Saturday, April 4, 2015


Shepherd of Tender Youth is one of the Church's earliest known hymns. It was written around 200 A.D. by Clement of Alexandria. The lyrics provide clear evidence as to who the early Church thought Jesus to be: God. The first stanza makes this clear:

1 Shepherd of tender youth,
Guiding in love and truth
Through devious ways;
Christ, our triumphant king,
We come Your name to sing
And here our children bring
To join Your praise.

Only God is the proper object of worship. "You shall have no other gods before me" the first commandment warns. Clement declared that Christ was lifted up as king, his very name praised in worship by old and young alike. If Christ was the object of worship and praise by his earliest followers, what does this say concerning the identity they ascribed to Christ? The second stanza provides more evidence:

2 You are our holy Lord,
The all-subduing Word,
Healer of strife.
Yourself You did abase
That from sin's deep disgrace
You so might save our race
And give us life.  

Christ is declared to be Lord. Psalm 34:8 urges us to "...taste and see that Jehovah is good." Peter applies this verse to Jesus Christ: "...rid yourself of all malice and deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babes, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." If anyone has any doubts as to who Peter is speaking of, the next verses remove any doubts from readers' minds: "As you come to him--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--you also, like living stones are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1Pet. 2: 1-5). Who was the one rejected by men but chosen by God? Who else but Jesus Christ. Peter identifies Jesus as Lord and applies Psalm 34:8's mention of Jehovah to Christ, thereby signifying that Jesus is God. We see that in the second stanza, Jesus is worshiped as Lord. So, if anyone tries to convince you that the early Church never worshiped Jesus as divine, or that Christ himself never claimed divinity, listen to the hymnody of the early Church. Worship Jesus as God the Son as those saints who have gone on before us now do before the throne of God. Worship the God who became a man (Yourself You did abase), who took the punishment for our sins (That from sin's deep disgrace) so that we may be redeemed from sin and death (You so might save our race) and be indwelt by God the Holy Spirit (And give us life).

Sunday, February 22, 2015


Ex. 19:5- "Now therefore; if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you will be a special treasure to Me above all people, for all the earth is mine."

The gods the ancient pagans believed in were demanding; they had a constant need to be appeased. These gods had no mercy on those who did not comply with their demands. Nor did they promise good to those who worshiped them. Not so the God of Israel, the only true God. This is the God who spoke to Moses and rescued Moses' people out of slavery. God expected total obedience from Israel. Yet God also promised good to those who obeyed Him. God promised that the people of Israel would be His own special people; they would have a unique relationship to the Father. A mark of this special relationship was that Israel was to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6). In the ancient world, true worship of the living God took place in Israel, and the only pathway to a genuine relationship to God was to become one God's covenant people. This was by God's decree, but this decree was also an integral part of God's promise. The ancient gods demanded obedience for no other reason but that they should be obeyed. God demanded obedience from Israel, but that obedience was to be in response to what God had done for His people. "You have seen what I did for the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagle's wings and brought you to myself." (Ex. 19:5).  Before God demanded obedience, He acted in Israel's behalf. God wanted Israel's obedience to be a loving response to God's deliverance of His people out of slavery as well as His protection and provision of them on their journey through the desert. God didn't want their obedience to be based solely on fear. We cannot obey God until He delivers us from the kingdom of darkness and places us into His kingdom: "He has delivered us from the powers of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love..." (Col. 1:13). But now that God has done this for all who repent and believe in Him, our response should be one of total obedience. "We love Him because He first loved us" (1Jn. 4:19). "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments..." (1Jn. 5:3). Our love of God is shown through obedience. And our obedience is in response to God loving us and rescuing us from the kingdom of darkness. The difference between God and other false gods worshiped today is just as radical. And this should make our worship of Him all the more reverent.

All scripture passages quoted from the NKJV.

(This is the last post in the Monday Morning Devotions series. The purpose of these articles, besides uplifting Jesus Christ, is to present first impressions of various verses from scripture which could later be developed into sermons. Devotional pieces will continue to appear here, but not in the same format.)

