Vaccines & Abortions: A Moral Dilemma

Sorry for not posting in a while, my wife and I had our son and I have been enjoying a few weeks at home with them. Being a father is truly a blessing from the Lord.

Now, since having the little guy, we have been trying to do our homework on things we didn't necessarily give much thought to on the front end- namely doctor visits, shots, vaccines, well-baby visits, etc.

I have since read a couple of books (information at the bottom of this post) on the above that are against the established regimen. What I mean is, they do not favor the above. Instead, they promote allowing the immune system to develop as nature intended and to stay away from vaccines, vitamin K shots, etc.

In the process of reading those books, I have grown tremendously in my understanding regarding the vaccines, alternatives and how to interact with my pediatrician and her cohorts at our child's clinic. What is more, I found something very interesting and it poses a dilemma for me... and I believe every Christian.

Here is that dilemma: Would you take something that, in all probability, will do more harm than good that is derived from a voluntarily aborted fetus, and inject that into your child? I cannot. Throw every other reason for not getting vaccinated out of the window (Death, paralysis, autism, brain damage, and a host of other side effects) and let's say there are no side effects. Every person who is vaccinated will be perfectly normal and the vaccine will do exactly as it is marketed to do- vaccinate. Now, the only issue left on the table is that the vaccines are derived from human fetuses that were aborted back in the 60's and 70's... would I be willing to inject the vaccine in my child? For the good of the rest of the children (herd mentality)? No.

Here is a quote in a letter written in response to a concerned parent regarding state law regarding vaccines and the Catholic Church's stance on vaccines being derived from aborted babies: If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human foetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, even though this evil was carried out forty years ago? Citation.

However, later in the letter, it is stated that if there is a great threat to society as a whole, then it is okay to take such vaccines temporarily, for the good of mankind.

From what I have been reading (written by doctors who work in the field and in pediatrics), no vaccine can be accredited for wiping out or drastically diminishing infections. Every disease that there is a vaccination for was already in decline (and most were drastically declining) by the time the vaccinations were put on the market. So, there would appear no moral obligation to take a vaccine derived from human fetuses that were aborted.

It also stands to reason that most outbreaks tend to occur in those that have been vaccinated. One study even showed that there was a population that was 100% vaccinated against measles and they still had an outbreak.

For me, the risks outweigh any perceived or marketed benefit. Now, what do we do about schooling? Homeschooling is one option and another is to reject vaccines based on religious grounds (a sample letter can be found here) and see if we can still place our child(ren) in public/private schools.

There are a lot of responsibilities that come with children- however, the benefits/blessings of having them outweigh the responsibilities and over time we may not always make the right decisions, but we will make informed decisions.


Some questions:
-Have you given any thought to vaccines?
-Does this little bit of information at the very least cause you to want to look into this more?
-Can a Christian knowingly accept vaccinations for themselves or for their children if they are derived from aborted fetuses?
---------------------------------------------------------

One of the books I have read on the subject: How To Raise A Healthy Child... In Spite Of Your Doctor by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. (here is a negative article about him and here is a positive article about him). The book is dated, but I found a lot of thought provoking information contained in its pages. Also, the book answers well the charges brought up against it/him in the negative review- such as why he only saw 6-10 patients a week.

Another book i've read is: Vaccine Alternatives It is written by Ervin Davis, M.D. (A review of the book) This is the only book that I can find he has written, but it is thorough and full of cited material that is not dated. The book was written in 2008 and very current. He cites lots of studies and every stat that he gives, he backs it up with studies. I found this to be a great book that caused me to pause and give more thought to this entire medical issue. He also gives information on how the immune system works and why injecting viruses may not be the best method for building immunity to viruses that are commonly contracted through the air. What is more, he doesn't just leave you with what is wrong, he gives you some information on how to live a healthy lifestyle that will aide you in building your immune system to fight off diseases and viruses naturally.

Here is a link to the CDC and what they have to say about the MMR vaccine. Updated Link as the CDC moved it. They state just a little way down why the vaccine is made from aborted fetal tissue (cell linings) and towards the bottom, risks are discussed in short order. Once on the page, just do a search (CTRL+F) for the word Aborted.

Here are some video discussion between doctors on the issue of mandatory vaccinations. These are very one sided and seem to be overly emotional for the most part.

-------------------------
Part 1

Part 2

A Dollar A Day Keeps The Babies Away?

