Imperial Valley Christian Center

Here's a very, very well written story, from the Washington Post, about the work our troops are doing in Iraq. Here's a little blurb but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. Hat tip, INDC Journal.

The shot rang out from a building near the mosque. Hoe was wearing a bulletproof vest, but the bullet hit him in the exposed crease behind his left shoulder. It traveled through both lungs and punctured his aorta before exiting his body through his right armpit. He died almost instantly, doctors later concluded…

The platoon scrambled to return fire and rescue its leader. Roettgers was the first to reach Hoe, but the platoon leader "was waterlogged" from a day spent patrolling in the rain and standing in the Stryker's open hatch, he said. Roettgers could barely budge him.

Roettgers was joined by Pfc. Robert Layton, 23, of Buckley, Wash., and the two began to pull Hoe off the street. But they couldn't find cover. Both were bracing to be shot when Pfc. Darrin Gooding, 21, of Annapolis stepped directly between them and the insurgents and began firing back. Gooding had been just a few feet from the Stryker when the ambush occurred. He could have taken cover behind it, but instead he moved into the fusillade to protect the three men.

"That was probably one of the most comforting sights I've ever seen in my life, reaching down for Lieutenant Hoe and as I look up, I see Gooding backing down on us, shells flying," Layton said.

Read the whole thing.

Radio carbon dating performed in the 1980's had set the date for the creation of the Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial shroud of Jesus, at around 1200 A.D. - 1300 A.D. This finding had basically demolished the authenticity of the shroud since the date was more than a thousand years after the death of Jesus. But now scientists recant. It turns out they made some mistakes and they now believe the shroud was created sometime between 1000 B.C. and 700 A.D. Read the article at the Discovery Channel website. Hat tip to Christdot.org

I thought this blurb of Rick Brookhiser's from, The Corner, was pretty funny:

Jonah, when the rookie cops start being younger, you're no longer a kid. When the Secretary of State is younger, you're past your mid point (well past). When the Pope is younger, you're dead.

Very interesting, "debate" on C-SPAN (Here's the link to the C-Span page look on the second column from the left under Recent Programs to see the video online.) yesterday, from NYU, between U.S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer. The issue was whether or not the Supreme Court should look to the decisions of courts in other countries when deciding its cases. The reason it's an issue is because the Supreme Court has already started doing this. Most famously in it's decision, Lawrence v. Taylor declaring Texas' sodomy laws unconstitutional. In that case the Supreme Court's decision references a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.

Scalia had the better of it, pointing out that when some Judge wants to change the law and can find nothing in the constitution, or the decisions of the courts of the United States, or the statutes of the U.S. Federal or State governments to support the change, the judge could still appear to be making his descision in a quite lawyerly fashion by basing his decision on the ruling of a foreign court with the citations all properly formatted. It was pretty funny on T.V. but maybe you have to be a lawyer to really get the joke.

Breyer tried to put if all off as an over-reaction saying that the decisions of foreign courts were not controlling but were used just for informational purposes. That the Judges in foreign jurisdictions were dealing with the same difficult questions and the people of other countries were humans too and their take on in might be helpful.

Scalia pointed out that in the Lawrence decision the court had indeed cited European courts but had ignored the rest of the world notably Islamic and South American courts who's rulings about sodomy were quite different from those of the European Court For Human Rights. The point Scalia was making is that Breyer was being disingenuous to say that the reason for looking at foreign decisions is to see how other humans around the world deal with these issues when they had ignored all the other humans who agreed with the Texas sodomy laws and used only those decisions which agreed with the Supreme Court justices views with respect to sodomy laws.

While  I think that  Scalia got the best of the debate I  think Breyer's side will, absent congressional intervention in the way of laws restricting the courts' ability to use such cases as "authority," eventually win out. The decisions of U.S. courts are based to a great extent on "Common Law." Common law basically means judge made law. You could detect in Breyer's responses  an attempt at coming up with a theory of world-wide "common law." It would be very easy for American lawyers and judges to accept this world-wide common law as being as authoritative as English common law is now.

This is one of those areas that happen way below the radar of most Americans but end up having an overwhelming impact on our lives. Imagine the U.S. Supreme Court basing it's decisions regarding any difficult social issue on the decisions of the much, much, more leftist than the average American citizen, European Court of Human Rights.

Go watch the video.

Here's a poignant story:

VANCOUVER, January 12, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gabriele Helms, an assistant professor of English at the University of British Columbia died on New Years Eve of breast cancer, but not before giving life to her much-awaited daughter who was born at 26 ½ weeks just before her mother’s death.

In Canada it is routine for pregnant women diagnosed with cancer to abort, but Helms’ friends said that being a mother was her first priority. …“She was in excruciating pain but she was still elated about her pregnancy. I saw her during her stay in the hospital and she was always putting her hand on her stomach because she could feel the baby by that time. In (Gabi’s) obituary, it says she chose her daughter over herself. She did that because she wanted the child so much…”

Read the rest. Hat tip to The Corner.

Hugh Hewitt and Josh Clayborn are having a small argument as to whether or not James Dobson is, "the most influential individual not in government in the United States," as he is described in this article about him in U.S. News and World Report. I'm with Hugh, I think he is definitely the most influential Christian minister in the U.S., I sometimes refer to American Christianity as Dobsonianity. But because he is mostly on Christian radio stations he has a relatively low profile among non-Christians. The real question though is whether that is an entirely good thing?