Tuesday, January 27, 2015


Last Tuesday marked the two year countdown to the end of the Obama presidency. For these next two, slow moving years, all political discussion will fall under two broad categories; how much more damage can the President bring about in that time and who will the Republicans nominate to replace him. This post focuses on the second.

The issue is not just who can beat the Democrat nominee. Notice I typed, "the Democrat nominee," not Hillary Clinton. I am not at all sure Mrs. Clinton will be nominated. Even if Elizabeth Warren does not run, support for Hillary is weaker than many in the media would have us believe. Many Democrats have their doubts about her. Especially the far left, or progressives, as they prefer to be called today. They don't trust her to carry on Obama's policies. Obama is numbered among these doubters. It is reported that he trusts Warren to continue his legacy and has actively encouraged her to run. Hillary is not skillful enough to convincingly remold herself into a progressive champion. The flap concerning her remarks about how entrepreneurs don't create jobs is just one example. Her age and personal baggage may cause many Democrats to seek an alternative; a fresh face whom nobody knows anything about. After all, it worked for Obama in 2008. Many Democrats who supported Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primaries have good reason to fear the wrath of Hillary and Bill. Were the Clintons to regain the White House, there is sure to be a political purge in the party and in the government.

Again, the issue for the Republicans is not just who can beat the Democrat nominee. The issue is which Republican nominee can motivate the base to vote for him. President Obama's 2012 win was due in large part to the dissatisfaction of the Republican base with Mitt Romney. I voted for him, but many conservatives stayed home on election day because Romney's past conduct caused them to doubt he would govern conservatively (see my post here). Were he to run again, that mistrust would remain. Those doubts will only increase in the light of his most recent comments on immigration. Jeb Bush's stand on immigration will also hurt him with the base, as well as his support for Common Core. It appears that Bush has told rich Republican donors that he would win without the base. This reminds me of a joke that is told every time a Republican wins the White House. The day after the election, two liberal college professors meet on campus. "I voted for the Democrat," says one. "You voted for the Democrat. Just where do all these other people who voted Republican come from?" Just as many liberals think conservatives are few and far between and therefore, inconsequential, so do establishment Republicans delude themselves into thinking the same thing. As has been said by many pundits, voters are not ready to vote for another Bush. Were Bush or Romney the nominee, the advantage of a fresh face opposing Hillary Clinton would be thrown away. Chris Christie has no chance of being nominated. I think even he is smart enough to know this. I don't expect him to run.

The Democrats and their allies in the media would like to make Republican voters think Bush, Romney, or Christie are their only viable candidates. So would the Republican political establishment. Even normally reliable conservatives mention only these three. Some will add Rand Paul to the list. This is the case with the conservatives who appear on the McLaughlin Group. Recently I heard Laura Ingraham claim that anyone who doesn't believe Bush will be the nominee knows nothing about politics. She compared all other alternatives to Bush to those who ran against Romney in the 2012 primaries. Ingraham compared them to the likes of Herman Cain, who served as a distraction for conservative voters. The idea that the current crop of conservative alternatives to Bush and Romney are only Cain-like distractions is ludicrous. Many of them have very impressive records on which to run and would be articulate spokespersons for their conservative supporters. Most of the conservative candidates should have no trouble securing the support of the conservative base. Marco Rubio may be viewed with suspicion because of his moderate approach to immigration. But which one is best positioned to win enough votes outside the base to win the election?

What about Rand Paul? He has shown himself to be a smart political operator. I've even heard liberals acknowledge this. But Rand Paul has a huge liability, and his name is Ron Paul, otherwise known as Dad. Ron Paul is a true blue Libertarian. In a general election, this will not be an asset. The father has made numerous statements that caused many to question his sanity, such as his pronouncements that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. His statements minimizing the importance of pro life issues as compared to states' rights concerns turn off many conservatives. There is also plenty of evidence that he or his campaign staff has produced racist literature in past campaigns. The Libertarian culture in general could turn out to be a huge millstone around Rand Paul's neck. Libertarians take extremist positions on such issues as drug legalization and Israel that they can sound like allies of the far left. Many Libertarians even believe that 911 was a government plot. One of their candidates for governor of Texas, Debra Medina, refuse to disavow 911 conspiracy theories and so destroyed her chances for any future political career. Rand Paul is certainly smart enough to know he has to moderate his Libertarian orthodoxy so not to turn off most voters. But it is uncertain whether he has the ability to distance himself from his father and his father's supporters.

