Where Was Jesus Born?
Topic: Response to Media


Dr. John Ankerberg: If the four Gospels are anchored in real historical events, what about the birth of Jesus? At Christmas, Christians around the world look to Bethlehem as the place where He was born. But during the ABC Special, some scholars cast doubt on whether Jesus was ever born there. So next, we will travel to Bethlehem to investigate this question.

We’ve come to Bethlehem to the Church of the Nativity. This is the traditional birthplace of Jesus. Some scholars claim that Jesus wasn’t really born here and we wanted to get a second opinion. Others claim Matthew tells us Jesus was born in Bethlehem, while Luke implies He was born in Nazareth. Who is right?

First, let’s look at the material that is questioned. In the Gospel of Matthew, we are told, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king." Then, in the Gospel of Luke we read: "And Joseph also went up from Galilee from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child. And it came about that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth; and she gave birth to her firstborn Son." Now, doesn’t it seem that both Matthew and Luke clearly state Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

Dr. Darrell Bock: I think He was born in Bethlehem. In fact, again, let’s take the alternative. What evidence is there that He was born in Nazareth and my response would be, "Silence." There is none.

Mrs. Claire Pfann: I think based on the Gospel accounts we can be sure of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This is evidenced in Matthew, in Luke, and also by implication in the Gospel of John. The opponents of Jesus in John, in their smug attitude, say, "How can this possibly be the Messiah? Jesus is from Nazareth in the Galilee. We know that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem." And within John’s Gospel, rather than answering that argument, he remains silent because his readers already know the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a fact that his opponents, for all their smugness, are unaware.

Dr. John Ankerberg: One who disagrees about where Jesus was born is Marcus Borg, the founder of the Jesus Seminar. He thinks Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, since in the Gospels He is called Jesus of Nazareth.

Dr. Claire Pfann: Well, I think that that’s pretty much a silly observation. The fact that Jesus was called "Jesus of Nazareth" tells us less about where He was born than about where He came from as a young adult when He started His ministry. It tells us that He was known as Jesus of Nazareth because that’s where He lived during His adolescence. It doesn’t tell us where He was born. He was born in Bethlehem.

Dr. Ben Witherington: Well, the only Gospel that actually makes a point of telling us exactly where Jesus was born is the first Gospel in the canon, Matthew’s gospel, who tells us that a pilgrimage was made, by the family of Joseph, Joseph and Mary, to Bethlehem, to be registered in a census in Bethlehem, and that this was where Jesus was born. Only Matthew really makes a point of that. Luke does not say, "And by the way, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem." He doesn’t say that. I mean, it’s an argument from silence to say Luke proves that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Silence can be read in a lot of different ways. The question is whether the silence is pregnant, or whether the silence really is just silence and you shouldn’t read too much into it.

Dr. John Ankerberg: To get the whole story of Christmas, we do have to put the two accounts together. Matthew and Luke each present additional facts about what happened. But because they supply additional facts that are different, should we conclude that we have two contradictory reports?

Dr. Darrell Bock: Well, the key combination is the idea: "Different equals Contradictory." And that’s not the only way to look at it. You can have different accounts of the same event and they can have differences in them and not be contradictory at all. I often joke with my kids that if you listen to my wife and I tell a story about the same event, we’re not going to pick the same details. Now, some of it will overlap and some of it will be different. And part of what she tells you is going to be part of the story and part of what I tell you is going to be part of the story, too. And actually, there’s great value in having those different accounts because they each penetrate the story at a different angle and in that difference of penetration you get more insight into the character and into the event. And it’s not contradictory at all.

Dr. Claire Pfann: I think, again, we have to remember that Luke and Matthew are each choosing what they want to tell about Jesus. Very important in Luke’s Gospel is the fact that Jesus is coming to be the shepherd of the sheep, and he is coming, in particular, to call people who are poor and outcast and marginalized in society. And in his day, shepherds were looked down upon. They were marginalized people. So how significant in the Gospel of Luke that the first people who should hear the good news of the birth of the Lamb of God, happened to be shepherds, sitting in their fields by night. It’s such an important moment in the Gospel of Luke that there’s an angelic announcement. What is happening is so important for salvation history that, for a brief moment, heaven breaks forth into the earthly sphere and we get to see a glimpse of this ladder between heaven and earth, of the angels announcing the good news of the Lamb of God, who will one day be the shepherd of the sheep. It’s a beautiful, poetic, way of depicting a theme that will run through Luke in terms of Jesus’ care for the poor and downcast.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Is there anything we can know for sure about the birth of Jesus?

