By Emmett Smith

When I was a child of four or five, a Chinese missionary visited our home. I remember that he called himself Mr. Ding Dong Bell. That name really "rang a bell" in the mind of a child! But one thing that I also remember is some discussion of how differently the Chinese culture valued life. One particular example that was cited was of boat passengers' refusal to even reach over the side to assist a struggling swimmer who had fallen in. They just watched the person drown. That, too, made a deep impression in a child's mind.

Fast-forward forty plus years. The July 18^th edition of the New York Times Magazine contained an article titled When One is Enough, which chronicled a young unwed mother's decision to kill two of the triplets she was carrying. The procedure is referred to as selective reduction by the medical specialist she consulted. Her decision was based primarily on the fact that she would be tied down, would have to scale back on expenditures for herself, etc. Although there was a part of her that knew she could work around these problems, she concluded that it was a matter of, "Do I want to"?. Perhaps the two who were "selectively reduced" are the lucky ones after all.

It's hard to fathom the changes that have occurred in 40 years. Men have walked on the moon. And women have bought the lie that they may "choose" whether or not to let their unborn babies live. I suspect that a solid majority of our society in the late fifties and early sixties would have said, "it can't happen here". What went wrong? How did a generation of children, many if not most of whom were reared in comparative luxury, decide that the traditional family was optional?

They bought the lie. And if you buy the lie, you die.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, `You shall not eat of any tree in the garden´?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.´" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

(Genesis 3:1-5 ESV)

Men want to be like God. Such hubris has always led to trouble.

By Emmett Smith

An article titled, "The science of evil", in Thursday's Baltimore Sun presented an interesting history of the "science" of eugenics. The article was written to coincide with the opening of an exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. This discussion of eugenics, "raises frightening issues", and, "The essential question is the same now as it was then: How will the science be used?", according to author Michael Ollove.

The exhibit examines the coining of the term eugenics by Sir Francis Galton in 19^th-century Britain. Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin, and undoubtedly embraced Darwin's racial theories. Most people these days are probably unaware that the title to Darwin's original printing was The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection — or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Actually, there was great excitement among the so-called "favoured races" during those early years of Darwinism.

Many prominent eugenicists lobbied for various government actions dictated by eugenics. Forced sterilization laws had been on the books of some U.S. states as early as 1907 (35 states had such laws by 1933), and were enforced into the 1970s. "Racial hygienists" proposed their theories about which cranial characteristics and skin colors represented the human ideal. The Nazis' policies were modeled on eugenics. Infanticide and euthanasia were intermediate steps leading to the infamous "final solution". And it should be lost on none of us that these policies were merely the logical end product of eugenics.

The article warns that the history of eugenics should inform the current discussions of genetic advancements and increasing medical costs. I would add that the current debates about abortion, cloning and stem cell research should also be so informed.

That eugenics is demonstrably false from a Biblical perspective is easy to establish. Paul told the learned crowd at Mar's Hill that God ".. hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (Acts 17:26). The KJV rendering of "one blood" simply reinforces the medical fact that, so long as the types are compatible, any of us could receive a transfusion from anyone of any "race".

Actually, a few unfortunately eugenics-tainted translations notwithstanding, the concept of race is not Biblical. The Bible is clear that all humankind sprang from one original pair, named Adam and Eve. Further, today's humanity all came from those "eight souls" who were "saved by water" (1 Peter 3:20). It's bad enough that so many non-Christians were taken in by Darwin's fraud. What's even worse are all the "Christians" who abdicated their belief in scripture because of perceived conflicts with "science"!

True science and scripture always agree. Science literally means knowledge.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7)

By Emmett Smith

Two articles in this past week's media are worthy of our attention. In an interview with The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, Peter Singer stated his belief that President Bush is morally challenged. Mr. Singer, an Aussie, is professor of "Bioethics" at Princeton University. He criticized President Bush as being morally underdeveloped and seeing things "..very simply, in black and white, as good versus evil..".

Certainly President Bush disagrees with Mr. Singer's more highly developed "morality". Singer believes:

• There should be no "speciesism". That is, all animals are equivalent. Treating non-humans as lesser species is discrimination.
• Parents should be able to kill their children for up to 28 days after birth.

Singer's "ethics" leave much to be desired from a Biblical perspective don't they? I wonder if Singer disagrees with John Kerry's positions on these issues? Probably not, since one of Kerry's much-touted "advantages" over President Bush is his ability to discern the "nuances" of various moral issues.

Another article in the Key West Globe and Mail discussed a "straight" couple having been booted out of a "gay" hotel in Key West. Now I do believe the owner of a business should be able to serve, or not serve, whomever he desires. I'm not up in arms over this "discrimination". After all, it's important for Christians to discriminate very carefully. Don't you agree? Think about it.

But this should ring alarm bells in anyone's mind if they think the homosexual "rights" advocates are going to be satisfied with simply not being "discriminated against". No, if they achieve enough political power, they'll go much further than most of us imagine, and this story serves to illustrate that point.

May God grant us the wisdom to discriminate between good and evil during this election year.

"Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?" (1 Kings 3:9)..  

By Emmett Smith

On Thursday, the United States Senate passed H.R. 1997, also known as "Laci and Conner's Law" (for Laci Peterson and her unborn child). The official title of the measure was, "To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.". The measure passed 61 to 38. How could 38 Senators vote against a bill whose purpose was to "protect unborn children"?

I had intended to post a link to the Senate's official web site where the votes are tabulated, but sometime between now and yesterday morning that link has become inactive. Fortunately, I printed a hard copy yesterday. Those who voted against this bill were:

Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Cantwell, Chafee, Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Sarbanes, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, and Wyden.

Only one Senator, Gregg, did not vote. So if your Senator is not named herein, he or she voted for the bill.

Ms. Feinstein had introduced an alternate bill that would have imposed harsher penalties on criminals whose actions harmed an unborn child, but would not have specifically referred to the fetus as human. She was quoted as follows, "This will be the first strike against all abortion in the United States of America…That's where this debate is taking us…That's the reason for this bill.". May God grant that she was correct about that!

Kate Michelman, president of Naral Pro-Choice America said, "...the president's allies are taking advantage of this issue to further their campaign to oppose a woman's right to choose.". Choose what, Ms. Michelman? The previous name of her group was NARAL - National Abortion Rights Action League. They changed the name a year or two ago because "choice" sounds so much better than "abortion".

Deuteronomy 21 records God's instruction to Israel on being absolved of guilt when someone was found murdered and the killer was unknown. I realize that's not an exact parallel. We know who is killing these unborn children. Just read the passage and tell me you feel innocent thereafter!

By Emmett Smith

A recent article by Dennis Peacocke www.worldnetdaily.com emphasized the importance of words. As Rush Limbaugh used to say, "words have meaning". The underlying meaning of a word is important, and in today's society several commonly used words have different meanings to different people. Some examples are "gay", "diverse", "choice", etc.

Hopefully you see the point. These words have been completely re-defined in the last several decades. And their use in masking the underlying agenda is important. As the escalation of the "gay rights" activism in recent weeks may illustrate, when these folks get too "in your face" with their agenda, many people recoil in disgust. So they've found it to their advantage over the years to couch their activism in euphemistic language.

"Pro-choice" sounds better than pro-abortion. "Gay" sounds better than homosexual. "Rights" sound more compelling than wants. The use or misuse of words is certainly nothing new. But we need to understand the importance of words. As Shakespeare said, "That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." Whatever names we use, good remains good and evil remains evil. As Peacocke pointed out, "Words created the universe, and they are being used to divert and stalemate the Creator's purposes for it."

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20).