A buck-a-day -- that's the incentive being offered to young girls to keep them from getting pregnant.
The group College-Bound Sisters was founded at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro by Hazel Brown, a maternity nurse who thought too many teens were having babies.
Brown said she hopes the program, which pays $1 each day to 12-to-18-year-old girls, will keep them from getting pregnant. In addition to remaining pregnancy-free, the girls must also attend weekly meetings.
The program is funded by a four-year grant from the state.

You can read the rest here.

Some questions:
-Money talks yes?
-Would you allow your daughter to participate in this tax-payer funded program?
-How do you feel about giving money to other people's daughters?
-Should men be offered the same incentive for not impregnating a girl/woman to ensure there is no discrimination?

A thought:
It would seem that the logic breaks down. Young boys and girls are being promiscuous. We don't want them to have children. We, as tax payers, will pay them a dollar a day to ensure they do not carry a child full term.

The logic should be: Young boys and girls are being promiscuous. We don't want them to have children. We, as parents, instill within them values that promote respectable behavior. Throwing money at the situation is not the answer. Parents being parents is.

Missing Link: FOUND

Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.
"This is the one that connects us directly with them.
"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."

"When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species," said Prof Hurum
"...and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy to live today when we publish Ida.
"This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.
"It's part of our evolution that's been hidden so far, it's been hidden because all the other specimens are so incomplete.
"They are so broken there's almost nothing to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it's really a dream come true."

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Does the article really say how the fossil is proof?
-Can a fossil that looks to have " human-like nails" and "opposable big toes" really fill the gap(s) that is/are in the fossil record- from species to species?
-Does this affect your beliefs?
-Is macro-evolution compatible with Christianity? (I have discussed this previously- just do a search up top with the keyword "evolution")
-What say you?

Marriage Between A Man & A Woman Only Sparks Outrage

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Why do you think that her opinion "saddened" Keith Lewis who runs the pageant?
-Does she have a right to express her opinion?
-What were the alternatives? Lie? Dodge the question like a politician?
-What should she have done when asked the question?
-Is marriage a construct of the state? Should it be?
-Do you think marriage should be broadened to include homosexuals? Why or why not?

Second Chances Are For The More Deserving

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

"You don't shoot a little boy in the face and find Jesus. People don't find Jesus that are capable of doing things like that."
-Randy Zimmerman (Sister of Murder Victim)

When asked if it is not the Christian thing to do- to give second chances and to take in people with his background, a neighbor responded:

"There are more deserving people to give second chances to."
-Neighbor

A direct link to the video can be found here.

Some questions:
-What is the biblical thing to do?
-Is this a black and white issue or is there some gray to it?
-Who's heart is in the right place?
-What about the children?
-Does Ray's profession of faith remove the consequences of his actions and render safeguards unneccessary?
-What position do you take?

The Death Of The Sunday Paper

Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.

Very well done video chronicling the last days of The Rocky Mountain News. I highly recommend you watch it.

Some questions:
-Is paper dead?
-Will the next generation be completely digital?
-Will the Kindle's of tomorrow be the books of our children?
-Looking past nostalgia, would this be a good move for humanity?

Darwin The Disturber

I was doing some reading on Darwin and came across this article by Susan Jacoby. Of course, it is slanted and opinionated but what isn't? I wanted to pull some quotes from it and post them here for you. If you have time, feel free to read the whole article; it is linked at the bottom.

This lasting "disturber effect" is, I would argue, one of the most convincing proofs of Darwin's genius. People don't get all riled up, 150 years after the fact, by bland, small, discredited ideas.

This same logic could be applied to Christianity as well yes?

This logic [evolution is the mechanism by which God chose to set in motion the development of his creatures, ending in man]does not, of course, explain why a supreme being would choose such an inefficient process as evolution to arrive at the human species--or why he would choose to bind us to evolutionary forces--such as our desire to consume large amounts of animal fat--that were once useful for the survival of the species but no longer are. Another element of the religion-science compromise, articulated not only by religious thinkers but by scientists like the late Stephen Jay Gould, argues that science and religion are merely "different ways of knowing." I don't agree with this formulation. Science is not really a way of "knowing" but a method of inquiry seeking knowledge that is never final and always modfiiable by new discoveries. Religion is not a way of knowing but, ultimately, a matter of belief that, at some point--regardless of how much material evidence a particular faith is willing to incorporate--relies on non-evidence of a non-material existence.

There are a lot of presuppositions in the first part of this quote is there not?

...Darwin was a man who--without any of the tools of modern science and technology, without the support of the MacArthur Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, not only got the basic insight of modern science right but had the courage to face up to the philosophical and ethical implications of his own observations.