Suppose Rubio would be able to win over conservative voters, would he be able to win in the general election? I'm not sure he would. I like Rubio, but at this stage of his career, he has not mastered the media and his inexperience shows. (Of course, the same criticism could be leveled at both President Bushes. Yet they won three presidential elections). I like Bobby Jindal as well. He can be articulate, yet his rhetoric seems to be a bit juvenile. For someone with his academic pedigree, this seems baffling. The way he expresses himself could make him seem less than presidential. (Of course, the same criticism could be leveled at both President Bushes. Yet they won three presidential elections). I'm not sure Rick Perry can overcome the gaffes committed during his 2012 run. I don't know enough about Mike Pence or Susana Martinez to comment. I'm familiar with John Kasich, but don't know what kind of candidate he would make. The Senator from South Carolina would be the next Jon Huntsman.

Then there is Ted Cruz. I am a Ted Cruz fan. I don't believe any of the criticisms aimed at him by the left or the Republican establishment. I think he would be a great President. Yet I doubt he could win a general election, and for one of the same reasons why Hillary Clinton couldn't win either. Historically, a candidate who has a devoted following and an equally inspired opposition and who is constantly in the spotlight loses in the primaries or in general elections. Most Presidents have been those who had been previously unknown to the voting public, like JFK, Clinton, or Obama. Or if they were known, like Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, they had spent some years out of the spotlight. Dwight Eisenhower was known to everyone, but he had never run for political office before he ran for President. The one exception in modern times has been George H.W. Bush, who had served eight years as Vice-President. In his case, he had two things going for him; he benefited from Reagan's success and he couldn't have asked for a more hopeless opponent. Ted Cruz has a lot more going for him than George H.W. Bush, and if he could overcome this obstacle, no one would be pleased to vote for him more than myself. But the odds are against him.

That leaves the one candidate Democrats and establishment Republicans rarely mention, the elephant in the Republican room: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Not only is he a reliable conservative, his fight against the Democrats and their union allies has earned him a hero status among the conservative base. He stood his ground against all opposition in two elections and one recall attempt. Only Cruz shares his hero status, and only Sarah Palin exceeds him in admiration among the conservative base. The opposition to him in Wisconsin was intense as any presidential candidate receives, yet all the efforts of the state and national Democrat party could not chip away at his support among Wisconsin voters. If there was anything in his past that would derail a presidential candidacy, it would have surfaced already. Walker has already been vetted. He is been a popular, successful governor. Yet for all the intense opposition he has faced, he has managed to operate mainly under the public radar. Unlike Clinton or Cruz, he is rarely mentioned in the news. This allows him to run as a fresh face in 2016. When seeking a candidate with the right political skills, this bodes well for 2016 and beyond. All this positions Walker to be the Republican nominee best able to win.

The day I typed this post, Sarah Palin told the Washington Post that she was seriously considering a 2016 run. Count me among Palin's most ardent admirers. But could she win in the primaries, let alone the general election? The manner in which her opponents drove her out of the Alaska Governor's office, and the false charge that her departure showed she was not fit for the pressures of the Presidency could be a huge liability. She also faces the same obstacles Cruz would face if he would run. She has a personal loyalty among conservatives that is only matched by Reagan. She also has an opposition bordering on the deranged. Both groups would turn out in droves. Would Palin be able to increase her support during the primaries and the general election? Right now, no one knows. Also, she has had constant media exposure; she cannot run as a fresh face whom the voters know nothing about. However, even if she can't win, a Palin candidacy could very well inspire the conservative base to take away much, if not total control, of the Republican party from the establishment. In that case, I say, "Run! Sarah! Run!"

If Bush, Romney, or Christie would be the nominee by the time I get to vote in the primaries, then I'll vote for the man I voted for in 2012. The man who should have been seen as the most viable alternative to Romney but for the distractions of Cain, Bauchmann, and Gingrich. I am speaking of Rick Santorum. While the issues that most concern him are social issues, had he the time, he could have established himself as an articulate, well-rounded candidate that could have defeated Romney in the primaries and Obama in the election. I would gladly vote for him again. He could certainly prevail over any likely Democrat nominee. Or Hillary Clinton.

