I hesitate to bring up the issue of politics and religion again, but I ran across a couple more interesting quotes in relation to the topic. But before I get to the quotes, I think I should make a few things clear.

Firs, although some people are hostile toward religion in general, most people are willing to tolerate all religions. And in the popular culture, we are told that all religions are basically equal; they are all just different paths to the same God.

I, on the other hand, am an unabashed Christian. And Christianity affirms that there is no other way to God than through Jesus Christ.

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

There is only one way to God, and therefore, not all faith is equal. The value is not in the faith itself, but in the object of the faith. An illustration helps to drive home this point.

You are about to try to walk on a frozen pond. In scenario one, you are convinced that the pond is frozen so thoroughly that you can safely walk upon the pond, and you boldly step out onto the ice that is less than a quarter of an inch thick. You have all the faith possible that the ice will hold you. Does your faith matter? No. You will fall right through the thin ice because it can not bear your weight. The object of your faith was not trustworthy.

In scenario two, you are not sure if the ice will hold you. You gingerly step out, slowly placing the slightest weight upon the ice, and very gradually adding weight, expecting at any moment the ice will crack. But the ice is frozen two feet thick. You couldn’t break it by driving a bulldozer across it. No matter how weak your faith is in this ice, it will bear your weight. The object of your faith was trustworthy.

And so, when I talk about politicians proclaiming their faith and being friendly to people of faith, I don’t want to give the impression that I believe it is good for a politician to have any faith, and the object of the faith doesn’t matter. On the contrary, the object of faith is crucial and is the difference between heaven and hell.

Secondly, I also don’t want to give the impression that I think a politician must have faith, or an explicit Christian faith, in order to be a good politician. Christianity (and other religions as well) teaches that we are accountable to a higher power, and we will be judged for our actions. Correctly understood, this is a check upon the abuse of political power. But that is not the only check upon unbridled political power. The founders of our country wisely understood the corrupt nature of man, and so provided us with three branches of government to act as checks and balances upon the power of any one branch. These restraints work upon anyone, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof).

Thirdly, I don’t mean that all people of faith in general, and Christians in particular, will make good politicians. On the contrary, many (and I consider myself in this group) are particularly unsuited to politics due to temperament and inclination. But also, there are many hypocrites within the visible church who will gladly abuse any power given to them, and would make worse use of the power given to them than many non-Christians.

Now with those cavies, here are a couple quotes on the subject of Democrats and expressions of faith.

A comment on Senator Joe Biden’s speech.

And then we heard from Biden, “Our friends on the other side love to quote the Bible” — he said that like that was something bad!

The Washington Times has an article on how the Democrats went out of their way to make a public show that they are religious. This is obviously a ploy to win the votes of church-goers, but there is a desire by both political parties to get this demographic. However, there is a growing portion of the Democratic party that are not people of faith.

More notably, voters who [Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg] called “secular warriors,” or “no guns, no prayer” voters, are becoming a bigger force in Democratic politics.

Mr. Greenberg said they make up 15 percent of the overall electorate, nearly equaling the 17 percent of voters nationwide who are white evangelicals.

One other quibble. The sentence two paragraphs above: “More notably, voters who he called ’secular warriors’….” Shouldn’t that be “More notably, voters whom he called ’secular warriors’….”

I’ve pointed out here and here when Democrat leaders seem of touch with religious people. So it is only fair to point out the following example showing a Democratic leader who is comfortable with religious language and doesn’t shy away from using it out of fear of alienating the Democratic base.

Rich Lowry writes in National Review about Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the Democratic Convention:

"AN AWESOME GOD." The emotional high point of the speech may have been his declaration that "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States." He thus rebutted the notion that the Democrats are the secular party, and did it in authentic, unashamed language. The theme of faith was woven throughout the speech, from near the very beginning when Obama talked of "a faith in the simple dreams of [America's] people, the insistence on small miracles." This is language that Democrats often can’t muster, , and it gives added oomph to two other key themes from the speech.

"MY BROTHER’S KEEPER." Democratic social programs often seem mushy or purposeless or pandering. Obama connected them with one of the deepest of all ethical imperatives — to love our neighbors as ourselves: "It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work." This is a liberalism with some emotional depth, and a meaning much more profound than the dollar signs next to line-items in a federal budget.

"THE AUDACITY OF HOPE!" We’ve heard a lot of talk of how important it is for the Democrats to be optimistic. But the optimism of forced smiles and focus-grouped phrases can be a wan thing indeed. Obama’s optimism was expressed in the language of faith. When he talked of "the audacity of hope!" he was reaching for something inside the breast of every religious believer, and connecting with the audacious hope that has fueled heroic American projects, from the nation’s very founding to the civil rights movement.

