinence until marriage. Does he care about the environment? If he did, he wouldn’t look to the Democrats for a solution to environmental ills because they kill the free-market incentives needed to do the job.

Jim’s message is poison to the Word of God.  He wants to confuse you, just as he has been confused by Satan.  Jesus said of such false teachers: Ye are of your father the devil!

The Bible hasn’t changed.  Its message is clear.  Jesus came to save mankind not from physical hunger but from spiritual hunger and sin. Period.

The irony of all this is that real Christians, with a biblical worldview, are the ones who donate more of their time and income to the poor than any other group.  And yet, the religious Left clearly implies that they, the lefties, are the only ones with compassion, that we who worship the one and only living God and place our hopes in Him and his Son, as we are commanded to by the Bible they claim to be guided by, are selfish and one-sided.  And it is we who are faithful to the Great Commission: no, not to feed the poor, not to eliminate world poverty or bring about world peace (I am come to bring a sword) but to go into all the world and preach the wealth-generating gospel of Christ crucified.

I for one want no part of these crumbs of the Left.

Until God came and fetched me back, I too was a godless Leftist and I can spot them a mile away.  I can smell them. I can hear the perfidy in their crumby doubletalk.

Friends, if you fear for your soul’s salvation, as you should, then give the religious Left a big miss.  And if your son or daughter wants to go to seminary, do a lot of thorough snooping to find out what is really taught there. Talk to the head of the Bible department and mention Jim Wallis. If he warms up to the name, you’ve got yourself a loser, and if you truly care for your child’s eternal soul, you can’t afford to send him or her to such a place.

America’s Failed Fascists

America’s Failed Fascists
By Thomas E. Brewton

Big-government attempts to manage the economy, not the stock market 
crash, caused the Depression of the 1930s.

I’ve touched upon the subject in a number of postings under the head 
of economics and Constitutional principles.

In brief, the money supply was greatly over-expanded in the 1920s by 
the newly created Federal Reserve System.  Partly it was an 
accommodation to American manufacturers and farmers filling the 
rebuilding needs of war-torn Europe.

The result was similar to our dot.com boom of the 1990s.  With the 
economy awash in excess credit, businessmen mistook those conditions 
for real consumer prosperity and over-expanded production facilities.

Then, with economic conditions deteriorating in Europe (England 
struggling to stay on the gold standard; Germany battling hyper-
inflation, etc), the Fed too sharply curtailed the money supply, 
precipitating the Black Friday stock market crash of 1929.  This was 
the insight documented by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz.

At that point Hoover was President.  Liberal historians like Arthur 
Schlesinger, Jr. depict him as a do-nothing conservative.  That is 
the opposite of fact.  Hoover was both a trained mining engineer and 
a social engineer, a liberal Republican.  As Commerce Secretary 
before his term as President, Hoover had sponsored efforts to get 
industrial groups to form stronger associations to do what amounted 
to price-fixing.  As President, he called major industrial heads like 
G.E.’s Gerard Swope into meetings and jaw-boned them to keep wages up 
and not to fire employees, both being the opposite of the tried-and-
true methods to end an economic recession quickly.

Hoover also created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) with 
power to borrow vast amounts of money that was to be employed to prop 
up troubled companies.

Had Hoover let matters run their course, the 1929 recession probably 
would have been over before the 1932 election.  Businesses would have 
quickly cut costs by laying off workers, curtailing production, and 
liquidating inventories to pay off bank debt and eliminate borrowing 

Instead, Hoover preached a sort of social Gospel that businesses had 
a moral responsibility not to fire workers or to cut their wages.  If 
businesses can’t cut costs and reduce inventories, but instead keep 
workers on the payroll and continue producing, they are feeding on 
their seed corn, a process that will only make matters worse.

Employees in some big businesses kept their jobs and pay rates, but 
worked fewer hours.  Other workers, fearing the loss of jobs or 
already having lost jobs, began saving every penny possible.  Under 
the impetus of the RFC, various public works projects were started 
(Hoover Dam in Nevada being a big one).  These merely created spots 
of economic activity, but did nothing for the economy as a whole.

Roosevelt continued where Hoover left off, greatly expanding the 
extent and scope of Hoover’s actions.  The result was the New Deal,  
which scared the daylights out of business.

FDR tried a variety of different approaches, the first being so-
called pump-priming: the Feds were to spend a lot of money to get 
business going, then the imparted momentum was to carry business 
forward on its own.  That failed, because businessmen aren’t stupid.  
They don’t hire new workers or invest in new or expanded production 
if there isn’t solid evidence of consumer savings as the source of 
credit, savings that can support purchases of the expanded production 
long enough, at high enough volumes, to earn a targeted rate of 
return on investment.

Liberals commence, instead, with the false assumption that the 
economy is supported by government spending, which is presumed to 
create consumer spending.  The snag is that, unless taxes rise (and 
thereby choke spending and production), the Feds have to employ 
deficit spending, which creates inflation.  That scares the bankers, 
who recognize that their loans will be repaid, if at all, in dollars 
worth less than the dollars they lent.  Banks just stopped making new 
loans to most borrowers, once the impact of FDR’s policies became 
clear.  After three centuries of relative price stability in the 
United States, inflation took off in the New Deal and has never 
stopped since.

Liberals’ assumption also overlooks the expectations factor: how 
confident are consumers that the level of employment will continue 
long enough to pay off their debts (if they buy on credit cards) or, 
in the old days, will their rainy-day savings be adequate to tide 
them over if they dip into current earnings.  Businesses want to know 
the same things in order to gauge the market for expanded production 
that will create new jobs.

Ultimately FDR adopted J. M. Keynes’s thesis that the Depression had 
been caused by people saving too much money, which implied that the 
government had to spend as much as, or more than, business normally 
spent on expanding production and creating new jobs.  Moreover, New 
Deal planners in conjunction with the Fed, then in the hands of 
Marriner Eccles, a Keynesian true-believer, had swallowed whole the 
hubristic presumption that the Federal government could manage and 
run the whole economy in the same way businessmen ran corporations.

The result was a long-running disaster.  To get chapter and verse on 
the utter stupidities perpetrated by the New Deal, read Jim Powell’s 
<i>FDR’s Folly</i>.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com