There is a Divine purpose in Your Being

Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God.
Jeremiah 1:5
I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Ask what thy work in the world is – that for which thou wast born, to which thou wast appointed, on account of which thou was conceived in the creative thought of God.

That there is a divine purpose in thy being is indubitable. Seek that thou mayest be permitted to realize it. And never doubt that thou hast been endowed with all the special aptitudes which that purpose may demand.

God has formed thee for it, storing thy mind with all that He knew to be requisite for they life work. It is thy part to elaborate and improve to the utmost the two talents which thou hast. – F.B. Meyer.

A right exercise of prayer will prevent us from drifting through life, and give purpose and definitions to our life’s course, because through prayer we shall learn what God wants us to be and do, and shall direct our life accordingly.
- Daily Meditations for Prayer.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Deuteronomy 12:5-32; Where Sacrifices Must Be Offered; Ceremonial Observances; Cautions Against Idolatrous Rites; Note, It is not only our wisdom, but our duty, to live according to our estates, and not to spend above what we have; As it is unjust on the one hand to hoard what should be laid out, so it is much more unjust to lay out more than we have; for what is not our own must needs be another’s, who is thereby robbed and defrauded; We may then hope in our religious worship to obtain the divine acceptance when we observe the divine appointment. God will have His own work done in His own way. B.C. 1451

Deuteronomy 12:5-32 5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:   6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:   7 And there ye shall eat before the LORD your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the LORD thy God hath blessed thee.   8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.   9 For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the LORD your God giveth you.   10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;   11 Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD:   12 And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you.   13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:   14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.   15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.   16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.   17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:   18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.   19 Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth.   20 When the LORD thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.   21 If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.   22 Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.   23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.   24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.   25 Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.   26 Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose:   27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.   28 Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.   29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;   30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.   31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.   32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

There is not any one particular precept (as I remember) in all the law of Moses so largely pressed and inculcated as this, by which they are all tied to bring their sacrifices to that one altar which was set up in the court of the tabernacle, and there to perform all the rituals of their religion; for, as to moral services, then, no doubt, as now, men might pray every where, as they did in their synagogues. The command to do this, and the prohibition of the contrary, are here repeated again and again, as we teach children: and yet we are sure that there is in scripture no vain repetition; but all this stress is laid upon it,

1. Because of the strange proneness there was in the hearts of the people to idolatry and superstition, and the danger of their being seduced by the many temptations which they would be surrounded with. 2. Because of the great use which the observance of this appointment would be of to them, both to prevent the introducing of corrupt customs into their worship and to preserve among them unity and brotherly love, that, meeting all in one place, they might continue both of one way and of one heart. 3. Because of the significancy of this appointment. They must keep to one place, in token of their belief of those two great truths, which we find together (1 Tim. 2:5), That there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man. It not only served to keep up the notion of the unity of the Godhead, but was an intimation to them (though they could not stedfastly discern it) of the one only way of approach to God and communion with him, in and by the Messiah. Let us now reduce this long charge to its proper heads.

I.                   It is here promised that when they were settled in Canaan, when they had rest from their enemies, and dwelt in safety, God would choose a certain place, which he would appoint to be the centre of their unity, to which they should bring all their offerings, v. 10, 11.

Observe II. ,

1. If they just be tied to one place, they should not be left in doubt concerning it, but should certainly know what place it was. Had Christ intended, under the gospel, to make any one place such a seat of power as Rome pretends to be, we should not have been left so destitute of instruction as we are concerning the appointed place.

2. God does not leave it to them to choose the place, lest the tribes should have quarrelled about it, each striving, for their secular advantage, to have it among them; but he reserves the choice to himself, as he does the designation of the Redeemer and the institution of holy ordinances.

3. He does not appoint the place now, as he had appointed mounts Gerizim and Ebal, for the pronouncing of the blessings and curses (ch. 11:29), but reserves the doing of it till hereafter, that hereby they might be made to expect further directions from heaven, and a divine conduct, after Moses should be removed. The place which God would choose is said to be the place where he would put his name, that is, which he would have to be called his, where his honour should dwell, where he would manifest himself to his people, and make himself known, as men do by their names, and where he would receive addresses, by which his name is both praised and called upon. It was to be his habitation, where, as King of Israel, he would keep court, and be found by all those that reverently sought him. The ark was the token of God’s presence, and where that was put there God put his name, and that was his habitation. It contained the tables of the law; for none must expect to receive favours from God’s hand but those that are willing to receive the law from his mouth. The place which God first chose for the ark to reside in was Shiloh; and, after that place had sinned away its honours, we find the ark at Kirjath-jearim and other places; but at length, in David’s time, it was fixed at Jerusalem, and God said concerning Solomon’s temple, more expressly than ever he had said concerning any other place, This I have chosen for a house of sacrifice, 2 Chron. 7:12. Compare 2 Chron. 6:5. Now, under the gospel, we have no temple that sanctifies the gold, no altar that sanctifies the gift, but Christ only; and, as to the places of worship, the prophets foretold that in every place the spiritual incense should be offered, Mal. 1:11. And our Saviour has declared that those are accepted as true worshippers who worship God in sincerity and truth, without regard either to this mountain or Jerusalem, John 4:23.