Dr. Claire Pfann: Well, I think I would say the things I’m certain about concerning the birth of Jesus are certainly the things that both Matthew and Luke share in common and tell us. He was born of the family of David. He was born to a woman named Mary who was a virgin, betrothed (or engaged) to a man named Joseph, and yet who had not yet come to live with him. His birth was announced through an angelic visitation. His conception was unique and divine in human history. His birth took place in Bethlehem. It was accompanied by unique signs. And the family later moved to Nazareth and made their home there.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Now, Peter Jennings stated that much of the information we have from this part of the world does not support either Matthew or Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth. We wondered if scholars agreed.

Dr. Claire Pfann: I don’t agree. I don’t think that the Gospels present a false picture of Jewish life in the first century in the Holy Land. I think, if anything, Luke in particular endeavors to show us the norms of Jewish life.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Luke presents both John the Baptist and Jesus as children who are circumcised on the eighth day in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Mary and Joseph are pictured as observant, pious Jews who bring Jesus up according to the Law of Moses, and present Him in the temple. Luke also tells us that, as a family, they went up to the great pilgrimage feasts in Jerusalem, such as the time of Passover.

Dr. Claire Pfann: Later in Jesus’ life, it’s reiterated time and again, that it was his practice to go to the synagogue on Shabbath, on the Sabbath, and that he was pious and observant of Jewish traditions. I think that we see an enormous amount of material that authentically reflects Jewish life in the first century in the Holy Land in the Gospels.

Dr. John Ankerberg: We asked archaeologist Dr. Magen Broshi if he thinks information from this part of the world supports what the Gospel writers say.

Dr. Magen Broshi: On certain things, they fit very well of what we know about the first century Palestine. They fit very well because they give us a good picture of what was happening here, and archaeology can prove it.

Dr. Craig Evans: Now, archaeology doesn’t prove that Jesus was really God’s Son. Source critical work and all that stuff doesn’t prove those things. But what it does is, it shows that there is a historical foundation on which confessions of faith...or in the light of which confessions of faith make perfectly good sense.

Dateline NBC - The Birth of Jesus Support Materials
Topic: Response to Media
Mrs. Claire Pfann is Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, University of the Holy Land, and author and an expert on Jewish birth practices and the culture of Bethlehem during the time of Jesus. She was interviewed in connection with our series entitled Jesus: The Search Continues. Check the online catalog to order this series.]

Dr. John Ankerberg: Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or wasn’t He?

Mrs. Claire Pfann: I think based on the Gospel accounts we can be sure of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This is evidenced in Matthew, in Luke, and also by implication in the Gospel of John. The opponents of Jesus in John, in their smug attitude, say, "How can this possibly be the Messiah? Jesus is from Nazareth in the Galilee. We know that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem." And within John’s Gospel, rather than answering that argument, he remains silent because his readers already know the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a fact that his opponents, for all their smugness, are unaware.

Ankerberg: Marcus Borg (of the Jesus Seminar) says, "In all likelihood Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. The fact that Jesus is known as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ points very, very heavily to Nazareth being his birthplace." What would you say to that?

Pfann: The fact that Jesus was called "Jesus of Nazareth" tells us less about where he was born that about where he came from as a young adult when he started his ministry. It tells us that he was known as "Jesus of Nazareth" because that’s where he lived during his adolescence. It doesn’t tell us where he was born. He was born in Bethlehem.

Ankerberg: Does Matthew contradict Luke by saying that the family was living in Bethlehem and having Jesus born at home?