Thursday, January 15, 2015


For many a year, I was in the current majority which holds to the rapture of the Church followed by a seven year tribulation. I have abandoned that position in recent years. Here are four links which effectively counter rapture theology. The first two are short videos featuring Ben Witherington of Asbury Seminary. In the first video, he gives a brief history of the development of modern Chrisitanity's view of the rapture. In the second video, he explains what he believes to be the correct interpretation of  1Thess. 4: 17, concerning the Church meeting Jesus in the air. Instead of the Church being raptured away from the earth, Christians will be greeting Jesus the way a capital city greets a victorious king returning from battle or a long journey, cheering him and escorting him back into the city. The Church will greet Jesus and escort him back to earth when Jesus returns to rule as king. The Church won't leave the earth behind; the Church will remain! HT for both videos: Asbury Seedbed.

The other two links are articles featuring scholarly analysis as well as personal experiences in examining the validity of current views of the rapture. The first is by Roger Olson of Baylor University, the second by Frank Viola.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015


Humanists regularly deny that Humanism is a religion, yet whenever Humanists deny religious faith claims, they are making their own religious claims. In an Oregon court case involving a Humanist study group in a prison, a Federal District Court agrees with me: From Howard Friedman's Religion Clause blog.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


When I was 29 years old, I contracted chickenpox. The doctor who treated me informed me that it was an especially severe case which was being monitored by the local medical community. I experienced symptoms for a couple days before I realized I had something serious. I thought the outbreaks on my face were a severe case of acne. Since the virus went into my liver, this sickness could have proven fatal. I couldn't be in the presence of pregnant women or small children. So every time I went to the hospital for treatment, the whole 4th floor had to be evacuated. It was an eerie experience going through automatic doors and walking through the deserted hallways. (It reminded me of the opening scene of Get Smart.) I missed some weeks of work and will likely have shingles when I am older.

In what setting did I contract the virus? Church fellowship. A group of mothers at my local church decided they would expose their little ones to other children who had chickenpox so that their children could catch it and develop immunity. This occurred right before the chickenpox vaccine was made available, so I cannot fault them for not immunizing their children. However, I can fault them for their thoughtless disregard for others who might have contracted the virus. One Sunday, my car broke down, so some friends from church gave me a ride. I wasn't the only passenger my friends took to church that Sunday. My friends also gave a ride to a single mother who had been one of those who had exposed her child to the virus. In the process, she contracted the virus and passed it on to me.

I am reminded of this time when I read of childhood diseases making a comeback because parents refuse to have their children vaccinated. Not only is chickenpox resurfacing in the U.S., so is whooping cough, measles, and the mumps. Not long ago, a woman caller on the Rush Limbaugh program claimed that childhood vaccinations leave a tracking device in children so the government will always know their whereabouts. Recently, a Texas church affiliated with Kenneth Copeland came under scrutiny because of its opposition to vaccinations. Because of its stance, 20 people, including a 4 month old child, contracted measles.  (Kenneth Copeland's organization denies that it opposes vaccinations, so I don't know how fair it would be to blame his specific teachings for what happened.) The church later reversed it's stance on vaccinations. Many of these very same people are probably wondering (and rightly so) why the government doesn't ban flights from countries where the Ebola epidemic is spreading.  Many of these same people are probably worried (and rightly so) about children from Latin America illegally entering this country with infectious diseasesDaniel Pipes has documented how Muslim clerics charge that western vaccinations are being used to infect Muslims with various diseases. By stoking the fires of this conspiracy theory, diseases such as polio, which have been nearly eradicated, will continue to ruin the lives of countless persons.  When Christian parents come to believe in conspiracy theories similar to those advanced by those who would qualify as ISIS spiritual advisers, it doesn't take a whole lot of reflection to realize that not a whole lot of reflection has taken place on this issue.