II. They are commanded to bring all their burnt-offerings and sacrifices to this place that God would choose (v. 6 and again v. 11): Thither shall you bring all that I command you; and (v. 14), There thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings; and (v. 27), The flesh and the blood must be offered upon the altar of the Lord thy God. And of their peace-offerings, here called their sacrifices, though they were to eat the flesh, yet the blood was to be poured out upon the altar. By this they were taught that sacrifices and offerings God did not desire, nor accept, for their own sake, nor for any intrinsic worth in them, as natural expressions of homage and adoration; but that they received their virtue purely from that altar on which they were offered, as it typified Christ; whereas prayers and praises, as much more necessary and valuable, were to be offered every day by the people of God wherever they were. A devout Israelite might honour God, and keep up communion with him, and obtain mercy from him, though he had not an opportunity, perhaps, for many months together, of bringing a sacrifice to his altar. But this signified the obligation we Christians are under to offer up all our spiritual sacrifices to God in the name of Jesus Christ, hoping for acceptance only upon the score of his mediation, 1 Pet. 2:5.

III. They are commanded to feast upon their hallowed things before the Lord, with holy joy. They must not only bring to the altar the sacrifices which were to be offered to God, but hey must bring to the place of the altar all those things which they were appointed by the law to eat and drink, to the honour of God, in token of their communion with him, v. 6. Their, tithes, and heave-offerings of their hand, that is, their first-fruits, their vows, and free-will-offerings, and firstlings, all those things which were to be religiously made use of either by themselves or by the priests and Levites, must be brought to the place which God would choose; as all the revenues of the crown, from all parts of the kingdom, are brought into the exchequer. And (v. 7): There you shall eat before the Lord, and rejoice in all that you put your hands unto; and again (v. 12), You shall rejoice before the Lord, you, and your sons, and your daughters. Observe here,

1. That what we do in the service of God and to his glory redounds to our benefit, if it be not our own fault. Those that sacrifice to God are welcome to eat before him, and to feast upon their sacrifices: he sups with us, and we with him, Rev. 3:20. If we glorify God, we edify ourselves, and cultivate our own minds, through the grace of God, by the increase of our knowledge and faith, the enlivening of devout affections, and the confirming of gracious habits and resolutions: thus is the soul nourished. 2. That work for God should be done with holy joy and cheerfulness. You shall eat and rejoice, v. 7, and again, v. 12 and v. 18.

(1.) Now while they were before the Lord they must rejoice, v. 12. It is the will of God that we should serve him with gladness; none displeased him more than those that covered his altar with tears. Mal. 2:13. See what a good Master we serve, who has made it our duty to sing at our work. Even the children and servants must rejoice with them before God, that the services of religion might be a pleasure to them, and not a task or drudgery.

(2.) They must carry away with them the grateful relish of that delight which they found in communion with God; they must rejoice in all that they put their hands unto, v. 7. Some of the comfort which they must take with them into their common employments; and, being thus strengthened in soul, whatever they did they must do it heartily and cheerfully. And this holy pious joy in God and his goodness, with which we are to rejoice evermore, would be the best preservative against the sin and snare of vain and carnal mirth and a relief against the sorrows of the world.

IV. They are commanded to be kind to the Levites. Did they feast with joy? The Levites must feast with them, and rejoice with them, v. 12, and again, v. 18; and a general caution (v. 19), Take heed that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest. There were Levites that attended the altar as assistants to the priests, and these must not be forsaken, that is, the service they performed must be constantly adhered to; no other altar must be set up than that which God appointed; for that would be to forsake the Levites. But this seems to be spoken of the Levites that were dispersed in the country to instruct the people in the law of God, and to assist them in their devotions; for it is the Levite within their gates that they are here commanded to make much of. It is a great mercy to have Levites near us, within our gates, that we may ask the law at their mouth, and at our feasts to be a check upon us, to restrain excesses. And it is the duty of people to be kind to their ministers that give them good instructions and set them good examples. As long as we live we shall need their assistance, till we come to that world where ordinances will be superseded; and therefore as long as we live we must not forsake the Levites. The reason given (v. 12) is because the Levite has no part nor inheritance with you, so that he cannot grow rich by husbandry or trade; let him therefore share with you in the comfort of your riches. They must give the Levites their tithes and offerings, settled on them by the law, because they had no other maintenance.

V. They are allowed to eat common flesh, but not the flesh of their offerings, in their own houses, wherever they dwelt. What was any way devoted to God they must not eat at home, v. 13, 17. But what was not so devoted they might kill and eat of at their pleasure, v. 15. And this permission is again repeated, v. 20-22. It should seem that while they were in the wilderness they did not eat the flesh of any of those kinds of beasts that were used in sacrifice, but what was killed at the door of the tabernacle, and part of it presented to God as a peace-offering, Lev. 17:3, 4. But when they came to Canaan, where they must live at a great distance from the tabernacle, they might kill what they pleased for their own use of their flocks and herds, without bringing part to the altar. This allowance is very express, and repeated, lest Satan should take occasion from that law which forbade the eating of their sacrifices at their own houses to suggest to them, as he did to our first parents, hard thoughts of God, as if he grudged them: Thou mayest eat whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. There is a natural regular appetite, which it is lawful to gratify with temperance and sobriety, not taking too great a pleasure in the gratification, nor being uneasy if it be crossed. The unclean, who might not eat of the holy things, yet might eat of the same sort of flesh when it was only used as common food. The distinction between clean persons and unclean was sacred, and designed for the preserving of the honour of their holy feasts, and therefore must not be brought into their ordinary meals. This permission has a double restriction:–

1. They must eat according to the blessing which God had given them, v. 15. Note, It is not only our wisdom, but our duty, to live according to our estates, and not to spend above what we have. As it is unjust on the one hand to hoard what should be laid out, so it is much more unjust to lay out more than we have; for what is not our own must needs be another’s, who is thereby robbed and defrauded. And this, I say, is much more unjust, because it is easier afterwards to distribute what has been unduly spared, and so to make a sort of restitution for the wrong, than it is to repay to wife, and children, and creditors, what has been unduly spent. Between these two extremes let wisdom find the mean, and then let watchfulness and resolution keep it.