I didn't know the verdict was in on the evolutionary theory having been proven as fact... but I am also assuming that is what she is referring to by "basic insight of modern science". If that is not what she is referencing, please do offer up a better suggestion as that phrase is rather vague.

Mendelian genetics, the discovery of DNA, the mapping of the human genome: all tell us more about evolution than Darwin could have known, and all confirm the genius of his initial insights. Had Mendel's experiments contradicted the theory of natural selection, we would be having quite a different discussion about evolution today. That, of course, is the difference between scientific exploration and religion.

Does that go for climate change as well? Just curious.

Okay, I will stop there.

You can read the rest here.

If you want to read a shorter article concerning the pitfalls in the evolutionary theory- you can do so here. (It is a pdf that is linked to on Stand to Reason.

Mint.com: Great Free Tool For Budgeting

I've started using mint.com as a one stop shop for all things having to do with my finances. It is a really ingenious tool that I think Dave Ramsey himself would be envious of. If you have even thought about it at all, you're probably asking yourself the same questions I did when I first ran across this online program: "Why do I need another place to go to online to view my finances?" "And, what does it have to offer that my bank's online service doesn't?" Well, those are fair questions and I hope to explain below how it was answered for me. But, let me give a little more information on the online service before we delve into it.

When I first heard of this my initial response was that I wouldn't give a company access to my financial information- especially if it allows third parties to store the data (as duly noted on the sites TOC). However, after reading several reviews, carefully reviewing the terms and conditions, and checking out their security certificates I was curious enough and at ease enough to set up an account.

Setting up an account was about as easy as signing up for email- in fact, it couldn't have been easier. No issues there. Once complete I then was directed to a screen to set up accounts. You can see that screen below in the screen shot (click on it to enlarge).


So, once here, you click on the box that says "Click to add any of your accounts" and it will bring up a list of common big name accounts and a search box. You can search for yours- that is what I did for mine. I typed in my bank's name, it found it and I started typing in my user name and password for the online banking of my bank's website.

This is where I first ran into an issue (not the site's fault mind you). I couldn't remember my security questions for my banking site (personal, business and savings). They want the service to be secure, so they make sure you know your security questions. Not only do you need to remember the answers, but you need to remember which questions you chose to answer. I had to log in to my bank's site and review my questions and answers (for me, capitalization mattered). So, make sure you know your security questions! Once I got the bank set up, I added the one credit card we own via search and repeated the process. Then I added our ingdirect account without a hitch (well, the security questions was an issue again, but I knew how to solve that) and then I wanted to add my mutual funds but I don't think I ever checked them online. However, I wanted to make sure they were on the mint.com list, so I did a search for them and sure enough, they were there. So, I need to retrieve that information from my financial advisor so I can add those too.

Once you are done here, it syncs up to your accounts every evening to get the most current information automatically.


On the overview section of the site, it gives you, well, just that, an overview. Here you can see your net worth, cash assets, debt, budget, investments, etc. If you just want to see a summary of what you have, this is the page to be on.


This screen shot is just a continuation of the previous as there was some items left off on the bottom, namely cashflow and net income. I wanted you to be able to see everything that is on the page.


Almost everything is customizable on this site when you are logged in. While still on the overview page, you can click on the budget and set it up how you wish. I have yet to do this (but I am). The only drawback I can see here is that you can't import an existing budget. I currently use an excel spreadsheet that I made that allows my wife and I to see our money on paper (technically on screen) and it would be nice to be able to import that and dump in the information and make adjustments on the back end if necessary. So Mint, if you are listening, this would be a nice feature to add. Other than that, this will be a nifty little tool to use as it sends out alerts (if you tell it to) to tell you when you have gone over on your budget or any other alerts you may care to know. It can do this via email and/or phone text messaging.


Trends is a tab that shows you were your money is going. It gives you graphs and charts- just like Ross Perot! However, these graphs and charts pertain to just you and your finances and whatever you wish to compare it to. If you hover over a pie piece or a bar on a graph, it will give you a pop up with further information and options for you to change items. For instance, if you notice on ours, shopping takes up the biggest portion of the pie. Well, that is because we bought our groceries from Wal-Mart (we are using a meal plan called e-mealz.com and that is the only option in our area- we would have preferred Kroger) and we have yet to go through and denote Wal-mart as groceries and not shopping- yes you can change the categories.


This is phenomenal. My wife was saying to me a while back, "I wish I could make a notation on a reimbursement on our account." Well, guess what? Now she can. But before I get a head of myself, take a look at the screen shot. It pulls all this information from our bank account and gives us a each charge, credit and reimbursement and also allocates it as best it can based on the vendor. I find this to be very helpful as it allows for us to go through the list of items and reconcile the bank statement with our receipts. If there is something we know will come up again (like for my business taxes), we can now add a note to it so we can review it with ease. That leads me to the next screen shot.