There has been controversy over vaccinations in Christian and non-Christian circles. Some believe there is a significant risk to their children if they are vaccinated for diseases that in the past killed children by the thousands every year. Some parents charge the medical profession with covering up the risks. This belief is the result of the mindset that sees a conspiracy behind every negative event. In America, this mindset was encouraged by the speculation concerning government involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It was further fueled by Vietnam and Watergate. In the 1960's, the young were told to distrust authority, and this distrust filtered into the Church through the Jesus Movement of the late 60's and early 70's. This mindset was alive and well in the Church when I was saved in 1986, and it is still rampant among God's people today.

Even those Christians who would admit that the health risks to children from vaccinations are small may still claim that the risks are too great. They may understand the risk to the general population from childhood diseases such as measles and chickenpox. Yet they believe that their role as their children's protectors extends to exposing the general population to that very risk. They hope God protects others from the consequences of their actions, but they believe their duty is to protect their children at the expense of everyone else.

Apparently, these parents haven't learned to apply this word from Jesus when considering their conduct concerning vaccinating their children: "...'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second (greatest commandment) is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mk. 12: 29-31, NIV) Loving God and our neighbors, these are the two greatest commandments. Parents, when it comes to the question of vaccinating children, following God means exposing your children to a very minimal risk. Loving your neighbor means doing the right thing to spare untold numbers of people from being exposed to sickness, disability, or death. I worked for two days before I realized I was seriously ill. Who knows how many people were exposed to chickenpox due to the thoughtlessness of a few Christian mothers who should have kept their children at home. Instead of acting out of fear and selfishness, if they had realized how the second greatest commandment applies to the question of protecting others, they would have trusted God and His Word. They would have acted on faith in Jesus Christ.

Let's apply the second greatest commandment to another situation. Medical science has discovered that jewelry worn by medical personnel can spread germs to patients. Hospitals are encouraging nurses and doctors to refrain from wearing rings or necklaces while on duty. In the U.K., some nurses were disciplined for wearing Christian themed jewelry. Yes, there is a rising tide of discrimination against Christians in the U.K. and Europe. But these nurses were not disciplined for the message their jewelry conveyed, they were disciplined because they were threatening their patient's health. These nurses sued and lost. I'm as big a supporter of the right to wear clothing or jewelry which promotes the Gospel as any evangelical. I have a small cross hanging from my car's rear view mirror. I wear a "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" pin on my shirt collar from Thanksgiving through New Year's Day. Yet when it comes to medical workers wearing Christian jewelry while treating patients, I say, take it off. Apply the second greatest commandment. Don't put patients at risk because you think your right of self expression is more important than the lives of your patients. And don't charge the medical profession and the government with some diabolical scheme to deprive Christians of the right to spread the Gospel.

When the smallpox vaccination was first introduced into colonial America, many were fearful of catching the very disease they were being inoculated against. Clergy in New England took the lead in having themselves inoculated. They realized that they were exposing themselves to sickness and death in doing so. Yet they thought that the risk from refusing to be inoculated was greater than inoculation itself. They believed that eradicating diseases that caused untold misery was so important that exposing themselves to the risk was what God would have them do. The following describes the devastation Puritan New England experienced from smallpox and Cotton Mather's argument for inoculation:

"With the smallpox epidemic catching speed and racking up a staggering death toll, a solution to the crisis was becoming more urgently needed by the day. The use of quarantine and various other efforts, such as balancing the body's humors, did not slow the disease's spread. As news rolled in from town to town and correspondence arrived from overseas, reports of horrific stories of suffering and loss due to smallpox stirred mass panic among the people. By circa 1700, smallpox had become among the most devastating of epidemic diseases circulating in the Atlantic world.
Cotton Mather strongly challenged the perception that inoculation was against the will of God and argued that the procedure was not outside of Puritan principles. He wrote that 'whether a Christian may not employ this Medicine (let the matter of it be what it will) and humbly give Thanks to God's good Providence in discovering of it to a miserable World; and humbly look up to His Good Providence (as we do in the use of any other Medicine) It may seem strange, that any wise Christian cannot answer it. And how strangely do Men that call themselves Physicians betray their Anatomy, and their Philosophy, as well as their Divinity in their invectives against this Practice?' The Puritan minister began to embrace the sentiment that smallpox was an inevitability for anyone, both the good and the wicked, yet God had provided them with the means to save themselves. Mather reported that, from his view, 'none that have used it ever died of the Small Pox, tho at the same time, it were so malignant, that at least half the People died, that were infected With it in the Common way.'
While Cotton Mather was experimenting with the procedure, prominent Puritan pastors Benjamin Colman and William Cooper expressed public and theological support for them.[34] The practice of smallpox inoculation was eventually accepted by the general population due to first-hand experiences and personal relationships. Although many were initially wary of the concept, it was because people were able to witness the procedure's consistently positive results, within their own community of ordinary citizens, that it became widely utilized and supported. One important change in the practice after 1721 was regulated quarantine of inoculees
Inoculation visibly and directly aided man's control of the disease, the level of infection, mortality rates and the spreading of the epidemic. Planned inoculation led to better observation of the body's responses and allowed people the ability to time the onset of the pox and control the disease's intensity. For example, by inoculating in the months of milder climate, one had a better chance of fighting the infection and becoming immune instead of the alternative: natural exposure to the disease during harsher weather, when the body's defenses were already challenged...It was also discovered that inoculation produced less scarring and physical defects than a common, naturally contracted case."