2. They must not eat blood (v. 16, and again, v. 23): Only be sure that thou eat not the blood (v. 24), Thou shalt not eat it; and (v. 25), Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee. When they could not bring the blood to the altar, to pour it out there before the Lord, as belonging to him, they must pour it out upon the earth, as not belonging to them, because it was the life, and therefore, as an acknowledgment, belonged to him who gives life, and, as an atonement, belonged to him to whom life is forfeited. Bishop Patrick thinks one reason why they were forbidden thus strictly the eating of blood was to prevent the superstitions of the old idolaters about the blood of their sacrifices, which they thought their demons delighted in, and by eating of which they imagined that they had communion with them.

VI. They are forbidden to keep up either their own corrupt usages in the wilderness or the corrupt usages of their predecessors in the land of Canaan.

1. They must not keep up those improper customs which they had got into in the wilderness, and which were connived at in consideration of the present unsettledness of their condition (v. 8, 9): You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day. Never was there a better governor than Moses, and one would think never a better opportunity of keeping up good order and discipline than now among the people of Israel, when they lay so closely encamped under the eye of their governor; and yet it seems there was much amiss and many irregularities had crept in among them. We must never expect to see any society perfectly pure and right, and as it should be till we come to the heavenly Canaan. They had sacrifices and religious worship, courts of justice and civil government, and, by the stoning of the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, it appears there was great strictness used in guarding the most weighty matters of the law; but being frequently upon the remove, and always at uncertainty,

(1.) They could none of them observe the solemn feasts, and the rites of cleansing, with the exactness that the law required. And,

(2.) Those among them that were disposed to do amiss had opportunity given them to do it unobserved by the frequent interruptions which their removals gave to the administration of justice. But (says Moses) when you come to Canaan, you shall not do as we do here. Note, When the people of God are in an unsettled condition, that may be tolerated and dispensed with which would by no means be allowed at another time. Cases of necessity are to be considered while the necessity continues; but that must not be done in Canaan which was done in the wilderness. While a house is in the building a great deal of dirt and rubbish are suffered to lie by it, which must all be taken away when the house is built. Moses was now about to lay down his life and government, and it was a comfort to him to foresee that Israel would be better in the next reign than they had been in his. 2. They must not worship the Lord by any of those rites or ceremonies which the notions of Canaan had made use of in the service of their gods, v. 29-32. They must not so much as enquire into the modes and forms of idolatrous worship. What good would it do to them to know those depths of Satan? Rev. 2:24. It is best to be ignorant of that which there is danger of being infected by. They must not introduce the customs of idolaters,

(1.) Because it would be absurd to make those their patterns whom God had made their slaves and captives, cut off, and destroyed from before them. The Canaanites had not flourished and prospered so much in the service of their gods as that the Israelites should be invited to take up their customs. Those are wretchedly besotted indeed who will walk in the way of sinners, after they have seen their end.

(2.) Because some of their customs were most barbarous and inhuman, and such as trampled, not only upon the light and law of nature, but upon natural affection itself, as burning their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods (v. 31), the very mention of which is sufficient to make it odious, and possess us with a horror of it.

(3.) Because their idolatrous customs were an abomination to the Lord, and the translating of them into his worship would make even that an abomination and an affront to him by which they should give him honour, and by which they hoped to obtain his favour. The case is bad indeed when the sacrifice itself has become an abomination, Prov. 15:8. He therefore concludes (v. 32) with the same caution concerning the worship of God which he had before given concerning the word of God (ch. iv. 2): “You shall not add thereto any inventions of your own, under pretence of making the ordinance either more significant or more magnificent, nor diminish from it, under pretence of making it more easy and practicable, or of setting aside that which may be spared; but observe to do all that, and that only, which God has commanded.” We may then hope in our religious worship to obtain the divine acceptance when we observe the divine appointment. God will have his own work done in his own way.

-          Matthew Henry Commentary

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Why American Airport Security Is Really So Horrendous

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Why American Airport Security Is Really So Horrendous

Please be subscriber 17,925 (and daily reader 19,925.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Security checks at American airports have become the most controversial topic in the United States. This debate is so full of mistaken assumptions and misleading ideas that it is hard to know where to start in analyzing it.

Let’s consider the terrorist threat within the United States. The opening point must be that the threat of terrorism on airplanes within the United States is very low in frequency. That doesn’t mean a successful attack might not be horrendous, but that the number of attacks the terrorists can mount is going to be small.

Ask yourself this question: How many terrorists will try this year to get on board internal U.S. plane flights? The answer might be zero and it is almost certainly lower than five.

Why is this? It is hard to mount a sophisticated attack from within the United States in the post-September 11 period. The number of people ready to be suicide terrorists in this manner is limited in the U.S. population, as is the number of good bomb-makers. Terrorists also have many other targets and, indeed, the greatest danger is an individual attack using simple technology on very easy targets, as happened at Fort Hood and on many other occasions.

The goal of U.S. internal airport security, then, is to be so impressive that it scares off terrorists, to catch any terrorists who are trying to board, and to persuade the citizenry that the situation is well in hand and that the experts know what they are doing.

Yet here’s the reality. At a railroad station in California, one of my colleagues was asked by a security screener to show his driver’s license. He started laughing and asked, “Why?”

The guard said back sarcastically, “Haven’t you heard of September 11?”