Pfann: We sometimes read Luke and we picture Joseph and Mary traveling in the rain on a cold December night. And Mary is in labor, in pain, about to deliver this baby and Joseph frantically walks from door to door knocking on the Motel 6’s of Bethlehem—which there weren’t any, of course—trying to find accommodations. But actually, if we really read what Luke has to say, he says they went to Bethlehem, which was Joseph’s ancestral home. That means they had extended family there. They were going to a place where they were known and loved, and where they would receive hospitality. It also says in the Gospel of Luke, "While they were there the time came for her to be delivered." Now, that’s a non-specific amount of time. How long were they there before the baby was born? Two days? Two weeks? Two months? It could have been three or four or five months. We really don’t know. So the picture of them being in a familial setting, surrounded by people that they might know, and that might help with the delivery, is actually supported by both Luke and Matthew.

Ankerberg: Is the Church of the Nativity the actual place of Jesus’ birth?

Pfann: The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem has strong evidence to support it as being the place of the birth of Jesus. Tradition has held it as the birthplace of Jesus for all these centuries, a tradition that was probably kept alive by the Jewish Christians in the land from the time of the Resurrection of Jesus as they searched back into His origins.

Certainly, the church lies on the heart of ancient first century Bethlehem, that small Jewish village of extended patriarchal homes. And if we look at the archaeology of that type hillside, we would see, if we could just lift that church off, the kind of archaeological pattern that would characterize Bethlehem in the first century.

We could see, for example, the caves built into the cliffs and how the homes were built on a multi-level type of terrace plan. We could understand how the people lived in courtyard homes where they would walk into the courtyard. There could be an oven. People could bake. Going off of the courtyard would be a cave or a basement in which olive oil could be stored and grains and animals could be tied up overnight for protection against the weather and bandits. The family rooms would be extending off another doorway off the courtyard. There would be a common room where eating would take place and children might sleep. There might be another room or two for the grownups and for guests. It was in such a patriarchal home that Mary and Joseph probably came shortly before the birth of Jesus and in which they were embraced by an extended family as they waited for the birth of this child.

Ankerberg: Talk about the genealogies in Mathew and Luke. What is going on?

Pfann: The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are really quite an interesting subject for study, even if on the surface they seem quite boring. Both Matthew and Luke have quite different purposes to accomplish. Luke wants to show us through his genealogy that Jesus goes back past Abraham, to Adam, to God and that Jesus therefore is a suitable Savior for all of humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. Matthew, on the other hand, has a very Jewish purpose to serve with his genealogy and focuses on the Jewish ancestors of Jesus, showing that He is both the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David. He also throws in four women in his genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, all of whom had some sexual impropriety associated with their role in the messianic line, and this is to comfort the community of Jesus and His followers who have been accused of sexual impropriety in His conception.

Ankerberg: If only Luke has the shepherds and the angels, and only Matthew has the kings and the star, can we trust any of what they say as historical information?

Pfann: I think, again, we have to remember that Luke and Matthew are each choosing what they want to tell about Jesus. Very important in Luke’s Gospel is the fact that Jesus is coming to be the shepherd of the sheep, and he is coming, in particular, to call people who are poor and outcast and marginalized in society. And in his day, shepherds were looked down upon. They were marginalized people. So how significant in the Gospel of Luke that the first people who should hear the good news of the birth of the Lamb of God, happened to be shepherds, sitting in their fields by night. It’s such an important moment in the Gospel of Luke that there’s an angelic announcement. What is happening is so important for salvation history that, for a brief moment, heaven breaks forth into the earthly sphere and we get to see a glimpse of this ladder between heaven and earth, of the angels announcing the good news of the Lamb of God, who will one day be the shepherd of the sheep. It’s a beautiful, poetic, way of depicting a theme that will run through Luke in terms of Jesus’ care for the poor and downcast.

Ankerberg: Is it historically probable or improbable that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Pfann: It’s historically probable that Jesus was born of a virgin, and both Matthew and Luke, working independently decades after His birth as they searched for the data that they can put together on His birth, come up with that as one of the 12 points that they share in common–a virgin birth, a divine conception. There have been many slurs and innuendos about Jesus, but in this they both agreed.

Ankerberg: What do you say to those who say Jesus was actually an illegitimate child? Why is that historically improbable?