Jonathan Edwards knew the risks of inoculation for smallpox, but considered the risks of not inoculating himself to be even greater. When he realized that he was indeed going to die from the disease because of the inoculation, he never regretted his course of action. On his death bed he spoke these words to his daughter, who wrote them down immediately afterward:

"Dear Lucy, it seems to me to be the will of God that I must shortly leave you; therefore give my kindest love to my dear wife, and tell her, that the uncommon union, which has so long subsisted between us, has been of such a nature, as I trust is spiritual, and therefore will continue forever: and I hope she will be supported under so great a trial, and submit cheerfully to the will of God. And as to my children, you are now like to be fatherless, which I hope will be an inducement to you to seek a Father, who will never fail you..." George M. Marsden, Jonathon Edwards: A Life 

It is ironic that today the Puritans are considered to be reactionaries, opposed to all human progress. Today, what we know about the natural world makes us Einsteins in comparison with them. This is true even of mothers who purposely expose their children to the chickenpox virus. Yet it appears that trust in and obedience to God has declined since the days of Mather and Edwards. In trying to protect their children at the expense of the general population, some Christian mothers may do untold damage that their Puritan ancestors risked their lives to prevent.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014


Oh, to be a Swede! Or, better yet, a Dane! Or to live in any Nordic country these days. Why? To live in a Nordic country is to live among the world's happiest people. According to the United Nations' World Happiness Report, 2013, Nordic countries offer their citizens the greatest happiness on earth.

By what criteria does the U.N. measure happiness? In Denmark, parents don't get just a paltry few weeks parental leave when they have a child. They get 52 weeks of parental leave. Not only that, early childhood education is available to each child. It is believed that the earlier children begin formal education, the more well adjusted and successful they will be later in life. Free health care is seen as a right. Apparently, the ability to see our primary physician multiple times during the year is essential for our mental health. Danes see their primary care physician 7 times a year verses 4 times a year for Americans. Gender equality has nearly been achieved. Women are being paid increasingly the same as men. There is almost complete equality of employment among the sexes. Biking isn't just an extreme sport; it is the norm. The ethos of collective responsibility leads to a higher rate of volunteerism.

In terms of human happiness, the U.N. rates the United States as number 17, just below Mexico.

My response is twofold, the first is political, the second, spiritual.

The inescapable conclusion of the U.N. report is that government is the source of human happiness. Parental leave, gender parity, free health care, they are all provided by the government. The unspoken motivation of this report is to create an allegiance to government. Government is to be seen as the key to success in any endeavor. President Obama and Elizabeth Warren didn't originate the "You didn't build that" mentality. That belief is just another European import.

Children in the Danish school system will of course prefer the system they are brought up in. That is human nature. Complain about the state of American education and many Americans will agree with you. Criticize local schools and see how quickly many of those who attended those same schools unfriend you on Facebook. Those who experienced early childhood education claim they are more successful and more sophisticated as a result. Yet early childhood education (educating children as early as two or three) is just another opportunity to mold children to the government's liking and weaken the family unit.