But that’s why my colleague was laughing. All of the September 11 hijackers did have valid drivers’ licenses. And a terrorist who is going to blow up something can easily get a phony driver’s license. Thus, asking for such a document makes the guard (and the public) feel better but it is utterly worthless.

No doubt, the U.S. government will claim that it has achieved the goal of keeping terrorists out of airports. But this is misleading. The TSA has literally never caught a terrorist at an airport. And why go through an airport nowadays with any reasonable level of security when you can look for relatively unguarded targets? That’s what terrorists do.

What is the strategy of a smart warrior? Get his enemy to send all of his troops to guard someplace and then hit at a weak point.

For good reason, then, the terrorists have moved to other methods and targets. Attackers have boarded planes outside the United States and put bombs on cargo planes.

As an experienced counterterrorism expert put it: “If our national security professionals bothered to read the recent Al-Qaida strategic publications they would see that the shift in Al-Qaida strategy makes most of this security theater worthless. Will the terrorists take another shot at a plane full of Americans at some point? Probably, but just like last year the threat for the next period will come from an inbound foreign flight.”

If the terrorists have shifted their priorities why should the budget, personnel, stringency of an abandoned tactic be continually intensified?

In short, this massive security force and procedure is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and harassing tens of millions of passengers in a futile attempt to locate possibly one or two terrorists a year.

One terrorist puts a bomb in his shoes that doesn’t work. Forever after, all shoes must be checked for millions of people? Terrorists plan an aborted attack using a gel. Forever after all liquids and gels must be banned and thus seized from millions of people?

When dealing with counterterrorism, resources will always be limited. If huge resources are thrown away on low-quality, ineffective, and misdirected tasks that means less attention can be paid to the real threats.

That’s why the Underpants Bomber and the Shoe Bomber and also the Times Square Bomber, and yes even the Fort Hood shooter, and others were not caught by the security system. It was too busy paying for people to pat down or x-ray Americans randomly.

People in authority don’t want to admit this because if there ever is a successful attack on a plane they don’t want to be quoted as having been wrong. But read that paragraph above, it’s the truth.

Indeed, the response is: If we don’t have this strong security what will happen if a plane blows up? Everyone will ask who let this through. Prediction: The next time there’s a real threat or–may it not happen–a plane blows up the investigation will discover that the current system wouldn’t have stopped it. That’s not speculation: it’s what has happened every time before.

Checking passengers is about the passengers themselves. If the system doesn’t do one kind of (effective) profiling it does another (silly profiling). I used to be stopped in the United States for special inspection every single time. Why? Because I was loyal to my Jerusalem travel agent, who arranged my flights. Buying a ticket outside the United States was profiled as likely to be a terrorist. So in the “dangerous” line I was usually behind the Chinese grandmother.

There are other such profiling rules like watching someone carefully if they buy a one-way ticket (knowing things like this, terrorists can afford to buy round-trip and lose their money posthumously on the second ticket), having a relatively new passport, and so on. Profiling, then, goes on but it is just the wrong kind of profiling. What is the right kind? Well, step one is to look at non-citizens who come from certain countries.

It is no exaggeration to say that the great majority of the TSA system is a waste of time, checking documented American citizens who have no motive for commiting terrorism. Put them through the metal-detecting portal, have them put their possessions on the belt that goes through the X-rated x-ray machine. That’s enough.

Here’s another counterterrorist truth:

Any security system that isn’t completely stupid—and likely to be ineffective–must put the bulk of its resources into looking at those most likely to carry out an attack.

This is not “racial” profiling since these people don’t constitute a race and aren’t being profiled because of their race any more than examining Germans in the United States during World War Two was a racial issue or looking most carefully at people from Communist states during the Cold War was racism. Yes, the Islamists will try to disguise themselves but that’s not so easy for them, though using Western converts is sometimes an alternative.

Does this inconvenience people who may seem to be Muslims, Middle Easterners, excessively nervous, not being able to account for themselves in a logical fashion, or having something suspicious in their bags? Sure it does. But does it contribute to the safety of the passengers to ignore all of these points and inconvenience one hundred times more people? Whether or not this accords with U.S. law is not my department. If it’s impossible, or wont happen for political reasons, at least have no doubt that this is the right way–and the safer way–to do things.

Rather than change and improve its methods, one trick used by the U.S. government is to reclassify certain attacks as not terrorism at all. For once the government admits that the problem derives from revolutionary Islamism, an ideology whose constituency has certain characteristics, it becomes much harder to line up everybody for potential pat-downs and x-ray machines which, by the way, don’t even detect plastic explosives but only metal, thus further reducing their value.

If I could use the specific, detailed examples given to me by friends involved in U.S. counterterrorism efforts about what’s going on behind the scenes you would be shocked at how bad the ruling experts are. They really believe that everyone is a threat and there’s no sense singling out potential Islamists radicals as the most likely terrorists. Since the Fort Hood shootings, the U.S. army has made zero progress improving its understanding of the threat and is still denying that radical Islamic sentiments might have anything to do with such attacks.

Many  government experts aren’t just against profiling on moral or political grounds: they honestly think it is totally unnecessary and that random screening is better.

Here’s another point related to this kind of official blindness: Counterterrorism should never be in the hands of a bureaucracy. That work requires people who are very flexible, think outside the box, and are not tied down by institutional interests. The larger the bureaucracy the more wasteful and inefficient it is…which leads us to the Department of Homeland Security.

What’s needed is the kind of people who do special operations in the military, not those obsessed with forms and procedures. The latter are the kind of people who can say, after the Underpants Bomber got through the security and failed only because his bomb fizzled and the other passengers jumped him, that this proves the system worked.