Pfann: The testimony of Scripture about His conception is a clear testimony. And again, both Matthew and Luke share the fact that this was not a child born out of immorality but a child born under unique and divine circumstances. In the Dead Sea Scrolls we actually find the expectation that the Messiah would also be called the Son of the Most High and the Son of God, just as we see in the Gospel of Luke. And in the Gospel of John, we again get that type of innuendo, that sarcasm, as the enemies of Jesus say to Him in John chapter 7, "We were not born of fornication. We know who our father is," implying that He was. Once again, the Gospel of John does not give any type of rebuttal because the Gospel of John assumes that its readers know the true circumstances of Jesus’ birth.

Ankerberg: In the ABC program The Search for Jesus Peter Jennings said there’s not a whole lot of things we can say with certainty about the birth of Jesus. What are the things that you are certain about concerning the birth of Jesus?

Pfann: Well, I think I would say the things I’m certain about concerning the birth of Jesus are certainly the things that both Matthew and Luke share in common and tell us. He was born of the family of David. He was born to a woman named Mary who was a virgin, betrothed (or engaged) to a man named Joseph, and yet who had not yet come to live with him. His birth was announced through an angelic visitation. His conception was unique and divine in human history. His birth took place in Bethlehem. It was accompanied by unique signs. And the family later moved to Nazareth and made their home there.

Ankerberg: Roman tax records do show that a man is to be taxed where he lives, they said. And Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth. Tax records also show they didn’t count women. So why would Joseph have brought Mary on this very difficult journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, through the desert, especially when she was "very, very pregnant"?

Pfann: Well, there are just so many things wrong with that question, aren’t there? Starting off with the fact that maybe she wasn’t "very, very pregnant" at the time they made the journey. We pointed out in Luke 2 that it doesn’t say that she was in labor when she was traveling to Bethlehem, it says, "while she was in Bethlehem she went into labor: "the time came for her to be delivered" number one. Number two: it’s not that dangerous of a journey to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and we see that probably the practice was to travel in groups of people. It would be a three or four day journey. They would camp out under the stars. They would bring food with them. And there were not bandits on every side waiting to attack every traveler. So I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?

Ankerberg: Did the early Christian church just bring Greek and Roman mythologies into Christianity to come up with the story of Jesus’ birth?

Pfann: I think the last thing in the world that early Christians wanted to do was to import anything from Greek and Roman mythology into Christianity. If anything, they had turned their backs on paganism and polytheism and mythology, and what they wanted to do was to preserve as much as possible, the truth about the historical Jesus. When they talked about the virgin birth, it was because they believed that, in Jesus, for a unique moment in all of history, the divine and the human combined in one Son of God, who became the son of man so that he might cause the children of men to become sons of God.

Introduction


And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And Joseph went out from the city of Nazareth unto the city which is called Bethlehem to be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them at the inn.

Dr. John Ankerberg: We’ve traveled to three continents to ask historians and archaeologists, "Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of the Christian faith?" "What can we really know about Him?" Recently these questions captured the attention of ABC, resulting in a two-hour program entitled, "The Search for Jesus," hosted by Peter Jennings. Well, after it aired, we became aware that many scholars wanted to give a second opinion about what was said.

Dr. Craig Evans: No matter what their persuasion is, people say, "This guy’s extraordinary, nobody else like this has ever lived. He’s incomparable. Nobody has ever taught this way, acted this way, impressed people this way. No one has ever done these things. This is a guy I can’t leave alone. I’ve got to study Him."

Dr. N. T. Wright: Jesus does talk about Himself as Son of God in ways which it doesn’t look as though the early Church would have made up.

Dr. John Ankerberg: You know about second opinions. If your doctor diagnoses you with a serious illness, and you question his diagnosis, you would not hesitate to ask for a second opinion. Well, many of the conclusions given about Jesus in the ABC Special didn’t seem to ring true, and so we decided to check with 13 other doctors and ask them for a second opinion. We even talked to a few of the same scholars ABC did, just to make sure we were hearing them correctly.

We begin with the questions surrounding Jesus’ birth. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Have the Gospel writers presented accurate historical information about what happened or do they contradict each other?