I didn’t listen to the speech, so I don’t know the context in of the above quotes. I also don’t know about Obama’s beliefs, so I am not certain what he means when he speaks of God. Is he Jewish, Muslim, Christian or what? I don’t know. Based on the exposure he is getting at this convention, I think we will be learning more about him in the near future.

But regardless of what he means, it is not every day you any hear a political leader use the phrase "We worship an awesome God," particularly one from the Democratic party, and so this speech is noteworthy.

There are more than privacy concerns with RFID chips. It turns out that there are ways to reprogram the RFID chips. The possibilities for abuse are great if someone can alter the chips programming.

While expensive RFID reader hardware and hard-to-use software have hindered security research in the area [of risks from reprogrammed RFID tags], [security expert Lucas] Grunwald said that’s no longer a hurdle. The security expert announced during the session a new software tool that he helped create that can be used to read and reprogram radio tags.

When such tools become widely available, hackers and those with less pure motives could use a handheld device and the software to mark expensive goods as cheaper items and walk out through self checkout. Underage hackers could attempt to bypass age restrictions on alcoholic drinks and adult movies, and pranksters could create confusion by randomly swapping tags, requiring that a store do manual inventory.

Now couple this idea of hacking an RFID chip with that of imbedding an RFID chip in you arm for security and financial purposes. All malicious person has to do is get an RFID scanner within range of you, and they can lift your identification from your RFID chip. They then reprogram their own chip with your code, and they have access to whatever your chip grants access.

Obviously, there is more to it than my simple scenario. There will be encryption and other hurdles to lifting a person’s RFID tag. I would assume there would also be a PIN or pass code required as well (something you know + something you have = access). It will be much simpler to change the tags in the store so you get a two liter bottle of pop for the price of a 20 ounce bottle than it will be to steal someone’s bank access RFID code. Nevertheless, there is potential for hacking these RFID tags that make me seriously question the advisability of imbedding them in yourself.

VeriChip is a company that makes RFID chips that can be implanted in humans or animals. So far, it hasn’t caught on all that well. They have only implanted about a thousand chips in humans at this point, but they are more commonly used in pets and livestock. The Department of Energy even uses these chips implanted in salmon to track their migration.

The chips are designed to uniquely identify the person. Thus they can be used for security access or to authorize financial transactions.

The article makes clear that people’s concerns about implanted RFID chips is usually in relation to privacy. But not to worry: the chips can only be scanned at very close range.

The chip is an ID tag, Fulcher emphasized. When a person with an embedded chip passes near a scanner, the dormant chip simply wakes up and issues an ID number. The administrator of the security systems and databases determines how the information is used. A person has to stand within a few feet of a scanner for the tag to wake up. Thus, the tags can be used to follow someone’s steps only when they are near scanners. The company’s hand scanners can ping chips about 12 inches away, although the devices for counting salmon are 10 to 12 feet away from the fish.

That is pretty clear: the range is about one to twelve feet. But the very next two paragraphs now lead you to believe that something much bigger is afoot.

Also, VeriChip is working on an implant that will contain a Global Positioning System. Such a device would allow an individual with a scanner to pinpoint someone’s position on the globe.

The lab device, however, is relatively large right now, about the size of a pacemaker.

I’m willing to accept that the RFID chips are detectable only within a dozen feet or so. Their size and the fact that they don’t carry a power supply necessitate the short range. Then why put the GPS with the chip itself? Why not build the GPS into the scanner? How accurate do you need to get your GPS position? The object itself must be within a twelve foot radius of the scanner. Adding the bulk and complexity to an object that is going to be implanted into a human body doesn’t make sense unless the RFID is going to respond from a much greater distance than twelve feet. The article doesn’t say this, but what else could possibly cause them to build GPS into RFID?

Ramesh Ponnuru writes in National Review of an activist workshop at this week’s Democratic Convention. The speakers were Stanley Greenberg and James Carville.

Greenberg made a few other comments that drew applause. Every time Carville or Greenberg mentioned Bill Clinton, the crowd went wild — far more so than when they said nice things about the current nominee. There was also clapping when Greenberg mentioned one of his cutesily named demographic groups: the “secular warriors,” “people who don’t own guns and don’t go to church.” They’re solid for Kerry — and, as Greenberg noted after the applause, were well represented in this auditorium.

So we learn from this that people who “don’t go to church” are “well represented” at the meetings of the activists within the Democratic party. I believe that within the leadership of the Democratic party, there is an ignorance about people of faith, because there is a dearth of people of faith in the ranks of leadership. That the activists of the Democratic party will clap when the speaker just mentions people who don’t go to church tells you something about who they are.