If someone who thinks like that is in charge of protecting you, you are in serious trouble.
Critics of the existing system often cite Israel’s security procedures. The United States can learn a lot from these but, at the same time, there are also important differences. That’s another article.

But here’s the single most important and most easily adapted lesson:

Israel cannot afford the U.S. approach because it must have a system that really does stop terrorism, not just fool people into thinking everything’s okay.

In contrast, the United States can afford a gigantic, expensive system that achieves almost nothing, since the level of terrorism on passenger planes leaving U.S. airports would remain the same even if the TSA and its toys were to be caught back by, say, three-quarters or more.

The exception on this issue, as I’ve indicated above, is that it is worthwhile to invest in a high-level of security for flights arriving from outside the United States. Yet here, too, the focus brought by realistic profiling is needed.

As we saw recently, the terrorists are now working on sending cheap bombs on international cargo flights, which have not been fully checked by security. Now there will be a billion-dollar defensive program in this area as well.

So is the TSA going to check each railroad, bus, airport, and highway around the clock on the chance of finding some terrorist passing through at the same time as an army officer spoke openly of Jihad was ignored until he opened fire? Will there come a point where this all becomes too onerous, time-consuming, and expensive?

Perhaps the ultimate weapon of terrorists is not to blow up America but to bankrupt it.

Is a government and establishment proclaiming itself horrified at the idea of checking documents when someone has been stopped for due cause by a police officer—the Arizona law—to see if that person is an illegal alien going to authorize stopping and searching of any American citizen for much less of a reason?

Ultimately, the current airport security system is crazy not only because it is excessive in terms of inconvenience or violating privacy but perhaps most of all because it is a terrible way to guard against terrorism. Of course, the public can be propitiated by little changes and big promises. Countering the terrorists requires something much different.

Now if you want to read something terrific that shows the devastating failures of U.S. counterterrorism policy, check out Patrick Poole, “Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat.”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

2 Articles; * Former High-Ranking Official: Who Cares What the Deal Is? Just Do It; * Obama’s Statement of Support for Lebanon Shows His Lack of Support for Lebanon

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Deliver God’s Messages

Jeremiah 1:7-8
Thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord.
Jeremiah 1:9
Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

There comes a day when all voices, soft or terrible, that man has heard, grow still, to let henceforth only one be heard, which cries to him: “Go ! go now and be a witness of the things you have heard! Go ! I send you forth as lambs among wolves! Go ! I send you toward men whose brow is harsh, whose heart is wicked. Fear nothing, I shall embolden your face. I shall give you a heart of brass and a forehead of diamond.”

When that moment has come, one must, in order to remain faithful to his mission, remember that after all he is only a voice. Truth does not belong to us, it is we who belong to truth!

Woe to him that possesses it and treats it as something that belongs to himself. Happy is he who is possessed by it! No preference, no kinship, no sympathy counts here. Alas! It is not thus that men understand it. It is for this reason that they degrade truth and that it becomes without power in their hands.

Instead of winging its way heavenward in vigorous flight, it crawls along the earth, like an eagle whose wings have been broken. Nothing is sadder than to see how those who ought to lend their voice to truth, turn it to their own uses and play with it. – Charles Wagner.

For truth with tireless zeal they sought;
In joyless paths they trod –
Heedless of praise or blame they wrought,
And left the rest with God.
The lowliest sphere was not disdained;
Where love could soothe or save,
They went, by fearless faith sustained,
Nor knew their deeds were brave.
- The Christian’s Daily Challenge: E.F. & L. Harvey

Subscribe to the comments for this post

That unto Me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear

From KHouse.Org

**MEMORY VERSE OF THE WEEK**

---

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Isaiah 45:23 KJV

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Important News Headlines – 23rd November 2010

From KHouse.Org

**IMPORTANT NEWS HEADLINES**

---

North Korea Shells South Korean Island – November 23, 2010
The United States urged restraint on Tuesday following a North Korean artillery attack on South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island‎ and vowed to forge a “measured and unified” response with major powers, including China. North Korea fired several dozen artillery shells at a South Korean island, killing two South Korean marines and injuring 19 others in one of the heaviest bombardments of the South since the Korean War ended in 1953. The attack has sharply increased tensions on the divided peninsula. Reuters

Jews Buy Houses, Evict Palestinians – November 23, 2010
Palestinian family was evicted from its east Jerusalem home after an Israeli court rejected challenges over the property’s sale to a Jewish buyer. About 80 police officers surrounded the building today in east Jerusalem’s Jebel Mukaber section as members of the Kara’in family were presented with an eviction notice, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. The home is in the predominantly Arab area captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, where Palestinians hope to establish the capital of a future state. “The court ruled that the property was legitimately sold to a Jewish family,” Rosenfeld said in a phone interview. “The Arab family left the house on its own and there was no violence or arrests.” Tensions run high in East Jerusalem over Jewish evictions of Palestinians there. Bloomberg

Design And DNA Repair – November 22, 2010
Last October, a review article came out in Molecular Cell on regulatory factors for DNA repair mechanisms (Molecular Cell 40(2), October 22, 2010, 179-204). Basically, DNA repair mechanisms are very powerful because they can often replace or remove nucleotide bases. So these powerful mechanisms need something to make sure they do their job properly and not destroy the whole genome in the process. That is where regulators come in. If DNA repair mechanisms are medics flying out to the damaged site, then the regulators would be the control tower that finds the sites, guides the planes, and tells them when to get to work and when to retreat. Evolution News and Views