Peter Jennings opened his special by saying, "We suspected that reliable sources would be hard to come by." And he said that not only are there reliable sources hard to come by, he said there’s a lack of evidence concerning Jesus’ life in terms of the historical Jesus. Is that true?

Dr. Darrell Bock: No. Not really. There actually is quite a bit of historical evidence, especially considering how obscure at one level a figure Jesus was. He was tucked away in a rural part of the Roman Empire and as He was tucked away in that rural part in the context of a vast empire, one would think you would know very little about Him. But in fact, He pops up in a whole lot of places.

Dr. John Ankerberg: A lot of people say that there are no secular non-Christian sources about Jesus that confirm the historical facts that are found in the New Testament. Is that true or false?

Dr. Darrell Bock: No. That’s false. We have several sources outside the Bible that confirm the existence of Jesus and they say very important things about Jesus.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Such as?

Dr. Darrell Bock: We have Tacitus who says that Pontius Pilate was responsible for the execution. That’s a Roman historian talking about a Roman governor. We have Josephus, a Jewish historian, saying Pontius Pilate is responsible for the execution of Jesus and "our people" put him up to it. So that’s a Jewish historian talking about the Jewish contribution to the discussion. We have Jewish sources that talk about Jesus as a magician and sorcerer, acknowledging that He did unusual works. That’s something that Josephus also tells us. So not only do we have corroboration, in some cases we have double corroboration.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Now, during the ABC Special, Peter Jennings went to people on the streets in Bethlehem and Nazareth and asked them what they thought about Jesus. We discovered scholars weren’t impressed with this approach of gathering historical information about Jesus.

Dr. Craig Evans: Well, that might be cute for television, but it’s of no probative value. It has no value whatsoever.

Dr. Claire Pfann: I would say the ABC Special chose to begin from a skeptical view and chose to actually start with man-on-the-street interviews, which any credible scholar would have to laugh at. Why would we expect, for example, someone walking the streets of San Francisco today to be able to talk with any kind of knowledge about the Gold Rush in California in 1848 or someone walking the streets of Ireland to be able to talk with any type of credibility about the Great Potato Famine? These people are not the people who have spent their lives researching and exploring the issues.

CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GROUP SUES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Topic: Response to Media
Below are two articles which should disturb every parent, every grandparent, everyone who loves children --- whether Christian or from some form of religion. The articles are about the latest "muscle flexing" by the Secular Humanist driven public school system in America. The first article, from the Long Beach Press-Telegram, reports the incident from a somewhat conservative viewpoint. According to the Press-Telegram: The suit relates to a series of classes including science, English, and history that incoming students are required to have taken in order to meet minimum UC admissions standards. In other words, the University of California is rejecting students from these Christian schools --- because those schools teach about creationism, because they teach that America was founded as a Christian nation, because the Christian schools have an English class which teaches "Christianity and Morality in American Literature."

Can you imagine --- a school that teaches that Christianity and Morality have had an influence on American Literature, that America was founded as a Christian nation, and blasphemy of all blasphemies --- that their secular god, Darwin, might be wrong?

On the other hand, the article below from the Chicago Sun-Times presents a more liberal viewpoint, which we have come to expect from larger newspapers and network news organizations. In their article, the Sun-Times says: A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoint.

The Sun-Times could not bring itself to even say that word --- Christian. They chose instead to just say "religious" schools. To my friends in the Sun-Times; the schools suing the University of California are CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS. It really doesn't hurt to say it; actually the word Christian feels rather good on the tongue as it rolls out of your mouth --- or even from your computer keyboard.

My Friend, we know that the Secular Humanist in our society, though they be the minority, are going to always be here --- like a sore on your backside. Every time you get comfortable and try to sit and relax --- that sore on your posterior will scream at you. That is the Secular Humanist in our society today.

We have seen how the atheistic homosexual agenda of a small handful of California legislators (a huge abscess on the behind) refuse to accept the majority vote of Californians when they voted to confirm marriage as between one man and one woman --- and insist upon trying to force their same-sex marriage lifestyle on a people who do not want it.