So what can I learn from this Fed report?

Headline Reuters: Belief in Hell Boosts Growth: Fed Report

AP Photo:

Caption: “[A] portion of a tractor-trailer truck, dangles off the Channel 2 bridge on the Florida Keys’ Overseas Highway, near Islamorada, Fla., Monday, July 26, 2004, following an accident with disabled vehicle. The tractor portion of the rig remained on the bridge. One person was taken to a local hospital with unspecified injuries. (AP Photo/Dan Baker)”

AP Photo:

Caption: “A separated trailer, from a tractor-trailer truck, dangles off the Channel 2 bridge on the Florida Keys’ Overseas Highway near Islamorada, Fla., Monday, July 26, 2004, following an accident with a disabled vehicle. The tractor portion of the rig remained on the bridge. One person was taken to a local hospital with unspecified injuries. (AP Photo/Monroe County Sherifff’s Office, Aviation Unit)”

From Alice Cooper’s radio show on June 5th, 2004:

“So the new Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 911 is out and its obviously [anoyed] most of Congress….and me.

It’s now being revealed that Michael Moore skewed many of the interviews to work in his favor. Gosh I never thought he’d ever do that.

You mean all the stuff that was pro Bush he took out? Oh man, well that’s not fair.

I’m gonna start making movies just so I can make a movie about Michael Moore. I think it would be great if President Bush made a movie about Michael Moore. Wouldn’t that be great? And it was just the worst movie of all time. You know how he gets up and what he does when he wakes up in the morning. How disgusting he must be.

[laughs]

Hey Michael Moore…weight watchers, ok? It works.

Gee, I’m starting to think that I’m the only good guy left in this country and I’m sure of that.”

[Source: Glenn R.]

And from an interview with the DesMoines Register

Q. You ran for president in 1972 against Nixon to promote “Elected.” How would you fare today?

A. I would hate to be the president. I don’t think there’s any way to win. I wish Michael Moore would be president for one week. He would probably jump off a cliff.

I’d rather be a singer in a band.

Do you get the feeling Alice doesn’t care much for Michael Moore?

From Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-glass Chapter II: The Garden of Live Flowers

“O Tiger-lily!” said Alice, addressing herself to one that was waving gracefully about in the wind, “I wish you could talk!”

“We can talk,” said the Tiger-lily, “when there’s anybody worth talking to.”

Alice was so astonished that she couldn’t speak for a minute: it quite seemed to take her breath away. At length, as the Tiger-lily only went on waving about, she spoke again, in a timid voice–almost a whisper. “And can all flowers talk?”

“As well as you can,” said the Tiger-lily. “And a great deal louder.”

AP Photo:

Caption: “A sunflower whose seeds have been picked out to resemble a scary face is seen on a cloudy day in Nyon, Switzerland, Friday, July 23, 2004. Heavy rains and thunderstorms crossed Switzerland the past few days. (AP Photo/Keystone, Fabrice Coffrini)”

I was listening to an old favorite message from Alistair Begg earlier today: Gideon - God’s Choice. Alistair was speaking at a pastor’s conference, and the message text was Gideon’s victory over the Midianites from Judges 7. In introducing the text, Alistair made the interesting statement that it is important to come to scripture with "the spirit of agnosticism".

It’s really possible for us … that in coming to passages of scripture with which we are familiar, our very familiarity with the text prevents us from doing justice to the text. And one of the things that I’m trying to teach myself the longer I go in pastoral ministry is the necessity of coming to the text with a spirit of agnosticism. That is, not with a spirit of unbelief, but with the spirit of ‘I don’t know what this means’.

When we always come to the text believing we know what it means, we tend then not look at it with the eyes of faith, nor to look at it with the eyes of expectancy, but simply to look for the usual, familiar themes which many of us have known from our infancy. And as a result what we do is reiterate again the same kind of emphasis that we’ve heard before.

Now where those emphasis are right, then of course it is good for them to be repeated. But where they have perhaps missed something or have overemphasized something, then we do a disservice to ourselves and to our listeners, unless we come to the text with a genuine desire for God to teach us by His Spirit, so that we learning may then become teachers.

I’m one of those people of which Alistair was speaking. I’ve been blessed to grow up in the church, and over the decades, I have heard literally thousands of sermons, being in church from my infancy. It is easy for me to come to a passage of scripture with the idea that I already know what is to be gathered from it. I need to work at developing this "spirit of agnosticism", so that I can expect to learn something. I want to have a genuine desire to learn what God has for us in the text, and to not be complacent in what little I’ve been able to glean so far.