Almost Two-Thirds of Americans Would Prefer Private Insurance – November 19, 2010
President Barack Obama lost the national debate over government-run health care in the first 22 months of his presidency even as he persuaded a Democrat-majority Congress to enact legislation that forces Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance plans as of 2014 and that subsidizes that purchase for people earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level. In a newly released poll conducted Nov. 4-7–thirty-four percent of Americans said they would prefer a government run health care system, and 61 percent said they would prefer a system based mostly on private insurance. CNS News

“Live For Me” Jesus Billboard Makes Waves in Texas – November 18, 2010
It can be spotted from almost a mile away. It’s just off Expressway 83 near Donna. A big sign stretches over the rooftops of houses and businesses nearby, and it’s causing a lot of chatter. It’s an image of Jesus on the cross, with his legs hanging down below the sign board. The words, “Live for me, I died for you,” call to passersby. Channel 5 KRGV

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Study: U.K. Youth Place Little Value in Religion

From CBN.Com

Young people in the United Kingdom find Christianity irrelevant to their day-to-day living, according to findings in a new book aimed at understanding the beliefs of the United Kingdom’s next generation.

In The Faith of Generation Y, authors Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Bob Mayo, and Sally Nash reveal that most young people in the UK put their faith in family, friends, and themselves, rather than God. Generation Y is made up of those born after 1980.

“On the one hand, because young people are benignly indifferent to religion and to Christianity, there’s scope to engage with young people and tell the story,” Collins-Mayo explained. “They’re quite interested when it’s raised for them as an issue on their own terms.”

“But they are nevertheless indifferent,” she added. “So when choices are made they’re still locked into seeing Christianity as being not necessarily for them.”

CBN News spoke with visitors at the Salmon Youth Center in Bermondsey, London, about the relevance of Christianity to their generation.

“Strictly speaking I am a Christian, but I don’t practice it anymore,” one young adult said. “I’d say morally it teaches how to live a good life. But I don’t think many people follow it, especially young people anymore today.”

“I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe in God, but I would enforce the Christian way because it’s good,” another added.

The study behind The Faith of Generation Y involved more than 300 young people in England, aged eight to 23 years old.

Researchers also looked at whether church youth projects designed to connect young people to Christ actually help bridge that gap. They found that Generation Y is more interested in relationships than programs.

“Youth projects that don’t tell the story, that don’t give the young people opportunity to engage with the Christian narrative, aren’t providing a map of the faith for young people to make sense of what they’re hearing,” Mayo said.

“If they don’t have this territory of the story and a group of people to explore it with, it’s not going to have any by-points in their lives,” he added.

Youth worker Sam Adofo runs the Salmon Club and believes the key to engaging young people today in the Christian faith is to consistently communicate the Gospel message.

“They don’t know the stories. So the Christian faith relies heavily on the stories,” he said. “It’s about telling the stories and finding ways to make them relevant to the young people.”

“I’m not that interested in how well or badly it’s done, so long as the stories are being told consistently,” he said.

When infrequent churchgoers in the study were asked to choose a statement that closest describes their belief in God, 43 percent said, “I don’t really know what to think.”

Only 23 percent answered, “I believe in a God who is someone I can know personally.”

Twenty-four percent said “I believe in some sort of higher power or life force, but not in a personal God” and 12 percent said they don’t think there’s a God or higher power at all.

- Prophecy News Watch

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Losing A Generation: Young Doubters Exit the Church

From Christianity Today.Com

Some striking mile markers appear on the road through young adulthood: leaving for college, getting the first job and apartment, starting a career, getting married—and, for many people today, walking away from the Christian faith.

A few years ago, shortly after college, I was in my studio apartment with a friend and fellow pastor’s kid. After some small talk over dinner, he announced, “I’m not a Christian anymore. I don’t know what happened. I just left it.”

An image flashed into my mind from the last time I had seen him. It was at a Promise Keepers rally. I remembered watching him worship, eyes pinched shut with one slender arm skyward.

How did his family react to his decision? I asked. His eyes turned to the ground. “Growing up I had an uncle who wasn’t a Christian, and we prayed for him all the time,” he said wistfully. “I’m sure they pray for me like that.”

About that time, I began encountering many other “leavers”: a basketball buddy, a soft-spoken young woman from my church’s worship team, a friend from youth group. In addition to the more vocal ex-Christians were a slew of others who had simply drifted away. Now that I’m in my early 30s, the stories of apostasy have slowed, but only slightly. Recently I learned that a former colleague in Christian publishing started a blog to share his “post-faith musings.”

These anecdotes may be part of a larger trend. Among young adults in the U.S., sociologists are seeing a major shift taking place away from Christianity. A faithful response requires that we examine the exodus and ask ourselves some honest questions about why.

Sons of ‘None’

Recent studies have brought the trend to light. Among the findings released in 2009 from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), one stood out. The percentage of Americans claiming “no religion” almost doubled in about two decades, climbing from 8.1 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. The trend wasn’t confined to one region. Those marking “no religion,” called the “Nones,” made up the only group to have grown in every state, from the secular Northeast to the conservative Bible Belt. The Nones were most numerous among the young: a whopping 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed no religion, up from 11 percent in 1990. The study also found that 73 percent of Nones came from religious homes; 66 percent were described by the study as “de-converts.”

Other survey results have been grimmer. At the May 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, top political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell presented research from their book American Grace, released last month. They reported that “young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago).”

There has been a corresponding drop in church involvement. According to Rainer Research, approximately 70 percent of American youth drop out of church between the age of 18 and 22. The Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29. Barna Group president David Kinnaman described the reality in stark terms:

“Imagine a group photo of all the students who come to your church (or live within your community of believers) in a typical year. Take a big fat marker and cross out three out of every four faces. That’s the probable toll of spiritual disengagement as students navigate through their faith during the next two decades.”