We have seen in the past week how one fanatical, atheist lawyer in Northern California refuses to accept defeat when the Supreme Court told him he could not sue to remove the words Under God from our Pledge of Allegiance --- because he did not have custody of his child, who is being raised in a Christian home by her mother. Now, Michael Newdow is trying the same lawsuit using the children of other misled families. Yes, Michael Newdow does hurt when I sit --- quite like a large boil, or abscess, on the behind.

Secular Humanism is like the cold, chilling Winter air that keeps trying to seep in through cracks in your walls, through windows and doors which are not well maintained, through any opening you will leave unprotected. It is up to us, all who know and affirm that America was founded as a Christian nation and will continue to be a Christian nation, to be more diligent about sealing those cracks that allow the chilling influence of Secular Humanism to creep into our public and private lives, into our school system.

How do we stop this infectious disease called Secular Humanism from seeping into the minds of our children and grandchildren? We do it by TAKING A STAND, by getting more involved with the schools where your children spend the largest part of their waking day. If you, teamed with other concerned parents and grandparents, cannot stop the onslaught of secular teaching in our public schools --- then, do not expose your children to their poison. There are alternatives to the Secular Public Schools --- there is home schooling, and there are many great Christian schools, right in your neighborhood.

It might mean making a big sacrifice, it might mean living in a smaller home, it might mean having only one car, it might mean giving up those other nice things which make life better for us. Yes, it might mean giving up something now --- to assure a future based upon positive moral values, upon Christian values, for your children. They are worth it.

I realize that there are many families who, even with great sacrifices, cannot do home schooling or send their children to private Christian schools. What can these parents and grandparents do? They can get involved, at their schools, in their PTAs, in their local school districts. They can also get involved at the state and national level. Believe me, when enough people get involved and write letters, send faxes, make telephone calls --- our elected leaders will listen. What is enough people? Well, we definitely need you. Get involved.

Right now, you can get involved by forwarding this e-mail to ALL of your Friends, Relatives, Associates, and Neighbors. Then send it to all of your elected officials. Tell them we want God back in our schools. Tell them we want positive moral values being taught in our schools again. Tell them we want only "One Man - One Woman" marriages in America. Tell them that we like having Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance. Tell them that we like being a Godly Christian nation.

Christian school sues UC

Private high school says admission rules tread on freedoms.

LOS ANGELES: A private high school filed a discrimination lawsuit against the University of California system Thursday in Los Angeles, alleging a "Christian viewpoint' in the school's classes keeps it from meeting UC admissions requirements. A representative for the UC president's office could not be reached to comment on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta and five of its students, along with a Christian schools group.

The Riverside County school's seniors are facing exclusion from the 10-campus UC system because of its admission policy, which the plaintiffs claim violates their right to freedom of speech and religious freedom.

The suit relates to a series of classes including science, English, and history that incoming students are required to have taken in order to meet minimum UC admissions standards.

The plaintiffs say that for some 70 years, the UC system merely required that the classes be completed, but that UC officials have recently begun regulating the content of those classes and the books that can be used.

According to the complaint, the university system has sent a "form letter' to Christian high schools informing them that two popular Christian biology textbooks are not acceptable, and that the course outlines are "not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community.'

The letter states that, "As such, students who take these course may not be prepared for success if and when they enter science courses and programs at UC,"' according to the court papers.

The UC system also found that a Calvary Chapel Christian School history course titled "Christianity's Influence on American History'" did not meet the requirements, the suit states.

An English course titled "Christianity and Morality in American Literature'" was also rejected, as was a government course titled "Special Providence: American Government," according to the court papers.

The Murrieta school and the Association of Christian Schools International, "while not objecting to instruction in these courses and already offering them, object to government officials and bodies dictating and censoring the viewpoints that may and may not be taught in those courses, and regulating viewpoints and the content of private schools," the suit states.

The plaintiffs further argue that the requirements are unfair in light of the "often superior academic performance by the students that are supposedly harmed by instruction that adds religious viewpoints."

According to the suit, one of the Calvary seniors had hoped to go to UC Irvine and is interested in studying drama, while another wanted to go to UC San Diego and study aerospace engineering.