Riding a bike instead of driving certainly has health benefits. If enough people ride their bikes, air pollution would certainly decrease. There is no question that this would affect the happiness of those living in big cities. Yet it should be noted that one major reason people take to their bikes in Europe is the horrendous price of gas Europeans have to pay. In Denmark, the price of gas is now $5.93/gallon, according to CNN. According to Bloomberg, in February of 2013, it was $8.22/gallon. This has been the case long before gas prices went up here in the U.S. The high price of gas in Europe is by design. Government design, that is. European governments fix the price of gas to discourage driving. President Obama has said he would like Americans to pay the same for gas as Europeans do. Yes, we need to combat pollution. But the motivation to convince the U.S. to change its entire way of life to combat it is political. The U.N. wishes Americans to see freedom as a threat to the planets existence. Just recently, a top U.N. official involved with climate issues stated that democracy is a poor system to combat climate change. The most useful government model, according to her, is communism, particularly communism practiced by the Chinese government. She is apparently blind to the fact that China is polluting its air and poisoning its soil on a massive scale, harming,even killing, its own citizens.

Americans certainly love their cars. They prize the freedom of mobility a car gives. Some would claim that the mobility Americans have experienced is a selfish luxury. However, many historians have credited the ability of Americans to move from place to place as a stabilizing force. American mobility reduces the kind of political discontent which leads to instability in other nations. In some third world countries, the happiest time for a young man is to take his girl friend through the city streets on a motor bike. It is often the only pleasure daily life affords. There are lots of cool songs about driving cars and motor cycles. Are there any cool Danish songs about bike riding?

Is visiting your primary care physician seven times a year, as the Danes do, necessarily a good thing? That Americans see theirs' only four times a year, is that a bad thing? Do most healthy people need to see their doctor seven times a year? Perhaps government provided free health care encourages people to see their doctor more than they need to. Before Obamacare, I never had difficulty seeing my physician. I prefer to deal with one doctor. During my father's last illness, his care was directed by a team of doctors who didn't always coordinate their treatment successfully. This was demoralizing for the family. Yet to imply that this is the state of care for all Americans, even those who are healthy and not in the hospital, as the first link above implies, is misleading.

As for volunteerism, in the U.S., it is conservatives who volunteer the most and contribute the most to charity. (Nicholas Kristof, a liberal, wrote an op-ed confirming this in the New York Times. His article is titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads". It appeared on 12/21/08. You have to register to access the article.)  If the U.S. repatriated its liberal population, which is stingy concerning these matters, would the U.S. look a lot like Denmark? I doubt it. But note how the article implies that those who live in quasi-socialist countries have greater compassion for humanity.

I would be amiss to move on without pointing out that one of the primary reasons Denmark, Sweden, and all the other Nordic and European countries have been able to afford their way of life is the support of the American taxpayer. Americans have paid for Europe's defense so the Europeans didn't have to do it themselves. The U.S., with its strategic interests around the world, can not afford to build the nanny state that exists in European countries. (However, this reality seems to have escaped President Obama's notice.)

There is one last point to consider. The very countries which the U.N. declares to be the happiest on earth have very high suicide rates.   Some attribute this to the lack of sunlight in Nordic countries. Others believe inherited depression is the culprit. Yet the evidence from the U.S., provided in the link above, refutes this. The states which best reflect the conditions which are supposed to have made Nordic people the world's happiest have higher suicide rates than the rest of the states. Hawaii is an example. The Time article identifies the culprit. It is prosperity and happiness itself. (Yet the author seems to favor the very policies which produce such happiness.) The kind of happiness achieved in Nordic countries is conducive to high suicide rates. In a society where government is the guarantor of success and happiness, the human spirit is diminished. Those that struggle have hope, and hope satisfied includes the satisfaction of achievement. Married couples who struggle together share personal bonds that others do not. Shared affliction produces greater intimacy which positively affects personal happiness. Societies where governments remove most of life's obstacles create an environment where there is no hope. Hope is banished when the government is seen to be the source of happiness rather than God. Note that the U.N. assessment had no religious criteria in assessing happiness. Such a society makes life feel meaningless so that many cannot face living.  If striving for wealth doesn't bring happiness, neither does its opposite number, a society that gives you everything.