In his book unChristian, Kinnaman relayed his findings from thousands of interviews with young adults. Among his many conclusions was this: “The vast majority of outsiders [to the Christian faith] in this country, particularly among young generations, are actually dechurched individuals.” He reports that 65 percent of all American young people report having made a commitment to Jesus Christ at some point. In other words, most unbelieving outsiders are old friends, yesterday’s worshipers, children who once prayed to Jesus.

To tweak Kinnaman’s language, the problem today isn’t those who are unchristian, but that so many are ex-Christian. Strictly speaking, they are not an “unreached people group.” They are our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, and friends. They have dwelt among us.

Won’t They Just Come Back?

A handful of researchers insists that the dramatic drop-off in 20-something spirituality is not cause for alarm. They view the exodus from the church as a hiatus, a matter of many post-collegiate Americans “slapping the snooze” on Sunday mornings.

In his recent book Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, sociologist Bradley Wright says the trend of young people leaving the faith in record numbers is “one of the myths” of contemporary Christianity. Wright, a shrewd contrarian, says members of every generation are regarded with suspicion by their older counterparts. He describes himself as a youth sporting “longish hair and a disco-print shirt,” and asks readers, “Do you think the adults of that generation had any faith in the future based on teens like us?” Though he acknowledges that “we can’t know for sure what will happen,” Wright believes the best bet is that history will repeat itself: “… young people commonly leave organized religion as they separate from their families, but then rejoin when they start families of their own.”

Rodney Stark also calls for calm. The Baylor University sociologist concedes that data from his school’s research mirror that of the above studies, but Stark isn’t shaken. “Young people have always been less likely to attend [church] than are older people,” he writes. Stark is confident that the youngsters will return. “A bit later in life when they have married, and especially after children arrive, they become more regular [church] attendees. This happens in every generation.”

There is something to these arguments. Scholars like Wright and Stark expose the folly of breathless predictions of Christianity’s imminent demise. The North American church does not teeter on the brink of extinction. But, in my view, the crisis of people leaving the faith has taken on new gravity.

First, young adults today are dropping religion at a greater rate than young adults of yesteryear—”five to six times the historic rate,” say Putnam and Campbell.

Second, the life-phase argument may no longer pertain. Young adulthood is not what it used to be. For one, it’s much longer. Marriage, career, children—the primary sociological forces that drive adults back to religious commitment—are now delayed until the late 20s, even into the 30s. Returning to the fold after a two- or three-year hiatus is one thing. Coming back after more than a decade is considerably more unlikely.

Third, a tectonic shift has occurred in the broader culture. Past generations may have rebelled for a season, but they still inhabited a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture. For those reared in pluralistic, post-Christian America, the cultural gravity that has pulled previous generations back to the faith has weakened or dissipated altogether.

So 20- and 30-somethings are leaving—but why? When I ask church people, I receive some variation of this answer: moral compromise. A teenage girl goes off to college and starts to party. A young man moves in with his girlfriend. Soon the conflict between belief and behavior becomes unbearable. Tired of dealing with a guilty conscience and unwilling to abandon their sinful lifestyles, they drop their Christian commitment. They may cite intellectual skepticism or disappointments with the church, but these are smokescreens designed to hide the reason. “They change their creed to match their deeds,” as my parents would say.

I think there’s some truth to this—more than most young leavers would care to admit. The Christian life is hard to sustain in the face of so many temptations. Over the past year, I’ve conducted in-depth interviews with scores of ex-Christians. Only two were honest enough to cite moral compromise as the primary reason for their departures. Many experienced intellectual crises that seemed to conveniently coincide with the adoption of a lifestyle that fell outside the bounds of Christian morality.

The Rest Of The Story

However, in many cases, moral compromise wasn’t the whole story. For example, one friend has had distinctly postmodern misgivings. When his father learned of his decision to leave the faith, he rushed his son a copy of Mere Christianity, hoping the book would bring him back. But C. S. Lewis’s logical style left him cold. “All that rationality comes from the Western philosophical tradition,” he told me. “I don’t think that’s the only way to find truth.”

I also met leavers who felt Christianity failed to measure up intellectually. Shane, a 27-year-old father of three, was swept away by the tide of New Atheist literature. He described growing up a “sheltered Lutheran” who was “into Jesus” and active in youth group. Now he spoke slowly and deliberately, as if testifying in court. “I’m an atheist and an empiricist. I don’t believe religion or psychics or astrology or anything supernatural.”

Others have been hurt by Christians. Katie, a former believer in her early 30s, had been molested by two members of her childhood church. Her mother occasionally still drags her to church. Once, one of her mother’s friends approached Katie with an intense look of concern. She grabbed Katie by the shoulders: “Katie, you’ve become so hard,” she said.

Katie’s voice faltered as she recalled the encounter. “That affected me,” she said. “I don’t want to be hard.” She paused to regain her poise. “But you have to be hard, or else life will hurt you.”

A sizable minority of leavers have adopted alternative spiritualities. A popular choice is Wicca. Morninghawk Apollo (who renamed himself as is common in Wiccan practice) discussed his rejection of Christianity with candor. “Ultimately why I left is that the Christian God demands that you submit to his will. In Wicca, it’s just the other way around. Your will is paramount. We believe in gods and goddesses, but the deities we choose to serve are based on our wills.” That Morninghawk had a Christian past was hardly unique among his friends. “It is rare to meet a new Wiccan who wasn’t raised in the church,” he told me.