Here you will notice that I expanded the edit details bar. You can split the transaction, edit the name (on ours Deals was called some sort of jibberish, but we just simply renamed it and all was well with the world), edit the category and/or make the category and/or name permanent for this entry every time it comes in. So, If I went to deals today after making the change and setting it to always rename, then the transaction that took place today will show up as "deals" and not the jibberish it was before.

If you sign up, I recommend it, you will notice that there are two tabs I did not provide screen shots for or review. This is b/c I don't use them. One is investments and the other is way's to save. The first I will use if I ever remember to ask for my mutual fund information for online viewing. The second one I looked at and it looks as if it is a partner page type deal. It seeks to give you ideas of money you could save if you changed your current financial providers to other providers. For instance on ours it says our bank does not offer interest on our savings account. Well, in fact it does, but it does not register it (however it does show the interest in our transactions tab). With this they say we should move our savings to another bank that will offer x amount in interest and therefore after one year we would have made x. They do the same thing with our money market checking account. So basically, as good as I can tell, they compare your current financial institutions' offerings to their sponsors' offerings and let you see the difference (which in our case, was wrong).

However, I think this is a great tool and why it's free I haven't a clue. I can say this though, I recommend the service. I am leery of all things web- especially when it comes to accounts and the like, but after doing some research and trying it out myself, I really like it and benefit from it- hopefully you will as well.

If you do set up your account, comment below and let me know how it is working out for you.

Chuck Norris Tribute

HT: Randy

A few questions:
-Can anybody possibly be a better candidate for this?
-Since Chuck Norris cannot be beat, who would be the best possible candidate for second runner up (first loser) position?
-What of Todd Weeks?

Thinking Outside Of His Cultural Box

Laz over at Last Row posted this video and I found it provocative and thought provoking.

What Constitutes Worship Music Worthy Of Congregational Singing?

Thabiti Anyabwile over on Pure Church blog has been invited to speak at Worship God '08. He asks a pertinent question: What songs should be sung in worship to God?

He asks if these are "worthy". Are they?



You can check out Thabiti's thoughts and comments here.

Some questions:
-What dictates whether a song should be sung in corporate worship?
-Is it okay to utilize popular music in the culture and substitute lyrics of our choosing? Does this infringe upon the artist's rights? Is it illegal without acquiring performance licenses and permission to change lyrics?
-If what is displayed above breaks the law, do you think that it pleses God?
-Should there be criteria that songs must meet to be sung in corporate worship? If so, what?
-What is the goal of corporate worship as it relates to singing?

iPhone Mania

Can someone please explain to me the mass hysteria surrounding the iPhone? Why would anyone pay 200+ USD for a phone?

I can tell you one thing, Apple sure knows how to market themselves.

A Forward I Recieved

The below is an email forward that was sent to me.

... As you watch the flooding in the Midwest? Have you noticed that there are no farmers running around with stolen plasma TVs or holding stolen liquor over their heads.
There's no looting or yelling
'Where's Bush?',
'Where's FEMA?,
Where's my check?', or
'Why isn't the Gov't out here saving me and my farm?'

Likewise, I've also noticed there are no reports of any other country
coming to help or sending aid.

And this one---Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?

Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?

Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?

When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?

Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?

Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?

When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a 'vanilla' Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?

Where are all of the gangs taking law into their own hands?

Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?

Where are the people (read liberals, progressives and other way out left wingers) declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?

Where are the debit cards for Iowans?

How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?

Because these people are responsible and will take care of themselves . . . like the others need to learn to do. These are the Americans who understand that help begins at home. God bless them and let's help them. They are true Americans!

Shocking contrast, isn't it?!?!?!
Tell it like it is, pass this on!

I do not agree with the implication of this email nor do I see a need to draw dividing lines based on race, I do however find intriguing the heart of the issue brought up by the email.

Some questions:
-How should we respond to such emails?
-Why is race made to be a dividing line?
-Does scripture speak to race? In what ways?
-Why do you think this tragedy was/is being handled differently than the aftermath of hurrican Katrina?

Keep Your Guns Says The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Does this ruling impact you personally?
-Do you think it was the right decision?
-Are guns important for citizens to own?
-Why are gun rights a hot button issue currently?

Secularism Will Not Work

Dr. Al Mohler's most recent post takes on the issue of secularism as the prevailing wind in America's sails. He simply concludes that any secular gust will not last for long and the nation as a secular nation with secular-minded people will not blow us into a fully secularized state.

