I was overcome with nostalgia when I saw the pictures, and wondered, “What causes us to be nostalgic? What is that warm feeling we get when we recall a memory from our childhood?”
I plan to devote an hour of a future show to exploring the subject, but for now here is an interesting article I read while doing research for that future show. Keep in mind the article is written from an evolutionary perspective, but it has some interesting information nonetheless.
Smietana targets not only pro-American organizations who are leading the charge against radical Islam, but he also slams conservative Christians, implying that both “portray themselves as patriots,” but in reality its just about money.
Steven Emerson has 3,390,000 reasons to fear Muslims.That’s how many dollars Emerson’s for-profit company — Washington-based SAE Productions — collected in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. The payment came from the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a nonprofit charity Emerson also founded, which solicits money by telling donors they’re in imminent danger from Muslims.
Emerson is a leading member of a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While large organizations like [Steven] Emerson’s aren’t the norm, other local and national entrepreneurs cash in on spreading hate and fear about Islam.
What is shocking about the piece is Smietana defining these organizations as nonprofits acting as “front organizations.” While there is overwhelming evidence that many Mosques in America are indeed front organizations for terrorism, Smietana believes we have more to fear from patriotic Americans than we do the real enemy who flew planes into our buildings on 9/11.
Nobody needs feel shame to be a Republican, because when it came time to confront the original sin of the nation—slavery—the Republican Party was on the Lord’s side. In the great battle of my time, the war against communist tyranny, the Republican Party led in the defense of free markets and freedom of thought.
The Republican Party has always been the party of Evangelicals. Lincoln was elected by appealing to our beliefs and this has not changed in one hundred and fifty years.
No Christian puts his trust in princes. We remember that no earthly party is God’s party, because He is never a Republican or Democrat, being a committed monarchist. No Christian votes simply for party, but is open to good men and women where ever they may be found. We are, at all times, first subjects of Christendom and only secondarily citizens of this Republic.
But King Jesus has not yet come to rule and reign on the Earth and so we must go on living in anticipation of His coming. We live this side of Paradise and so have to spend centuries developing a political philosophy.
The philosophy we develop might be wrong, so we hold it more loosely than doctrine. We know other Christians have not yet given up on socialism or a bigger government than we are willing to tolerate. It is not so much their goals we attack, but their means. We long to help the poor and believe in universal health care, but believe that bigger government will do neither well and will hurt our freedoms.
We would give all our money in taxes if we thought it would end poverty, but have seen that it only enriches the state at the cost of liberty. We create statist masters and the poor are with us always.
John Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Professor of Philosophy at Biola University. In 1996 he received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Rochester. John Mark Reynolds can be found blogging regularly atScriptorium Daily.
Two kinds of worshippers often show up at church on any given Sunday: those who believe the worship of God requires solemness and seriousness and no show of emotion versus those who believe in expressions of great joy, raising of hands, maybe even shouting. In his commentary on Psalm 95, Spurgeon says there should be a balance of both.
It is to be feared that very much even of religious singing is not unto the Lord but unto the care of the congregation: above all things we must in our service of song take care that all we offer is with the heart’s sincerest and most fervent intent directed toward the Lord himself. Let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. With holy enthusiasm let us sing, making a sound which shall indicate our earnestness; with abounding joy let us lift up our voices, actuated by that happy and peaceful spirit which trustful love is sure to foster.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We should shout as exultingly as those do who triumph in war, and as solemnly as those whose utterance is a psalm. It is not always easy to unite enthusiasm with reverence, and it is a frequent fault to destroy one of these qualities while straining after the other. The perfection of singing is that which unites joy with gravity, exultation with humility, fervency with sobriety. The invitation given in the first verse (Ps 95:1) is thus repeated in the second (Ps 95:2) with the addition of directions, which indicate more fully the intent of the writer. One can imagine David in earnest tones persuading his people to go up with him to the worship of Jehovah with sound of harp and hymn, and holy delight. The happiness of his exhortation is noteworthy, the noise is to be joyful; this quality he insists upon twice. It is to be feared that this is too much overlooked in ordinary services, people are so impressed with the idea that they ought to be serious that they put on the aspect of misery, and quite forget that joy is as much a characteristic of true worship as solemnity itself.