In my interviews, I was struck by the diversity of the stories—one can hardly lump them together and chalk up all departures to “youthful rebellion.” Yet there were commonalities. Many de-conversions were precipitated by what happened inside rather than outside the church. Even those who adopted materialist worldviews or voguish spiritualities traced their departures back to what happened in church.

What pushed them out? Again, the reasons for departing in each case were unique, but I realized that most leavers had been exposed to a superficial form of Christianity that effectively inoculated them against authentic faith. When sociologist Christian Smith and his fellow researchers examined the spiritual lives of American teenagers, they found most teens practicing a religion best called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” which casts God as a distant Creator who blesses people who are “good, nice, and fair.” Its central goal is to help believers “be happy and feel good about oneself.”

Where did teenagers learn this faith? Unfortunately, it’s one taught, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, at every age level in many churches. It’s in the air that many churchgoers breathe, from seeker-friendly worship services to low-commitment small groups. When this na•ve and coldly utilitarian view of God crashes on the hard rocks of reality, we shouldn’t be surprised to see people of any age walk away.

The Christian Response

The reasons that 20- and 30-somethings are leaving are complex. A significant part of leaving has to do with the new culture we live in, and there is only so much to be done about that. But we in the church have control over at least one part of the equation: how we respond.

While we feel rightly perplexed, if not devastated, when loved ones leave, we should not let grief carry us away. I talked with one parent who was despondent over his grown son’s loss of faith. He said his son was “into satanic stuff.” After a little probing, I found that the son was really a garden variety pluralist. He loved Jesus but saw him as one figure in a pantheon of spiritual luminaries. This is a far cry from his father’s assessment. I cringed inwardly when I imagined them discussing matters of faith.

Christians often have one of two opposite and equally harmful reactions when they talk with someone who has left the faith: they go on the offensive, delivering a homespun, judgmental sermon, or they freeze in a defensive crouch and fail to engage at all.

Another unsettling pattern emerged during my interviews. Almost to a person, the leavers with whom I spoke recalled that, before leaving the faith, they were regularly shut down when they expressed doubts. Some were ridiculed in front of peers for asking “insolent questions.” Others reported receiving trite answers to vexing questions and being scolded for not accepting them. One was slapped across the face, literally.

At the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting, scholars from the University of Connecticut and Oregon State University reported that “the most frequently mentioned role of Christians in de-conversion was in amplifying existing doubt.” De-converts reported “sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers.”

Churches often lack the appropriate resources. We have programs geared for gender- and age-groups and for those struggling with addictions or exploring the faith. But there’s precious little for Christians struggling with the faith. But two recent books suggest this may be changing: Essential Church? Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts, by Thom and Sam Rainer, and Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches That Reach Them, by Ed Stetzer. Both of these equip churches to reach disaffected people.

The answer, of course, lies in more than offering another program. Nor should we overestimate the efficacy of slicker services or edgy outreach. Only with prayer and thoughtful engagement will at least some of the current exodus be stemmed.

One place to begin is by rethinking how we minister to those from youth to old age. There’s nothing wrong with pizza and video games, nor with seeker-sensitive services, nor with low-commitment small groups that introduce people to the Christian faith. But these cannot replace serious programs of discipleship and catechism. The temptation to wander from the faith is not a new one. The apostle Paul exhorted the church at Ephesus to strive to mature every believer, so that “we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14, ESV).

Ultimately we will have to undertake the slow but fruitful work of building relationships with those who have left the faith. This means viewing their skepticism for what it often is: the tortured language of spiritual longing. And once we’ve listened long and hard to their stories, and built bridges of trust, we will be ready to light the way back home.

- Prophecy News Watch

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Disbelief Over Couple’s Poll on Whether to Abort Baby

From Christian Post.Com

A Minnesota couple’s decision to let the public vote on whether or not they should keep their baby has dismayed pro-lifers.

Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30, have set up the website www.birthornot.com to allow people to place their vote, as well as share their thoughts and see pictures of the fetus – nicknamed “Wiggles” by the pair.

Alisha is already 17 weeks pregnant, meaning that the unborn baby is entering the stage of growth where it is able to suck its thumb and hear voices.

The couple has given the public until December 7 to vote, just two days before the couple reach the legal limit for an abortion in their home state of Minnesota – 20 weeks, a stage at which it is believed babies can experience pain.

The Arnolds, who experienced two miscarriages, say on their website that the public’s vote “will not go unheard.”

“The whole point here is to let people have a real way to voice your opinion on the topic of abortion and have it actually make a difference in the real world,” they say.

The poll has horrified pro-lifers around the world.

Rebecca Ng, of the London-based Pro-Life Alliance, said the website was “horrifying and objectionable.”

“Whatever may or may not be real about this website, the ultrasound of the baby is of a real human being. To think for one minute that his or her experience is going to be determined by those who log on and vote is absolutely spine-chilling,” she said.

At one point, there were more votes for the pair to abort their baby but in the last few days, the site has seen a significant increase in the number of votes for the birth to go ahead after some pro-lifers began rallying people to vote against the abortion.

Out of more than 70,000 votes polled, 56,000 people want the couple to give birth – nearly 80 percent of the votes so far.

Multiple people have even offered to adopt if the vote result is to abort the baby, the couple wrote in their latest update.

Meanwhile, some pro-lifers are choosing to stay away from the poll altogether.

Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said they were advising people not to vote at all because the entire concept of the poll was “wrong.”

“We are not encouraging people to participate in this vote because the child’s right to life is unshakable regardless of what a poll says and it is simply wrong to subject it to vote. We should refuse to make that choice,” he said

- Prophecy News Watch

Subscribe to the comments for this post