In this post he takes on the ideology laid out by Katha Pollitt and demonstrates the flawed presuppostions of her position on the matter as it revolves around rational vs the religous.

Here is the quote Mohler cites and deals with in his post:

If we kept religion out of the election campaign, we could just debate the issues, like rational people. After all, which is less likely, that the HIV virus came out of a government lab, or that the dead will rise from their graves? That Israel is on a course that is not likely to end well, or that God wants more West Bank settlements in order to set off a world war and bring on Christ's return? Empirical claims we can discuss and debate like citizens; religious beliefs, by their very nature, claim immunity from rational analysis. When men whose profession is the latter weigh in on the former, why should anyone take them seriously?
As Barack Obama has perhaps belatedly learned, the Democrats had it right the first time: Awesome, blue-state, red-state, whatever -- keep God out of it, and the men who claim to speak for him, too.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you think Mohler is right or is Pollitt correct? How do you come to your conclusion?
-Do you think that secularism is the future of America?
-Does religion have a say in politics?
-Does politics play a role in religion?
-Do you think that Pollitt is correct in her assumptions about religion harming the Democratic candidates' position as it alienates them from the secular left?

Religion: A Figment Of Our Imagination

Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-So, is religion just a figment of our imagination?
-Do you agree Bloch? Why?
-Do you agree with the other theory: Religion evolved and spread for social bonding purposes? Why?
-Or, do you agree with the vast majority of the human population that believe religion (at least 1) is true? Why?
-Why are those in academia so inclined to focus time, money and effort into "explaining away" religion?

J Razz's Shared Items

These are all on the right hand side bar. Be sure to check them often as they change often.

Currently featuring:

What is an orthodox view of what happens to Christians after death?

The goddess who retired from her post at the request of her family.

Owen on Hebrews 13.17

Does Obama think the Sermon on the Mount supports gay civil unions?

What does D.A. Carson have to say about speaking in tongues?

Piper gives you five reasons to trust the Bible.

Mohler on Evolution and its incompatibility with Christendom.

A Student With A Gun

Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem:

Witnesses said that only one terrorist had entered the building and that he managed to fire 500-600 bullets over the course of 4-10 minutes before he was killed.

The gunman entered the library where about 80 people were gathered, witnesses said, and opened fire.
Yitzhak Dadon, a student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building. "He came out of the library spraying automatic fire ... the terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head," he said.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-What do you think about students having guns on/near school areas?
-Do you think Yitzhak Dadon did the right thing in this case?
-If this had happened in America, what do you think the differences would be? Afterall, schools are gun free zones.
-Should this cause us (Americans) to rethink the issue of guns on campus; especially in light of the recent string of college/school shootings?

Methodology Behind The Gospel Presentation Towards Muslims

How do we present the gospel to Muslims? I have been studying and praying through this for several weeks and have come to the realization that I will not have an answer overnight. Getting to the truth will take much more time, thought and prayer.
In the next few days, I hope to lay out what I have been learning and give a brief but descriptive overview of methods of contextualization in the Muslim world. Please join and grow with me in this discussion!

If this at all peaks your interest I would encourage you to dialogue with her on this and help her to think through it as this is something she is passionate about and longs to serve the Lord in.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-After reading on contextualization, what are your thoughts concerning it?
-Can Muslims remain "muslim" and still be followers of Christ?
-Should we be "seeker sensitive" when it comes to witnessing to Muslims?
-Does Acts speak to how one should spread the Gospel message? How Does Paul do it? John? Peter?

Raising The Bar And Ushering Boys To Manhood

I first read about these guys over on Denny Burk's website and then a recent publication by Tim Ellsworth concerning the bar being lowered for teenagers led me to this post. Alex and Brett Harris are twins who decided to take seriously the call by Paul in which he tells Timothy not to let anyone look down on him because of his age but show yourself an example in speech, conduct, purity, love and faith. So what do they do? They start a rebelution.

You can visit there site here.

You can listen to an interview with Alex and Brett with Dr. Mohler here. ( I recommend you listen to this one.)

If you want to read more by Tim Ellsworth, you can do so here.

Some questions:
-Why is the mentality that "kids will be kids" accepted as an excuse for childish behavior?
-Should kids be indoctrinated in to thinking that childhood is better than adulthood so as to make them want to continue in their childish ways?
-Do you think Alex and Brett are on to something worth looking into?
-Why does culture accept teenagers acting as immature children as the norm? Should higher standards be enforced and if so, by whom?