While for the most part I admire the work that Dr. Dobson does I do believe his emphasis on moms staying at home and Christians taking their children out of public schools has put an incredible amount of stress on American Christian families. Moms, who already have a tough row to hoe, are made to feel somehow inferior if they have to work outside the home or if their children are in public schools. It's not unusual to find parents making tremendously stressful sacrifices to live up to the standards of Dobsonianity.

Frankly, public schools aren't that bad morally, educationally ( If you want to see bad academic preparation check our your average Christian school.) or even theologically. Surely Dr. Dobson realizes that a great many of the teachers in the public schools are Christians. As I recall, he was a public school teacher at one point.

As for mom's working outside of the home, I'm sure that there is some benefit to mom being home for the kids, but the economic stress this places on families also has consequences. Aside from the concrete advantages of having more money there is a definite social stigma in American to doing without. But I'm more concerned with the mom whom Dobson makes to feel like a second class Christian because she feels she has to work outside the home. The proverbs 31 woman would not be a virtuous woman in Dr. Dobson's world.

This is not funny.

OVIEDO, Fla. (AP) - A Presbyterian minister collapsed and died in mid-sentence of a sermon after saying "And when I go to heaven ...," his colleague said Monday…

Before collapsing, Arnold quoted the 18th century Bible scholar, John Wesley, who said, "Until my work on this earth is done, I am immortal. But when my work for Christ is done ... I go to be with Jesus," …

Hat tip: Drudge

Here's an amazing thing, Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost Darwinists/Evolutionists in the world, "… an evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University…" and author of numerous books promoting evolution and defending it against all comers, has admitted in writing that he cannot prove evolution.

In response to the question, " WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT? "  posed by the science blog, Edge, to 118 scientists including Dawkins, Dawkins said:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. (emphasis mine)

It's amazing that one of, if not the top Darwinist, in the world would publicly admit that descent via Darwinian natural selection is not provable but is in fact an article of faith. AMAZING! What's next, Michael Moore admits that he thinks George Bush is doing a good job as president?

Hat tip to World Magazine's Blog.

Here's a great list, from the Christian relief agency World Vision, of the Top Ten Myths of Disaster Relief  (Hat tip to World Magazines Blog.)

So often we as Christians are more often interested in doing what makes us feel good instead of actually doing what will bless people. My Dad, who helps Americans doing business in Mexico, told a story once about some indians in the Mexicali Valley who quietly complained to him about the mountains of used closed and blankets that American missionary groups would bring on their annual missionary pilgrimages. They didn't want to seem ungrateful but what would really help them was money to buy the things they needed.  But that would actually involve spending money instead of giving away old clothes or cheap blankets.

I've always kind of had that feeling about short term mission vacations trips as well. Wouldn't the $2,000 we spend on a one week missions vacation trip to Hondikiva be better spent supporting a long term missionary who is already there or some local Hodikivian ministry. I do know that it's the missionaries who promote these trips, I've had several missionaries invite me over and over again to come visit them. I always ask if it would actually be a help to them or more of a hindrance. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Anyway Here's a few of them: Remember these are the Myths of Disaster Relief not the things  you are supposed to do.

1. Americans can help by collecting blankets, shoes and clothing
The cost of shipping these items – let alone the time it takes to sort, pack and ship them – is prohibitive. Often, those items are manufactured for export to the U.S. from these same countries. It is far more efficient to purchase them locally. Cash is the better solution…
//
//
3. The United States must airlift food and medicines to the disaster site
Food is virtually always available within a day's drive of the disaster site. Purchasing the food locally is more cost-efficient, and it ensures that the food is appropriate to local residents' tastes and religious requirements. Medicines are often available within the country, too. India, for example, has a large pharmaceutical industry. Because medicines are high-value, low-weight commodities, in some cases they can and must be airlifted in to save lives.
//
//
7. Relief needs are so intense that almost anyone can fly to the scene to offer help
Professionals with specialized skills and overseas disaster experience are often deployed to disaster sites. Volunteers without those skills can do more harm than good, and siphon off critical logistics and translations services. Hiring qualified disaster survivors is much more cost efficient and provides much needed employment.
//
//
8. Survivors feel lucky to be alive
Shock, trauma and the mourning for loved ones who died are common among disaster survivors. Often, they wish it was they who died instead of their loved ones. Treating these emotional needs is an essential component of relief efforts.
//
//

Read The Rest.

Here's a cute story from the New York post about a 10 year old English girl who saved her parents and their fellow vacationers from the tsunami. Here's the link.  Here's a blurb:

January 1, 2005 -- PHUKET, Thailand - Quick-thinking 10-year-old Tilly Smith is being hailed as a hero after saving her parents and dozens of fellow vacationers from the deadly tsunami - thanks to a school geography lesson.

Tilly warned the doubting adults at a resort that a massive tidal wave was about to strike - just minutes before the deadly tide rushed in and turned the resort into rubble. Tilly's family, from Surrey, England, was enjoying a day at Maikhao Beach last Sunday when the sea rushed out and began to bubble.

The adults were curious, but Tilly froze in horror.

"Mummy, we must get off the beach now!" she told her mother. "I think there's going to be a tsunami."

The adults didn't understand until Tilly added the magic words: "A tidal wave."

Her warning spread like wildfire. Within seconds, the beach was deserted — and it turned out to be one of the only places along the shores of Phuket where no one was killed or seriously injured …

Read the rest.