CHRISTIAN GROUP SUES UNIVERSITY
August 28, 2005

LOS ANGELES -- A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit last week claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include Christianity's Influence in American History.

According to the suit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools. ''A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment because the university had not been served with the suit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina said.

The Antidote
Topic: Response to Media
Article published Sep 14, 2005
The antidote

To the editor:

Humans on exhibit at the London Zoo is just another attempt to promote the lie of evolution. Evolution is taught in our schools as if it were fact, yet not one theory has ever been proved, not one.

TV clips and photos in newspapers and Web sites have shown eight people in skimpy bathing suits (with fig leaves pinned on, a la Genesis, among a few of the exhibit's allusions to the creation/evolution issue) as part of a new "animal" display at this famous zoo.

After the first news accounts appeared in the British press, the U.S.-based Associated Press began circulating an article that revealed that behind the exhibit's implied ape-and-man link was a deliberate evolutionary motivation. Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills was quoted by the AP admitting to the exhibit's evolution agenda; the zoo, she said, wants to teach "members of the public that the human is just another primate." As a visible way to buttress this evolutionary claim, the zoo has the three men and five women displayed next to (but separated by a fence) their "primate relatives." (The AP writer used these hackneyed words, "primate relatives," which are so commonly seen in most zoos today).

A chemist is one of the eight participants inside the exhibit. He made a comment to the AP that is in stark contrast to the Bible's clear teaching in Genesis that humans are a special creation made in God's image: "A lot of people think humans are above other animals. When they see humans as animals here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special."

Indeed, when cultures accept the belief that man is but another animal and just another primate, the consequences will be far greater than what might whimsically (or tragically) appear in a zoo.

As more people see themselves as just animals, and as not beholden to a Creator and the absolutes found in His word, the more we will see people act accordingly and increasingly accept things such as abortion (i.e., what is the problem of getting rid of unwanted babies in the womb as we would unwanted dogs in animal pounds?), euthanasia, etc.

Standing on the authority of God's word and its teachings is the antidote not only to silliness at a zoo, but to societal calamities such as abortion, racism, "gay" marriage and other anti-biblical beliefs that plague Western nations.

Oscar Broome Jr.

Muscle Shoals

Clinton's Disaster Response Took Longer Than Bush's
Topic: Response to Media

Critics say President Bush's personal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was too little, too late - with an Air Force One flyover the day after New Orleans' levees broke and a trip to Baton Rouge two days later.

President Clinton, on other the other hand, got glowing reviews for responding to his administration's biggest disaster, the Oklahoma City bombing - even though he took a day longer to arrive on the scene than Bush did last week.

New Orleans' levees broke on a Tuesday - and Bush had his own boots-on-the-ground just three days later on Friday.
When the Alfred P. Murrah Building exploded on Wednesday morning, April 19, 1995, President Clinton didn't travel to the scene for four full days.

And when he finally arrived, there was no grumbling by troubled pundits about the delay. In fact, Clinton's response to Oklahoma City is remembered to this day as the turning point of his political fortunes.

Writing this week in New York Magazine, John Heilemann recalls Clinton's April 23 speech about the bombing:

"With breathtaking subtlety and nimbleness, Clinton used that act of terrorism to illustrate the dangers of the wild-eyed anti-government rhetoric then in vogue among the Gingrichian GOP - a move that set him on the road to political redemption."

The real difference, of course, was that Clinton had a sympathetic media that was just as anxious as he was to blame the disaster on right wing Republicans. Bush, on the other hand, faces a press corps that couldn't wait to use Katrina against him.

The double standard becomes even more obvious when reaction to Katrina is compared with what remains the worst law enforcement debacle in U.S. history - the Clinton administration's decision to rout the Branch Davidians from their encampment at Waco.

More children were killed in that April 19, 1993, assault than died in Oklahoma City. Yet the Clinton administration received little if any blame - and no one was forced to resign.

In fact, after then-Attorney General Janet Reno publicly accepted responsibility, she was hailed as a hero by sympathetic reporters, an irony that's likely not lost on Bush's allegedly "disgraced" ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown.