Now four decades later, anyone can own beautiful videos that show every stage of the gestation process. Thanks to state of the art 4D Ultrasound scans, scientifically accurate special effects and microscopy footage, we can witness the unborn child forming fingers and toes. We can learn how science knows its gender, when its heart starts to beat, when it smiles, when it feels pain and much, much more. Plus, we can watch it all happen from the comfort of our living rooms.

I don’t think the abortion debate has caught up with the moral significance of this cataclysmic shift. The science of the unborn child isn’t just settled – it’s on TV!

And yet, there is still a great deal of ignorance on the meaning of it all. Liberals say they’re personally against abortion but believe that once impregnated, women have the right to decide whether or not to keep the child. But here’s the logical problem: An unborn child cannot be two things at once. It cannot be something precious and at the same time something worthless. When the British Royals announce a pregnancy, people celebrate “the baby”; they don’t celebrate “the choice.”

Common sense and reason tell us that a mother’s decision can’t change her baby’s reality any more than she can change a chair into a table just by wishing it so. This presents another problem for liberals: They know an unborn child isn’t worthless, but if they call it precious, that compromises their “abortion rights” position.

Most people who are “pro-choice” don’t think about this reality. They are decent people but are understandably influenced by two other realities. First, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Second, there is often tremendous social/cultural pressure surrounding the concept of “choice.” Good people want to respect the rights and choices of others. They don’t want to be seen as intolerant, even if they are uncomfortable with abortion. So they succumb to the pressure and agree that an unborn child is whatever its mother says it is.

This social acceptance of “choice” (in the name of being moderate) results in social, cultural and political chaos because it’s rooted in an irrational belief – that a woman’s “decision” is powerful enough to change a gestating human being into disposable human waste product.

You can’t blame voters for distrusting such beliefs – no matter how well-intentioned – because if our leaders can rationalize that, they are dangerously close to being able to rationalize anything. They are no longer burdened with logic.

Most Americans know that “rationality” is not something you turn on and off at your convenience. They fear that our country’s current decline stems from this kind of soft thinking that sees only what it wants to see – whatever the issue.

It’s been said that a modern-day Supreme Court could never make another Roe v. Wade decision because science knows too much about the fetus. That sounds hopeful, but do we actually listen to science anymore? Or do we instead demand that science submit to our political biases?

Sadly, more and more firmly held liberal beliefs have nothing to do with science. Ironically, this doesn’t stop them from smearing traditional conservatives as “anti-science,” pointing to our religious views. But religious arguments are no longer needed to debate most social issues. Science supports traditional warnings regarding, for example, the impact of divorce on children or the statistical disaster of fatherless families. In decades past Christian leaders tried to guide the nation away from destructive behavior. But their biblical admonitions were mocked as unscientific. Now the scientific evidence is in … and it’s ignored.

What’s happening in this country is not about science. It’s about willful rebellion from what President Ronald Reagan called “tried and time-tested values.” We are now reaping the bitter harvest of many decades of secular liberalism, which seeks to remake reality while accusing Christians of doing the same.

“No matter how well-intentioned,” said Reagan in 1983, “their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation.”

Yes, I am willing to listen to liberals argue against my social views but only if they’ll listen to reliable science on the subject – and only if they’re willing answer a simple question: Is a fetus something precious or is it something worthless?

If we want to revive this nation, we must liberate science to tell us the truth – and then respect its answers: Yes, divorce is hugely damaging to children well into their adult years. Yes, gender is significant, and no, sex isn’t casual. Yes, poverty is also a social problem. Yes, families with fathers and mothers are crucial to a nation’s future. And yes, unborn children are precious, and not worthless – and no, they can’t be both.

Believing liberalism over science has caused millions of Americans born after 1973 to live in a state of confusion. Imagine thinking you only have worth because you came at a convenient time for your mother. They must sense something is terribly wrong with that view.

How long will the secular media keep lying to us, and how long will liberals keep lying to themselves? It’s hard to tell. Right now, they are far too busy accusing conservatives of being anti-science, too busy to take a hard look at what science says about their own beliefs.

The 9/11 attack was not focused on the World Trade Center. It was a multi-pronged attack meant to cut America’s head off, hitting our financial strength in New York and our military strength at the Pentagon, while also hitting our political system. Flight 93 was headed to Washington with the likely target being the Capitol building, the very seat of our democracy.

This was no “crime.” But for the true heroism of a few Americans (who knew an existential threat when they saw one), we may have lost our Capitol building, with all its glorious history and symbolism, not to mention the terrible loss of life.

A few terrorists on an airliner could have extinguished a crucial part of our national identity and seriously damaged our ability to govern ourselves. What if they succeeded? Can you imagine holding a trial in a civilian court near the place where our Capitol building used to be and calling that honorable?

How the radical Muslim world would laugh at such a scene. Remember, they see 9/11 as a victory in a larger war. And they’re right.

This was not a crime, and we make fools of ourselves to pretend otherwise. This was an act of war – thousands of people died horrible deaths. America suffered massive destruction to our military headquarters and our major financial district, and much more was planned. So we must ask ourselves soberly, what is the criminal “penalty” for that? What jury of their “peers” do we have in mind that Muslims around the world will respect? Obama mocks the seriousness of this war when he treats this deadly enemy to a civilian trial and all that attends to it, including global propaganda opportunities.

These were not “street thugs,” and these were not “murders.” This was a new kind of soldier, acting out a new kind of war. While our military and our political leaders have studied “asymmetrical warfare” and the jihadist ideology, our public has not. We’ve never seen a war like this (or an enemy like this) so it is hard for us to know how to respond as voters – the ultimate guardians of our security.

Yes, we can see it’s a global war but not at all like World War I or World War II. This is an “unknown war” better represented by an “X.”

It is “unknown” because there’s no way to attack the enemy to end the struggle once and for all. There is also no way to defend against “attack,” not only because it could come at anytime, anywhere in the world and using any number of methods, but because destruction or conquest of territory is not its primary aim. The strategy is pain and fear, and the immediate goal is America’s submission to a new order in the Middle East, beginning with turning on our staunchest ally there – Israel. With that betrayal, we would betray our honor as well, and this too would please our enemies and vindicate their strategy.

Our only way to win this war is to wage it with an indomitable will – to present our enemies with the iron fist of American might, and the open hand of freedom as the ideological alternative to jihadist tyranny. They must believe they can never win. They must believe that the harder they fight, the more we’ll resist. They must come to see that their war is an absurdity, and thus that their jihadist religion is false. Traditional Muslims around the world must see that, and know that choosing freedom is choosing the winning side.

However, when we answer jihadist determination to wage war with civilian trials, we only tempt them to mock our lack of seriousness with further and greater attacks, which will only make our criminal court system more and more ridiculous. Remember, they want the Muslim world to see America as a paper tiger.

So they will up the ante if they can and force us to answer this question: How do we handle larger terrorist attacks? What about “catastrophic terrorism”? Can any of us imagine a trial for terrorists who set off a dirty bomb spreading radiation all over our five major financial districts? Or let’s go the distance to WMDs. How about biological or chemical terror?

Back in the 1990s the Journal of the American Medical Association warned that 100,000 dead and 100,000 wounded was something municipalities were likely to face. In fact, the AMA journal said it was not a question of “if,” but “when.”

What would be the court procedure for that crime? One hundred thousand counts of murder? Now how about the horror of horrors? How about a nuclear device which could come near to destroying a whole city? Or how about an EMP attack, which could shut down the national power grid? Sen. Jon Kyl warned us of such an attack years ago, listing it as one way our enemies could actually “defeat” us. These are real warnings by serious people. Do we put such terrorists on trial near the city or region they destroyed and call that a victory for civilization?

The American public should see the Obama administration’s 9/11 trial decision for what it is. This makes the elections in 2010 and 2012 a desperate moment in American history. We need a wartime Congress and, most importantly, a wartime president. Clearly we do not have one now.

He wasn’t the source of our new vision, but he knew the source and pointed the way. He understood the trials ahead, and regularly explained them to us.

Back then, most young Americans – like so many today – didn’t understand what had happened to our country. We didn’t fully realize the nature of “liberalism” (especially those of us who were Democrats) until Reagan stepped into the political arena and boldly proclaimed American liberty.

Like today, it was a time of economic struggle, and socialism was on the march. In the painful aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, made more painful by a cynical media, self-doubt among traditional Americans was palpable even as we headed toward the 1980 election. But Reagan remained optimistic – and he was a fierce campaigner.

He rebuked liberals who blamed America for everything (some of the same people are in Congress today). He mocked Democrats who urged us to lower our expectations and limit our vision. Undaunted by critics, Reagan cheered us on and raised our hopes.

But he didn’t call us to hope for more government, as President Obama does. Government wasn’t the solution, as Reagan said over and over. Government was the problem, especially when led by “big government” liberals – whether Democrat or Republican.

Reagan’s hope was rooted in greater things. He believed in our traditions of limited government and free markets. He believed in an “Under God” America, and yes, a strong America. And he believed in the American people, not because we were special, but because we were uniquely free – and that made us special.

He called on us to spread that freedom around the world. For Ronald Wilson Reagan, America was still that “shining city on a hill,” and he wasn’t ashamed to say it. Reagan’s America was and still is “exceptional.” And Reagan told us why.

Because no matter where you’re from, if you come to America and agree to live by our principles, you are an American – fully and forever. But you must love this country’s ideals. You must love liberty and its foundational truths.

The best documentary on how the Gipper single-handedly brought down Soviet communism: “In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed”

The left mocks those truths – in fact, any claim to truth – and on this shifting sand, they offer us “hope and change.” They claim to love us but can’t explain love. After all, what is love without truth? They offer us social progress but can’t tell us where it leads.

They can’t explain our problems, but offer solutions anyway – and their solutions always increase their power over us. Thus, nothing in Washington has changed, nor will it under 20th century liberalism.

Reagan warned us it wouldn’t – not without the American people involved, not without the “new patriotism” he called for in his farewell address to the American people. He warned us not to forget who we were as a nation.

I saw our memory return this summer in those growing crowds of “new patriots” rising above party loyalty to cheer for freedom in town after town. Reagan would have rejoiced at the sight. He had stood as a witness to America – through her struggles and her victories. He fought socialism as a worldwide movement and in our own halls of power.

A union man himself, he stood against union thugs who sought to control people’s lives. He understood the dangers of socialism and warned about it often. He knew freedom needed defending and understood America’s role in that defense. He pointed the way.

Yes, Ronald Reagan rallied us, but how wonderful that in this time of our awakening – here in the 21st century – it was the American people themselves who rang the alarm against state power. People with a voice and those with no voice at all – “mom and pop” Americans – rallied together calling us to the better angels of our political nature.

No political leader has risen yet as Reagan did back then, so we ourselves stepped forward. We have met freedom’s champion, and it is us.

Yes, our nation made wrong choices. We turned back to liberalism. We forgot ourselves with all the talk of “new politics.” But now we remember there’s nothing new about it. It was Reagan’s battle then – and now it’s ours.

How inspiring to see regular Americans fiercely reminding politicians of a simple truth – that ever-growing state power and liberty are alien to each other.

This is nothing new – nothing more than what our founders said many times; so when regular Americans were called “mobs” it only reminded us of what we were up against. The state and its party don’t like to be questioned. They know what’s best for us.

The struggle between “under-God” America and “government-as-god” America continues, and nothing since Reagan’s farewell warning has changed that – not the fall of Soviet communism, not the rise of jihadist terrorism. Our political opponents still live under the same secular delusions described by Reagan many years ago.

“No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans,” Reagan told us in 1983. “And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation.”

Sound familiar? After 9/11 we thought they’d changed. They sang “God Bless America” with us. They showed some grit. We thought that in the face of a real enemy they’d awakened from their hatred of traditional America. We are paying a price now for forgetting what Reagan spent so much of his life teaching us.

So once again we allowed ourselves to be convinced that America is to blame for the world’s problems – and even for terrorism itself – and once again our opponents urged us to lower our expectations and limit our vision. Once again, they waged class warfare and decried capitalism – and once again they undermined a war effort. Nothing has changed.

Sure, they tell us how much they care and how good things will be – but “government rule and regulation” is finally all they have to offer. Reagan warned us of the danger, yet he called us to higher ground than to respond with hate. He called us to the nobility of freedom. We win with truth.

Now is the time for Reagan’s “new patriots” to redouble their efforts. Don’t worry about the union thugs or street organizers. Don’t worry about the mocking media, the name calling, or about being ignored despite your thousands. Reagan faced it all before – just read his speeches.

“The cult of the state,” as he called it, is still with us. Nothing has changed. Too many Americans have forgotten America. And so we must stand and remind them.

They don’t think “under God” belongs in our Pledge and don’t care what history says on the matter. But the rest of us do – so stand and teach them!

They think we’re fools to claim God-given rights, but their struggle to “change” what they don’t understand will only end in disaster. Stand against them – for sake of their children and grandchildren, as well as ours.

Thank you for doing that. Thank you for going to all those tea parties, for the miles you drive and the signs you make. Thank you for enduring the trials and disappointments that inevitably come, and for making a difference the way you have. People are listening. Ronald Reagan would be proud.

“He was a bully and a coward,” Tom Cruise recently told Parade Magazine, talking about his own father. “He was the kind of person where, if something goes wrong, they kick. It was a great lesson in my life – how he’d lull you in, make you feel safe and then, bang!”

“For me it was like, ‘There’s something wrong with this guy,’” said the famous actor, then drawing the “life lesson” most children with father problems draw: “Don’t trust him.”

I sympathize with Tom Cruise more than I can say, although my distrust problem was not rooted in an abusive father but in my parents’ divorce. I spent three difficult years in a boarding school for “emotionally troubled youngsters,” although who knows, Pleasantville Cottage School may have actually saved my life, giving me the stability my mother hoped for until she remarried (she left my father when I was 5). Yet, being separated from my parents was unbearable, and I remember running away from school regularly, trying to get back to New York City where they both lived. I was 8 years old.

It is hard for many adults to remember the agony of their childhoods, but for those of us who do remember, it digs deep – “distrust” is a mild word. I’m sure I haven’t yet fully recovered from those feelings. Let’s face it: The anger that we inherit from suffering the sins of our parents does not go away easily.

And yet, there is something about an abusive or uncaring father that digs particularly deep when you hear about it. I think it’s because ultimately we need our fathers to be our protectors. When they are not, and especially when they themselves are abusive, we can easily grow to hate them.

From that moment, life gets very painful, and very complicated – because the problem doesn’t stop with our fathers.

A friend of mine tells a sad story about the first time she realized the extent of the father problem among young people. She used to work with troubled teenagers, and one Saturday morning she invited a local pastor to speak to the kids. The moment he arrived she noticed an abrupt change in their attitude. Here was a perfectly nice man who was funny, entertaining, interested in children, and was giving freely of his time to be of some help. And yet, the normally outgoing teens suddenly grew sullen and silent, not shy, but actually downright hostile. Hate is not too strong a word to use.

As she described it to me, she asked the children later what happened – why had they acted like that? It turned out that none of these kids had had positive experiences with their fathers, or with the “other men” in their mothers’ lives. They quickly transferred their contempt for the men they had known onto this innocent man.

This simple transference is at the heart of a complex national problem that is so politically deadly we’d all be lying awake in fear at night if only we understood the threat to our common future. The horror stories of parental violence, sexual abuse, addiction and overt psychological abuse are seemingly endless. Increasingly, celebrities like Tom Cruise are speaking out, bringing attention to the problem. Increasingly, we know details about the pure hell nearly a million seriously abused children endure every year. And that’s only based on the CDC’s definition of abuse. Kids have a higher standard of judgment – for example, I didn’t see divorce on that CDC list.

Psychologists now know that divorce also has shocking effects on children, causing deep traumas – from fear of loss and loneliness to fear of conflict and betrayal – which typically can last most of a lifetime. And divorce affects millions upon millions of Americans.

So add to the CDC “hardcore abuse” numbers the larger math of soft abuse. Add the number of divorces, add the number of frightened children left home alone without mothers, and don’t forget the out-of-wedlock births when father is just a “boyfriend.” Or what about children who have no fathers at all, or whose fathers are in jail, or kids who live with a bullying dad and a passive mom (or the reverse), or those who just have quietly cold, disinterested parents – the list goes on and on, and each one is capable of making the world a very scary place for kids, no matter how normal or even privileged the family looks from the outside. These “soft abuse” children can easily end up hating their fathers, too – whether their fathers were directly responsible or not – because the child only knows the bottom line: “Daddy didn’t love me enough to keep me safe.” And so we fall to “father hate” – which quickly translates into hating authority. That’s when the real trouble begins, both personal and political.

Dangerous sympathies

Father hate is a poison that can eventually undermine any society. It is already happening here in America, one child at a time. It doesn’t always show up in obvious statistics for reasons I’ll explain, although the growth of gangs in America is a useful indicator.

A quick dose of reality for Americans who don’t know: Fox News estimates that there may be as many as 2 million gang members in America. Government statistics (900,000 gangsters) are admittedly unreliable because most local officials are reluctant to tell the truth about their problem.

“Gang crime is going through the roof in this country,” one expert told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly recently. “You have parts of the country, the rural south, that has never seen gangs before, and now all of a sudden they’ve got kids hacking each other’s hands off with machetes. …”

Generally, however, father hatred is less about violent action than about subversive, cynical attitudes. In the extreme, it’s a raw fury that schools like Pleasantville deal with all the time. But more commonly it’s an all-pervasive anger, a private and growing frustration with authority that can penetrate everything in our lives from our sense of self-worth to our personal relationships to even our political attitudes.

As I said, it gets complicated.

But the basic principle is simple – raw rebellion. If you are worried that a million or two young males have joined gangs, then that’s a start to understanding this issue. If it bothers you that young girls are also joining gangs, and are increasingly resorting to a more vicious violence than boys, then you are more aware than most citizens of what’s happening.

But now consider the larger influence of the “gang culture” represented on MTV and other similar media outlets, including radio in the major cities. Rap is the No. 1 choice among youth of all demographics. This isn’t just attitude; it becomes a thought process – an anti-social worldview. Consider the impact their hate-filled lyrics are having on millions of American kids who may not join gangs, but identify intensely with the anger because of their own troubled, distrusting lives.

Their instinctive sympathy for gang culture – and even outright admiration of it – is the scarier dimension of all this. By one law enforcement report, 20 percent of American teenagers have an interest in or monitor gang activity. Not surprising really; after all, the “authentic” victim status of the gangster movement appeals to disaffected boys who also want to stick it to the man. Add to that the sex-drenched angry rap songs, the growing street presence of gangs (which comes across as powerful and masculine), and the sympathetic respect “gangsta” culture gets from the equally anti-authority pop culture – from music to fashion to political pundits to late night comics – and it’s very easy to understand that troubled kids might identify more with rebellion than with their own parents or teachers. Positive authority figures are continually mocked by the multi-billion dollar MTV/gangster culture. But it doesn’t stop there.

Father-hating culture

Any normal culture encourages what is good in society and discourages what is bad. However, right now we’ve got just the opposite – an overtly destructive culture that increasingly loves what is bad and hates what is good (or at least can’t distinguish one from the other). And parental authority, which many cultural elites see as a form of tyranny – based on childhood experience no doubt – is high on its hit list. You could call it an agenda, but again, it’s really more of an attitude.

“Often there’s a kind of official and systematic ‘rebelliousness’ that’s reflected in media products pitched at kids,” NYU professor Mark Crispin-Miller told PBS in the Frontline documentary, “The Merchants of Cool.”

“It’s part of the official rock video worldview. It’s part of the official advertising worldview that your parents are creeps, teachers are nerds and idiots, authority figures are laughable.”

If you aren’t shocked by this, read it again, because let’s face it, the culture has been mocking authority for so long we’ve gotten used to it – even when it’s outright propaganda aimed at our teenagers. But what if even younger children are targeted with this same subversive message? Would it bother us then?

The Washington Post recently exposed how the media marketers go after the “tweens,” defined as children between ages 9 and 14 – all 26 million of them!

First understand the incredible access the media has to these children.

“The average American tween lives in a world of electronic opulence, inside his or her own media bubble,” reports the Post. “According to a recent survey by Nickelodeon, 77 percent of 9- to 14-year-olds have TVs in their bedrooms, with about half this group enjoying cable or satellite access. Some 59 percent have video-game systems, 49 percent have a DVD player and 22 percent have computers connected to the Internet.”

Now for the punch: What do you think these media entities are teaching your middle school children about you? Listen to one of the most successful producers of “tween” cable TV movies, Disney director Dan Schneider, explain his approach:

“What I try to do is create a world where the kids are in charge,” says Schneider. “Real kids are always being told what to do. Parents and teachers run things and kids are subject to their rules and whims.”

Schneider’s use of the word “whim” is revealing. That’s how anti-authority cultural elites see America’s parents; father doesn’t “know best” anymore – he rules by whim. But on television targeted at tweens, directors make sure that kids get “revenge.”

“The adults are [portrayed as] silly and buffoonish,” Schneider tells the Post, “because it’s fun [for children] to see someone making fun of authority.”

Remember, “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long”? Remember Pinocchio and the fox? It is frightening to watch the multi-billion dollar media culture target with laser-like accuracy one of the core underpinnings of society – parental authority. And if we don’t think this wreaks havoc with our children – whether at home, in school or at church – that’s only because we’ve forgotten so much about the true nature of authority and its powerful role in all our relationships – including our relationship with our own country.

Resenting authority is a curse that lasts a lifetime, because ultimately it’s about our identity, how we express ourselves. After all, if you hate authority, how can you be an authority? It has to do with who we are as children, as adults, as parents, as neighbors, as employees and, of course, as citizens.

And yet, thanks to rampant father-abuse problems out there, including soft abuse, and because of the constant barrage of father-hating propaganda kids get in the TV media (including anti-male advertising), children get drawn into rebelling against civilized norms. They increasingly feel like victims, as though they have a right to be angry with their fathers (and authority in general). No wonder the anti-establishment “in-your-face” gang culture starts to seem appealing to kids (not to mention the anti-establishment politics they get when they go to college).

Disloyalty

It’s not that these kids will actually join gangs. Obviously, most of them won’t. The question is, where is their cultural loyalty? That’s the key. Are they acting more and more like strangers in our homes? Are they taking a bad attitude to school or church? Is your teenager’s inner thought life anything that would make you proud? Or are they increasingly contemptuous of your views on life?

Is it just a phase, or will millions of young people end up like so many of the baby boomers, trapped in a cultural time warp, still living out their angry, anti-authority youth. We anti-war boomers thought our movement was about “peace and love.” That was a lie. We judged our fathers harshly (many of them were war vets with traumas of their own), we mocked their “establishment” beliefs and dismissed their sacrifices, and we’re still trying to get back what we lost as a result – our honor.

Sure our World War II generation parents had their faults, but who were we to cry hypocrite? You can imagine the problems this caused us later in life – afraid of our own shadow when it comes to expressing authority. And now a new generation of media liars is walking our children down the same self-destructive path.

The Bible has an interesting phrase to describe social breakdown: “Love will grow cold.” That’s a great way to describe the rise of “father hate” over the last several decades in America because the resulting cynicism continually blocks out opportunities to love at all levels of society. It affects the way we treat each other, from our spouses at home to our employers at work, and even including that guy in the car in front of us who “forgot to signal.” No joke. The anger just grows and grows.

A new study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health estimates the number of people with “rage” disorder to be up to 16 million Americans – people capable of flying off the handle under one kind of stress or another. And while they say that Intermittent Explosive Disorder (its official name) involves deficiencies of serotonin (a mood regulator), it can hardly be argued that the radical changes in our national/political mood are serotonin-related. Something much bigger is going on under the national radar screen.

Despite the endless partisan debate, there doesn’t seem to be much grasp on what’s happening to American politics. Why all the hate? Why the constant accusations and pervasive sense of suspicion? Is the anger really about our policy differences? Or is there something more personal going on? Even experienced Washington pundits seem incapable of digging beneath the surface of things, where the real battle is being waged.

Some years ago, my wife observed that one of the greatest problems in modern America is self-loathing. We both had troubled childhoods, and I immediately sensed she was right, although I wasn’t sure of the root cause back then. Now I’m sure. Father-hate is the cause – which indirectly includes mom, since she picked him. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily start out as visceral hate, but more often as simple distrust, a rejection of our father’s authority due to his flaws. In other words, we literally negate our fathers (and in the process we also negate God by breaking His Commandment to respect our fathers and mothers, despite their sins). We do this at our own peril.

At first, rejecting flawed parental authority feels like freedom – a new chance at life. It feels like we’ve removed an infected appendix and that we’re on our way back to health. But in truth we’ve cut out a vital organ – our heart, our capacity to love fully, openly and with complete trust – and to be loved that way as well. Dishonoring our father is about hating life and about hating ourselves, because how can you hate the father whose seed created you without somehow associating that hate with the creation itself – you!

This father-hate – an all-pervasive cynicism and sense of despair – rarely gets any public attention because contempt for authority (the telltale sign) isn’t commonly recognized as a serious problem. When was the last time you even saw the evening news cover the issue of anti-authority attitudes? (Except possibly as a good thing, when whistleblowers leak secrets to the press.) Yet, it has a powerful negative impact on all we do. We find ourselves undermining our employers without really understanding why, or refusing to work at all if it means submitting to someone’s leadership, or resenting our parents for the chores they give us, or getting angry with friends when they won’t do what we want. In fact, life itself becomes pretty annoying when things don’t go our way.

When times are easy, this negative view of life is not so noticeable (except in the media/culture), but when trouble comes – during stressful economic times or war, for example – many of us act badly. We start assuming the worst about each other – with no evidence – and especially about those in authority over us. Conspiracy theories abound (ancient or otherwise). We fear being lied to or diabolically “controlled” – again without any serious evidence – and we sympathize with others who share our fears. In our current, continually overheated political environment, people seem ready to believe almost anything negative about federal, state and local leaders. Why? Because the trust wasn’t there to begin with!

Of course, at one time or another we’ve all distrusted authority (rightly or wrongly), but this is different. As a Democrat, I can say that my party has been infected by this poisonous contempt for authority since Vietnam. However, it’s gotten much worse. It’s almost like we can’t imagine any such thing as good authority – unless it’s us. And even then we’re not so sure.

We feel habitually “disenfranchised” and “misled,” and although we struggle over one “civil rights” issue or another, ultimately it’s not about rights. It’s about rage. Demagogues in our party take advantage of this, and thus what passes for political debate these days is so totally emotionalized that it looks more like a custody battle. And since millions of us know what that’s about, whether as children or as adults, the current political environment is a painful experience.

Clearly, my party’s leadership seems to be increasingly sympathetic to “outraged” politicians, whose campaigns seem like one long accusation, as if Republicans have intentionally done some truly horrible wrong to us. Why? Because for many father-haters on the political left, it actually feels that way. This is a frightening development in a free society, which depends on two main parties having genuine respect for each other – loyal opposition, as it used to be called. Now it truly looks more like an ugly divorce. And that’s what’s in our future if we don’t wake up soon to the errors of 20th century feminist politics with its ignorant contempt for the traditional father-led family.

Ironically, that century began with “flapper era” heiress Abby Rockefeller (daughter of John D. Rockefeller Jr.) refusing the traditional marriage vow to “obey” her husband, a real hot button for women with trust issues because to them the word “obey” suggests dictatorship. (Remember, for people with such problems, authority represents a bullying power – I have one friend who told me that she has trouble even being in a room with someone in professional authority over her.)

Soon, the whole Episcopal Church caved in to this feminist pressure, a symbolic moment in that century. But common sense, and many decades of trouble, should make it clear that having proper fatherly authority in the home is the key to empowering our children. Yes, it involves an authority struggle between mothers and fathers. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as it’s respectful. In fact, as you will see, the struggle between those two opposing responsibilities is the very essence of parenting. It’s a “loyal opposition” relationship just like the one we need in Washington, D.C., which also depends on respect for authority to work (voting authority). When a decision is finally made it must be honored for the relationship itself to be honored. Sadly, we’ve lost that in many of our homes, and more obviously in the nation’s capital.

Loyal opposition

It is impossible for America’s political parties to regain the mutual respect (and voter interest) so essential to our system of government without relearning what it means to honor authority – not an easy thing to do in a culture that has been disrespecting authority for about as long as most of us can remember. So bear with me.

First of all, nothing truly functions in life without authority – because there are always opposing responsibilities, and decisions must be made. It explains the workings of the military, the government, business, church and family. Ideally, it is fluid, like the free market. Yet authority functions in such a fine-tuned manner that it’s not always clear to the outside observer what is happening, and why things are getting done so smoothly. It is the American way of life – or at least it was for most of our history.

I know that the very mention of the word “authority” will for some readers – especially those with troubled childhoods like mine – conjure up negative images. Proper authority is the exact opposite of the cultural stereotypes. It is not about dictatorship or denying power – it is completely about positive “empowerment.” So here’s an example to help us work past the typical media images of loveless authority that we’ve grown to accept.

Imagine a high-powered, big-city surgeon who decides she wants to take a long weekend and do something really different. She hires a hunter/guide to take her down river and into the deep woods so she can have a true hiking experience without the stress of being on her own. Ask yourself, who is the authority on this trip? Yes, the doctor is paying the bills, and yes, she’s a highly educated and skilled surgeon – but common sense still tells you that the guide is in charge, because he’s got the experience. He’s the one who knows the woods – that’s why she hired him. So logically, he’s the “authority” during this weekend getaway.

Now imagine that on the second day, as they walk along in the woods, they come across some young people in a panic because a girl in their group has taken a severe fall. The hunter knows first aid and can probably handle the situation fairly well, but is he in charge? No. Obviously, the authority relationship shifts immediately. The manly, experienced hunter becomes an assistant to the doctor, responding quickly to her orders and helping her in whatever way he can with the pressing needs of the moment. Not only doesn’t he second-guess her decisions, he obeys them instantly. This is an honorable man. This is a man who respects authority – and thus has no problem being leader or follower. The doctor is the same kind of person.

Once the doctor has done what she can for the injured girl, the guide is the one better able to get the girl to a clear area where she can be picked up and flown to the nearest hospital. He knows how to make a litter and how to negotiate the rough terrain so as not to further injure the patient. Meanwhile, the doctor knows better how to watch for specific danger signs in the patient’s condition and what to do with the few medical supplies they have. Unless an outside observer of this relationship understands each person’s skill and responsibility, it will be hard to really understand who is in charge.

Leaders and followers need each other. They are the two essential dynamics of social interaction. They are crucial to any team. Like the doctor and the hunter, leaders and followers work together, sometimes shifting responsibility according to certain needs. The hunter/guide is the ultimate leader in this case because he’s responsible for the safety of all; he knows the woods, he knows the dangerous places, and he knows the way out. But he also knows when to let the “follower” lead, as any good authority does. The doctor also understands this relationship. She chose the guide and willingly accepted his leadership. It’s a kind of marriage.

The two negotiate their different responsibilities easily, because they both respect the natural authority of the other’s skills and experience – and the need for final authority in effective decision-making. (This relationship lies at the heart of Western Culture because it creates a strong family and strong, independent children – who have learned to respect authority and therefore to accept their own.)

A father and mother who respect each other’s proper authority will function comfortably in this same manner, once the two understand their responsibilities as clearly as the doctor and her guide do. That’s the whole reason for marriage vows, the clarity that creates real commitment. Family problems (and the resulting societal problems) develop when husbands and wives do not recognize each other’s authority. It’s that simple.

Loyal opposition is one of the key principles of traditional marriage because it allows for freedom of expression. It also provides the balance in parenting necessary because boys and girls are so different, and because they both need radically different kinds of love and guidance depending on their ages (and even on their moods). There is a natural tug that goes on between a mother and a father, which keeps the child safe in between them. And remember, healthy children make healthy adults – and responsible citizens.

Here’s a real-life example that was one of the most beautiful “loyal opposition” parenting situations I’ve witnessed – and it didn’t even involve parents!

The struggle

I will never forget seeing some uncles at a picnic confront their 9-year-old nephew because he was gravely misbehaving and his parents were not there yet. These uncles sat the boy down and surrounding him, giving him a stern talk about his behavior and what they expected of him. Now here was the interesting development: One of the boy’s aunts approached quickly and hovered nearby, keeping a respectful distance so as not to interfere with the manly disciplining of the male child, but still guarding against the men going too far. And right she was to do that. After all, 9 years old is a borderline age, and too much manly rebuking could easily traumatize him. (Men can spoil children too; they just do it differently.) Now and then, the aunt would quietly caution the uncles not to go too far. The men knew she was there, and they respected her respectful presence. Be sure, if the uncles had gone too far, this woman would have gently jumped in and stopped it – and they would have let her. She knew her role, which they honored. They knew their role, which she honored. It was a beautiful balance between mercy and justice. And consequently the child was loved in the way all children should be loved.

Like the hunter/doctor example, this demonstrates the balancing act that goes on between men and women. They are in opposition because of their different skills, instincts and responsibilities, but they are on the same team with the same end goal – to raise healthy and happy children. That opposition only works when there is respect for authority; otherwise the two parents war over the child instead of guarding over him. Clearly, the mother’s role is dominant early on and a father’s role is dominant as the child gets older, but they are not equal in their responsibilities, as I will show you. Fathers are not different versions of mothers. They are almost entirely different beings. And there’s the miracle.

It isn’t hard to teach this concept of authority balancing – although our anti-authority liberal schools would resist it. I’ve talked to many students over the years, and even the younger ones have no trouble understanding the essential partnership between leaders and followers once it is explained to them.

Certainly, any teenager can grasp that if students are building a school float and no one wants to lead, nothing will get done. No decisions get made without at least a facilitator. However, when asked about the reverse situation, the secret dawns on them – that if no one wants to follow and everyone wants to lead, the end result is the same. They come to realize that not only is “follower” not a dirty word (as the anti-authority culture teaches them), leaders and followers are necessary partners in achieving any team goal. The follower is essential because obviously nothing would get done without him.

There is no disgrace in proper submission; in fact there is great honor in it. A favorite saying at an all-boy Episcopal school I attended in New York City has never left me: “It takes a good follower to be a good leader.” They taught me that to respect authority was to respect myself – they were so right. Now if only our public schools understood that truth as it relates to men and women.

Learning to love Dad again

In truth, our real yearning for father lies at the heart of a mystery that embarrasses secularists but which nonetheless remains true (as science itself is finding): Men and women are not just different, we’re remarkably different, right down to the ways our brains function!

By ignoring this fact, our gender-hostile public schools have brought on an educational disaster, as reported on recently in Newsweek’s cover story, “The Trouble with Boys.” And no wonder there’s trouble: As one expert told Newsweek, we’ve been treating our boys “like defective girls.” Now imagine making the same mistake with our fathers – because that’s just what we’re doing.

If fathers represented nothing more than a “co-parent,” then absent fathers wouldn’t cause this national crisis. After all, we’d still have our mothers. But there’s the mystery. Parents are not interchangeable parts, as the gender-hostile feminists believe.

Actually, fathers represent something quite significant in society – something beyond normal parenting. They represent authority, pure and simple, and not just any authority, but ultimate authority as far as a child is concerned. Fathers are the standard we children yearn to meet. In a sense, they actually define our worth, at least in the early stages of our adult lives – and forever, if they love us. Even daughters, who happily learn womanhood at their mother’s side, still yearn for their father’s manly approval.

Remember, ideally an important part of the father’s tremendous authority is the mother’s love for him. The two together are an awesome and irresistible parental force. Children recognize and respect it – although movement feminists are threatened by this relationship (because there’s masculine authority involved). Even now, some readers can’t hear my singular praise of fatherhood without it sounding as a diminishment of mothers. That discomfort is precisely why fathers have been so ignored. People are afraid to stand up and state the obvious – men are different, and that means fathers are different!

It was interesting to note that in the Newsweek cover story about gender differences, one feminist expressed her fear that, “For some [educators], the trouble boys are having with schools becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family.”

Radical feminists have spent decades railing against the “codes of manhood” and especially against “the patriarchal family,” one of their primary targets. Until American women stand up and demand respect for their men – fathers, brothers, husbands and sons – the culture of contempt will continue. Just count how many TV ads you see in one hour making buffoons of fathers – usually for products pitched at women – and imagine the impact those ads have on your children. We need to turn it around. Younger generations of Americans must come to understand the true nature of the traditional family and that without it society dies. We’re watching that happen now in Europe.

In closing, my favorite example of the “patriarchal family” involves a particularly touching true story I’ve talked about for years on the radio and in print. John and Mary Scully were two newly wed attorneys, who just happened to be together at John’s San Francisco office when a mad gunman entered and starting shooting people. Mary was there that day to do some research at the firm’s law library, and the two quickly found each other and attempted to escape. Failing to find a way out of the office, they hid from the killer as he walked calmly through the law firm shooting people at close range. He found John and Mary huddled behind a desk in one of the offices, and as he raised his gun, John covered Mary with his body. Shots rang out but only one found Mary, wounding her in the arm. Several people died that day, including 28-year-old John Scully. But Mary Scully lived to marry again and have the children she and John never had.

It is fair to call John Scully a hero – I do – but we all know that in truth he simply did his duty; he did what is expected of men in a good society. We expect husbands to sacrifice themselves that way. And most significantly, we expect their wives to let them – to accept the sacrifice gracefully.

When the Titanic was sinking, the call for women and children to be rescued first was not simple ship policy. It was and is the very root thinking of Western Civilization. We accept it, even now in the 21st century. For example, none of us thinks Mary Scully was a coward, do we? If anything we honor her for choosing such a man as John. We all know that if Mary had been with a 10-year-old son that day, it would be she who made the sacrifice. And we’d honor John for choosing such a woman. This is the order of life and love. It is the order of the family. It is what makes the whole world go around. Children expect it – and recognize it as love when they see it. If they do not see this relationship in their parents, it confuses them, makes them feel insecure, distrusting and ultimately angry. They have expectations, for one simple reason that our government and its agencies can’t face. They are created beings.

Now consider the deeper mysteries of the patriarchy and why fathers and mothers are unequal equals: If it can be said that mothers provide our first baptism in this world, the grace of the womb on which we helplessly depend without question (and spiritually speaking, long after our birth and early nurturing), then fathers clearly stand for something stunningly different.

As an Episcopalian (and with respect to other denominations), let me carry the analogy forward based on my own church experience: Fathers represent a kind of confirmation (when a 13-year-old is formally blessed into the faith). Fathers observe our behavior. They challenge us, question us and finally, powerfully, they anoint us, and accept us as men and as women.

Of course, our fathers love us and accept us long before that, even when we’re in our mother’s womb. (What father doesn’t stand in silent awe of that reality?) But fathers have an official duty as well, to give us their blessing as young adults. Mom’s love is necessarily more unconditional, but dad provides our “second entry” into this challenging world, and without his recognition and approval we sense we are less than we need to be. He is the standard by which we measure ourselves – especially if we’re boys. For girls, he is the standard of love that allows them to know clearly how to treat – and be treated by – young men, and especially a husband. Of course, this “standard” is not always a good one.

Tragically, not all fathers understand their role or appreciate the power they have to bless their children – or in fact, to curse them. My heart goes out to men who suffered like Tom Cruise and the countless others who for one reason or another did not get the father blessing their hearts longed for in childhood. This is all the more tragic because the ever-present “gangster culture” doesn’t hesitate to “bless and anoint” every day – to say “I recognize you.” Consequently, our children, who are hungry for a completed identity, are saying, “yes” to the wrong family.

And that’s a choice they may never recover from – and neither may we.

Epilogue: Hope and healing

My years of local work with fathers, mothers and youth have made me optimistic that this nightmare of anti-father social decline can be turned around, from gangs to drugs to violent crime, from school dropouts to discipline problems, and even to political anger.

At Concerned Fathers Against Crime, we call it building up community hope, and there are lots of inspiring stories that relate to this 12-year effort by many folks in my town to stand up to crime. We seek to carry the vision forward by reviving parental authority in the community, and by connecting many caring, “authority-respecting” adults to local children in need of exactly that kind of support. Kids want to stand with us, but modern society gives them no real way to do it.

The C-FAC fathers and sons in our mostly rural county have been working with the local sheriff and city police for years and have achieved such success with our “eyes-and-ears” patrolling that we recently went to Washington, D.C., to meet with the Department of Homeland Security. Setting an example is the key to what we do – and the boys who ride with us like being part of the action. Law enforcement personnel sing our praises at every opportunity, both publicly and privately – our congressman calls us the cavalry riding to the rescue – but the thing we are most proud of is that “the family” system is now complete.

Two years ago we formed Concerned Mothers Alliance for Children, and now just recently Concerned Youth. The vision is simple: The kids have their own mission, working to keep the streets clear of litter and gang graffiti, but they can also work with the adults – boys on patrol with the dads and girls working with the moms to combat the rebellious, gangster culture that draws our children into destructive behavior. We are in the early stages, but it’s wonderful to watch prominent community members working with regular folks to heal the community by way of America’s traditional family wisdom – that fathers are fathers, mothers are mothers, and boys and girls naturally seek training for those wonderful roles in life.

I myself needed that so much in my young years, and am very grateful to my father and stepmother for putting me in Trinity School, that traditional all-boy day school in New York where in fact I actually began my journey back to respecting authority – and back to myself as a young man.

I still remember the moment in eighth grade when I understood that by respecting leadership authority I accepted that role myself – that it does in fact take a good follower to be a good leader. And although there were some years of rebellion, that basic truth never left me and eventually saved me from the authority-hating culture that, among other things, hates the American patriarchy with a true passion – fathers, mothers, children and all.

Of course, this is a call for healing and forgiveness. Despite my troubles, I love my mother and father and I’ve forgiven them for the mistakes of their youth, as I know they forgive me for my youthful rebellion. I also love my stepparents and am eternally grateful that they took me into their lives and loved me as they did. The real mystery of healing after all these years is that I regret nothing, as I told my parents. I am who I am, and I am grateful for the good in life.

I am sure Tom Cruise feels the same way. Happily, he also had the chance to heal, to talk things over and forgive his father who has now passed away. I hope the healing is complete. Cruise is an amazingly talented person, and I hope he’s overcome that sense of distrust, which so many of us experience. We are all in this together much more than we realize. Because although there are many ways to resent your father, the end result is the same – our own personhood is undermined, not to mention ultimately our country.

Millions of Americans have not had that chance to heal their family wounds; millions still carry around a deep resentment toward authority and ultimately toward life. I know the feeling very well. I also know that adults with normal childhoods have a hard time understanding all the anger in America today. It’s not really such a mystery. Try to imagine Tom Cruise’s childhood. Try to imagine the little boy I was at 8, saving up peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sneaking out across a cornfield and walking into the night – all to reclaim my family many miles away – and you’ll have some idea of what we go through in our hearts. Yet, despite all the pain, children want nothing more than the love and approval of their parents. Kids just want to get back home.

After my parents’ custody battle, I also had the chance to heal my relationship with my father. Actually, it was a “chance” that he sought eagerly and made happen. I remember Dad playing catch with me when I was 14 – getting to know me – getting me to know him. I was trying out for the baseball team as a pitcher and wanted dad to admire the strength of my arm. So I threw harder and harder. To understand the moment, you need to know that my father was a musician, who later climbed to the pinnacle playing for the Metropolitan Opera in New York. He played the flute and his fingers were his livelihood. He even avoided using a hammer for fear of breaking a finger and not being able to work. And there he was, nearly 50 years old, crouched with a flimsy old-fashion catchers mitt, taking my fastball over and over. Watch this one, Dad!

Our dads, young and old, don’t tell us much about the stressful burdens they bear, but they still want us to love and honor them. It’s a relationship that we owe them, despite their sins, and one that’s required of us in order to keep our own honor – for we are sinners, too.

I am not a father myself, so perhaps someone like me should say this. In truth, America owes an apology to its fathers – that vital part of our being. It’s time (and well past time) to admit the mistakes of almost a century, and to bring the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the children back to the fathers.

Otherwise, our families and our great nation will pay a terrible price.

The previous column was featured in Whistleblower magazine’s June issue, “The War on Fathers: How the ‘feminization of America’ destroys boys, men – and women,” which is available at WND’s online store.

My mother left my father when I was 5 years old.

I make no harsh judgment of my parents, who have many wonderful qualities. But from that moment I began my personal journey, a struggle that has so far lasted a lifetime – getting over the fear and anger that resulted from that one single decision. And there are millions of other Americans coming up behind me with the same demons.

We are not just a social problem, but also a growing political force. In fact, America’s ability to maintain her freedoms may ultimately depend on there being some kind of massive national healing, which, let’s face it, can only begin with massive national honesty. We don’t get much of that from the secular culture.

So let me start here with myself.

I have only two real memories of home life before my parents separated: my father practicing scales on his flute (he was a professional musician) and, of course, the sound of angry voices – coming from the next room.

I don’t remember any arguing in my presence. After all, this was the 1950s, an era when most parents did their level best not to fight in front of the children. Back then, it was still generally recognized that children are “impressionable,” and therefore adults made every effort to protect us, both in their homes and in the public square – including the culture.

Those days are gone. Society just doesn’t care about the innocence of children anymore. The “separation of church and state” decision officially rendered us soulless beings in the eyes of government. That didn’t happen in a vacuum. Even in the idealized 1940s and ’50s, the atheist view that people are mere animals dominated liberal intellectual circles, especially in places like Manhattan where I was born and raised.

The feminist “no-fault” divorce movement also did not happen in a vacuum. It was the culmination of a long, furious cry by secular men and women who didn’t see any reason why they should submit to the “ancient superstitions” of Judeo-Christian America when it came to their private lives. The floodgates of nihilism were opening.

By the 1970s (the “anything goes” era that brought us “no-fault” divorce), this secular view had taken almost complete control of American culture, especially in the arts and social sciences. Concepts of childhood innocence were dropped for much more convenient beliefs. Children were now considered “resilient.” Secular science had declared us all “animals,” and thus, it only made sense that the younger we exposed children to life’s realities, the better the lessons took. Although a decent and remarkable person, my mother had long since been influenced by this worldview.

A French immigrant from a secular family, she was ahead of her time, as were so many of her New York City peers. They were a foreshadowing of what was to come with the final stages of the sexual revolution. Mom was a “free thinker” who rejected outright what she called “bourgeois middle-class values.” At the time, I did not understand this speech code. “Free thinker” meant secularist. And “middle-class values” meant Christianity.

It took me years to realize that my mother was an atheist socialist of the classic 19th century variety, embracing the philosophy that caused so much horror later on. Thinking back, there was nothing surprising about her beliefs. My mother had grown up in Paris, the daughter of two Russian immigrants whose attitudes were greatly influenced by the “anything goes” Bohemian era – a movement known for its rebellion against “all of society’s standards, values and restraints.”

My grandmother F?e Helles (her professional name) had studied with the famous avant-garde dancer Isadora Duncan and later taught her own formulation of dance exercises in Paris, practically in the shadow of the city’s famous Arc de Triomphe. As a teenager, I visited her there and was surprised to find that my grandmother (I called her Mamine) slept on the floor of her Champs Elysee studio, using a hot plate to cook and a folding oriental screen to give herself some privacy – a very Bohemian way of life.

And yet, despite Mamine’s unusual social attitudes (or perhaps because of them), she was at the center of a very glamorous, almost storybook, Parisian world. When she set me up on a date with one of her students, it turned out to be Pablo Picasso’s daughter, Paloma. My grandmother’s studio was a popular and busy place, and on top of that there were movie rehearsals going on that summer. One of France’s most celebrated film directors was planning a documentary about Mamine, who as I remember was later given a medal for her cultural contributions. I took all this for granted – and there’s more.

My Zionist grandfather, a concert pianist from age 8, had long since moved to Israel to teach at the Jerusalem Conservatory. The two would meet in Switzerland for their vacations. Needless to say, I have an odd and exotic family – with the emphasis on odd. Even my father (who was incredibly normal considering his father abandoned the family) rose to the highest levels of his profession and ended up playing for the Metropolitan Opera.

Adventure runs on both sides of my family, and my father was no exception. He hitchhiked to New York during the depression to study on scholarship at Juilliard. In a profession where people are happy to have any paying job, my father was never without solid work. He played under great conductors, from Toscanini to Bernstein and with most of the opera stars of his day. Between jobs of that stature, he played in the original Broadway production of “The Sound of Music” and I would often, after a date or a party, meet Dad at the theater to ride home with him, waiting in the wings until the performance was done.

Why do I tell you this? Because the privileged New York City life I lived did not make up for the reality of my parent’s divorce. Despite all this “glory,” despite an elite education at two famous Manhattan private schools, despite my parents’ many good points, I grew up a frightened, deeply angry young man – a “rebel without a cause.”

Of course, I didn’t understand my own reality. On the outside, I was a confident teenager running around New York City as if I owned it. (Nobody needs a car in the city, so kids have a scary kind of freedom to come and go as they please.) The parties, school dances, the theater openings, great museums and the famous restaurants were only a small part of an urban environment that seemed to be on the cutting edge of everything – wealth, intellectual and political influence, and raw international power.

All very glamorous! In fact, just like America herself. Let’s face it: The world has never seen a richer, more powerful nation than the United States. We are not only wealthy, we are an emblem of freedom to the world. Our language is spoken everywhere. Our technology and our culture are influential worldwide. Our military is second to none.

But that won’t save us from our own angry children, generated by millions of broken homes, of every race, color, creed and socio-economic background. America may look strong, but her foundation has been severely damaged. I was comparatively lucky. Many children of divorce suffer additional hardships, making things far worse. But whatever their backgrounds, these “children” – now on their own dysfunctional adult journey – are my brothers and sisters, and I can tell you all about them.

First, remember we are not talking about a few hundred thousand Americans. We are not even talking about a few million Americans. Considering what we all know about the divorce rate, it is not hard to predict that a huge, if not dominant, portion of this country’s electorate will soon be “adult children of divorce” (ACDs). Politicians who can push our many emotional buttons may well be able to control the elections of the future. Why? Because unless we ACDs go through a powerful personal recovery, our problems are likely to get worse as we get older, and more vulnerable.

Our fear, our anger, our sense of betrayal, our self-loathing, fear of failure, fear of success (as something undeserved), and our often deeply depressive nature may cause us to harken to the angry demagogue politicians who outwardly echo our internal pain. In that sense, we are a “mob,” full of dark emotions and looking for a leader.

A political tsunami is coming. My parents’ divorce preceded by two decades the arrival of “no-fault” divorce in the 1970s. That generation of ACDs will hit the shores soon – the sons and daughters of the “I’m-not-happy-so-I’m-leaving” generation of parents. (Add to this group other adults who were born out of wedlock and never experienced an intact family, and it’s clear that we have a serious social problem on our hands, perhaps even a nation-killing problem.)

People like me are just the early warning waves of this tsunami. But a wall of water is speeding our way as the aging no-faulters enter their 40s and 50s. The gathering force of their pain and disillusionment is a socio-political reality.

Who are we? We are often ready to believe the worst about America and about our fellow Americans because our experience with “family” is not good. After all, a nation is a family. We don’t just “question authority,” we often distrust, even hate authority. (Look for us at all those angry demonstrations.) Why do you think politicians get such resonance by crying “victim”? What child of divorce doesn’t feel like a victim? What else would you call us? The disaster that befell us was completely out of our control. I was blessed to have great stepparents, and some stability in my high school years at a wonderful all-boy Episcopal school, and yet I was still furious and disoriented. My reality was split down the middle when I was five years old, and there was no putting me back together with a quick patch job. Time was necessary, as well as the essential process of learning to forgive.

The battle lines

A New York friend of mine is going through a very painful recovery since his wife left, taking the children with her. (I can’t imagine how people survive such a thing.) He was broken-hearted recently over a surprise visit he made to his children. When he walked up to the house, his young son saw him coming and smiled. Daddy’s back! But the delighted look quickly faded, and suddenly his son turned and ran away.

I can only imagine what the father felt (or mother if the situation was reversed). But I know exactly what the little boy was going through. He had figured out in the months succeeding the separation that to be loyal to dad was somehow to be disloyal to mom – to love father was to betray mother. This is the true hell of divorce where the battle lines are drawn right through the child’s heart. It’s a no-win situation during holidays and at special events. One way or another, you are always choosing between your parents. As I said, superficial solutions are not helpful, nor are platitudes about resiliency. Only national mourning will do, rooted in genuine honesty. This will not come easily.

“This is a social policy problem that is located in the heart of the white middle class,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton deputy assistant for domestic policy. “People don’t want to hear that their quest for personal fulfillment may come at the expense of their children.”

There are a growing number of books that deal with the reality of “no-fault” divorce and its impact on children, starting most famously with Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s 1997 book, “The Divorce Culture.” At the time, Ms. Whitehead rightly railed against the culture’s dishonesty on the subject, especially the media’s dishonesty. Until we can get past the resilience myth, and get to the heart of the matter we will be an accident happening in slow motion, with a potentially catastrophic outcome.

By the dawn of the 21st century, Judith Wallerstein’s “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” was published, a 25-year landmark study of adult children of divorce. Parental denial was becoming more difficult.

“The delayed impact of divorce in adulthood is a revolutionary finding and a stunning surprise,” announced Dr. Wallerstein, along with the two other women who authored the book. “We thought that children would be able to work through issues related to divorce by the time they reached late adolescence or left home. We advised parents that if they refrained from fighting and arranged their schedules so that the children could see both of them often, the children would do well. But these policies were based on adult needs and perceptions of divorce. We failed to realize that living in a post-divorce family is an entirely different experience for children as opposed to adults. The story of divorce is far more complex and the impact more far-reaching than we had ever imagined.”

The study showed that ACDs have to overcome many emotional problems: expectations of failure; fear of loss; fear of change; fear of conflict; fear of betrayal; and fear of loneliness. (Read that list again and ask yourself which political party – and which special interest groups – cry out more to these impulses.) These are deep wounds and cannot be superficially treated. And blaming one parent or the other is not usually the point.

For me, healing was a long journey begun with the sudden realization that my parents are just people who make mistakes and who, like so many others today, were propagandized by a secular culture that knows nothing about men, women or children – and especially knows nothing about marriage and divorce. This ignorance goes back many decades. Our grandparents and even great grandparents came under its influence.

When Hollywood started the mass drumbeat for easy divorce, their message was simple: “Marriage is about happiness, and so if you are not happy, you are in a bad marriage. Bad marriages waste lives and hurt children, and so it’s better to divorce your spouse and seek a good marriage, because then you’ll be happy. And if you are happy then your very resilient children (who are really your pals) will be happy too. Because they want nothing more than your happiness. …”

That about sums it up. For how many decades have we seen movies involving divorced parents where the son or daughter is a wisecracking, well-adjusted kid who acts more like your best buddy at the office? More likely than not, the child is comforting the adult. Since we adults go to these movies, it’s not surprising that the plots are rooted in the notion that parental “happiness” is at the center of everything.

True love

Of course, children have not been entirely forgotten. Part of this devastating cultural message is that your newly found “happy marriage” (however many you go through to find it) will set an example to your children that they, too, can be happy if only they can find the ideal person. There are only two problems with this: no spouse is ideal, and marriage is not really about happiness.

I made the latter statement on HBO’s Bill Maher show and practically got booed out of the studio by the shocked audience. Many decades of lies about marriage made my statement too hard to hear. After all, says the pop culture, if marriage is not about your spouse making you happy, why get married?

It’s actually a great question, if only we dared to really ask it. I believe the traditional culture has the answer. You get married to learn what real love is (by way of your spouse, and your children if you have them). But – and here’s the clincher – if and when you do discover what real love for your spouse is, you also find real happiness and joy inside yourself, the kind no one can take away from you.

Remember, most 25-year-olds don’t yet know what love is. Until young marrieds learn that lesson, relationships can be hell because each spouse brings any number of flaws and even serious faults into the marriage. That is the real battle line – facing up to your spouse’s faults and still loving. And facing up to your own faults.

Marriage is not about being loved. It is about loving. Of course, with mutual love comes a special joy, but since it takes time to learn what real love is (it certainly did for me), commitment is the only real answer. It’s the vice grip that holds the two pieces together while the glue bonds.

If this were not true, no marriage would last because all marriages go through tunnels of unhappiness, whether from financial stress, personal doubt, sexual problems or whatever. But as the saying goes, there is light at the end of the tunnel. This is the essential wisdom of traditional “under-God” marriages – that there’s a higher right than our own wants. Without that understanding, nothing works.

Unfortunately, in the name of freedom and self-realization, society has increasingly rejected this worldview. After all, from a secularist’s point of view, physical life is the only “heaven” there is. There is nothing else to hope for, or work for, or long for. What you get in this life is all you are ever going to get. Thus, to give up your personal happiness is to turn your heaven into hell.

As I said, my mother is a decent person. Often secularists are not bad people, but they are deeply confused, and their confusion can be deadly when it comes to their children. This confusion has even affected the religious community. The pop culture’s propaganda is everywhere and has been for most of the last century. Not surprisingly, massive numbers of Christian families are blown apart by the “happiness myth.” This is especially ironic considering the Christian call to “take up your cross,” in other words, always to sacrifice yourself for the highest good – which paradoxically leads to the greatest and truest happiness.

I once counseled a Christian friend in Los Angeles who admitted to me that he’d been unfaithful to his wife. She found out – and he was distraught. I warned him that the pain he was feeling had a very dangerous other dimension to it. Instead of facing up to what he’d done to his family, he might start to deny it – by rationalizing that the “other woman” was his true love – and that his children were resilient and would understand.

He then admitted to me that he didn’t feel loved by his wife, and that he felt he deserved to experience this happiness. Of course, it is wonderful to be loved, but as I said above, the object of marriage is to love, not to be loved. Which is what I told him. Sadly for his wife and children, the call to being “loved” and being “happy” was too strong for him, and so were the culture’s lies about resilient children.

My friend turned a bad situation into a family disaster. He couldn’t see the truth of what he was doing, putting his own wants first – the exact opposite of what parents must do, which is to deny themselves. Good husbands and wives must follow the same principle. Otherwise, the marriage descends into I-me-mine-ism. And the first thing to go is genuine family unity.

Thus, marriage is about commitment – in the same way that having children is about commitment. Hold tight until the glue has solidified. In the context of a tight-knit family, children grow strong and secure. As I tell my friends who grew up with two loving parents under the same roof, they can’t even grasp how different they are from people like me. It’s just a plain fact.

The heroic parent

One of my favorite examples of “family” (although they had no children) is the story of newlyweds John and Mary Scully. They were both attorneys in San Francisco, victims of that terrible law firm shooting in the mid-1990s. A gunman found his way in and started killing people. The Scullys sought each other in the chaos, as the madman went from office to office. Cries of anguish could be heard down the hallway as loud shots rang out. The Scullys hid behind a desk, but the killer found them. As he raised his gun to shoot them both, John quickly threw his body over Mary’s. Most of the bullets found John. Mary was wounded in the arm. Her 28-year-old husband died that she might live. Later she remarried, and now has the children they never had together. In a way, of course, they are John’s children too.

John is a hero. He did the fatherly and manly thing, but this is no negative reflection on Mary. Men are expected to make that sacrifice and women are expected to let them. Does that make women cowards? Not at all. If Mary had been there with a young son, we would all expect her to do the same thing to save the life of her child. Denying “self” is the essence of parenting (and the essence of responsibility). Imagine Mary hiding behind her child in such a situation. Imagine John hiding behind Mary, and letting her take the bullets. The very thought makes us cringe.

This indicates not only the proper order of gender responsibility, it’s also a statement of genuine love – the only real kind – self-sacrificial. Yes, there is an order to sacrifice. Children expect you to sacrifice for them, and not the other way around. Like it or not, it comes with the territory of parenting – “women and children first,” as the saying goes. Of course, this attitude would put divorce lawyers pretty much out of business, except in the most extreme cases.

So our forefathers and mothers weren’t so stupid after all. The great wisdom of building a family is that you stay together for the sake of the children if for no other reason. And yet, there is another very precious reason, another wisdom that results in a fulfilling life.

Marriage forces us to face ourselves. I say this as an adult child of divorce who has had a great deal to face. My wife is also from a divorced (and glamorous) family, with additional troubles brought on by parental alcoholism. We both lived the youthful lie – and we are both finding our way out of it. Thankfully, the truth is revealed to us in doses we can tolerate, each of which gives us strength for future revelations.

If we are to learn to love each other, we must deal honestly with the battle going on within us all. Marriages are not perfect. Parents are not perfect, and they don’t create perfect children. These imperfect children become troubled adults and inevitably they bring their troubles into their marriages. That’s the way it is. Sorry. Nobody ever said life was easy, and nobody intelligent ever said marriage was about happiness. I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a happy experience to stay up all night with a cranky baby while you’re worried about job stresses and paying the bills. A great movie line from “The Princess Bride” sums it up for me: Life is pain and anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

The entire question is how we handle that pain. The foolish media culture is out there telling us we deserve to be “happy,” and that if we are not, we must make changes or life will pass us by. My heart breaks for the 30-year-olds who don’t know enough not to listen to these old lies – young people who don’t know that life is a wonderful yet painful battle. And that engaging in “the good fight” (as the Bible calls it) with a lifetime spouse is not only what we are called to do for each other’s sake, but is ultimately the only path that creates healthy children, whose mothers and fathers may argue in the next room, but who never give up on each other or on the sanctity of their marriage vows.

Still, I can’t say it enough: We must reject judgment in all of this. We must never give up our right to say divorce is wrong, but we must avoid condemning the people involved.

I have learned not only to forgive my parents, but also to genuinely love and honor them. It wasn’t an easy path. I was the classic “angry young man.” In truth, I actually hated life (something it me took years to realize). After my parents’ divorce, life seemed like a huge bear trap, with jaws ready to close on me at any moment. But now I’ve changed. Now, even in the midst of life’s inevitable pain, I am so glad to be alive and to be the son of my parents – all five of them – and to be the grandson of their parents on both sides of my family. I do not judge any of them, especially as I understand the confusing power of the false things they believed.

I have also grown to know my own faults, which helps to put the mistakes of my parents, including my stepparents, in a very soft light. I am grateful for their myriad good qualities, and for the many ways in which they blessed me. But more simply and fundamentally I honor them for giving me the incredible gift of life, and for making the many and varied sacrifices necessary to help fulfill that original gift.

Still and finally, it must be said: The real heroes of the family struggle are those that reject divorce. Let us honor especially those parents, the ones who stayed together for the sake of the children. Let children rejoice in such parents, and honor them to the end of their days. And let the whole country – even the secular culture – honor them as well.

Something worth earnest prayer.

Related special offer: Whistleblower magazine’s March issue is devoted, cover-to-cover, to a stunning journalistic exploration of marriage and divorce. Subscribe to Whisteblower or order a copy of the March issue!

I’ve always liked the “for Dummies” publishing concept since, let’s face it, at one time or another we all need to have an issue made simple for us. It seems that the Iraq War is one of those issues – thanks in great part to the Democrats and the “old media.”

Far from “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” George W. Bush’s decision to go into Iraq was positively brilliant. To help voters to understand the president’s bold and historic decision on the Iraq War, consider what he faced in 2002.

First, remember the basics, Iraq was a nation ruled by a vicious, megalomaniacal dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction, who had many reasons to hate America with a passion, and who also controlled one of the largest oil reserves in this oil-starved world, giving him the political leverage and the financial clout necessary to develop new WMDs. In other words, sooner or later, Saddam would make WMDs, and he was absolutely mad enough to use them – especially if he could avoid retaliation by employing terrorists for the attack.

Second, think of Syria, Iraq and Iran as a big chain – three enemy nations linked territorially, spreading across the middle of the Middle East from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

Imagine the significance of these three linked nations: all of them hostile to the United States, and all of them in one way or another giving aid and comfort to terrorists of different stripes. The center link of this dangerous chain was Iraq, and it was this link that President Bush smashed in the spring of 2003.

The Middle East changed nearly overnight.

The fall of Saddam’s Iraq had the effect of immediately isolating the two other terror states, Syria and Iran, and totally undermining their sense of security. Already Syria is showing signs of buckling under this pressure. Iran, the terror capital of the world, is under a magnifying glass (and undoubtedly worrying about four more years of Bush).

It’s amazing to think that only two years ago this “terror chain” of nations felt safe in the knowledge that American armies were far, far away. Whereas now just across the border lies a fully modern military force of well over 100,000 men – backed by the same ground, air, and sea-based arsenal that had overwhelmed Afghanistan in months, and Iraq in weeks.

Gone now is the Syria-Iraq-Iran “terror chain,” and gone is the security these terror states had previously enjoyed. Gone also is their pretence to legitimacy and power, because now as President Bush says, “freedom is on the march” – and because the biggest bully of them all is in prison. And so might they be soon. It’s hard to rattle your saber with a knife at your throat.

However, understanding the Iraq War is only the beginning of understanding Bush’s remarkable leadership in both recognizing the danger of 9-11 and acting forcefully.

The essential threat

To understand President Bush’s success as commander in chief in 2003 and 2004, we need only consider the situation we faced not long before. America was confronted by a military threat, never seen before in history. Sept. 11, 2001, didn’t begin this threat; it simply forced the American people to confront the full-blown reality of it (at least, those of us who were willing to do so).

An enemy attempted to decapitate our democratic republic. (Just imagine if the terrorists had succeeded in their plan to destroy our Capitol building – not to mention other buildings had they gone ahead with their larger plans.) In this moment of history, our leadership needed to face not only the direct threat of al-Qaida but also the larger implications of 9-11: This was an act of war, but the terrorists themselves were only part of the larger strategic picture.

History will show that one American political party had the courage to see this threat. The other major party ultimately didn’t. One party acted consistently, and the other vacillated. Luckily for America, the party in power is the one that understood why the Iraq War is the epicenter of the War on Terror.

Take a look at the big picture. There are three essential ingredients that make up this historic threat (which truly may define your future):

1. The reality of terror nations, those who would do us harm if they could and who cooperate with terrorists

2. The existence of weapons of mass destruction, which terror nations can purchase or develop over time

3. And the reality of a global terrorist network, capable of acting as an untraceable WMD “delivery system” for these terror states.

When President Bush warns us that we cannot afford any kind of “catastrophic” terror attack on the United States he is trying to help us understand the nature of this new war.

It can never be just a “nuisance,” as Kerry implied, because all it takes is one hostile terror state, one small band of terrorists, and one deployable weapon of mass destruction. That’s enough for disaster to strike. America could lose a city, and hundreds of thousands – even millions – of its citizens. That kind of mass death would be unthinkable – yet George W. Bush faced exactly this possibility on Sept. 12, 2001.

This more than any other issue will define the world in which we will all grow old. If you are not afraid, you are not paying attention. And yet, the bold offensive President Bush has undertaken is also our best hope to help the Middle East choose freedom over radicalism, and end the reign of terrorism, which has thrived for decades in that region.

Just as Reagan confronted the Soviet Union, it was essential for Bush to end the era of “terror states.” They had to be destroyed (Iraq) or disarmed (Libya), but even that was not enough. Weeds need to be pulled out by the root. An alternative had to be offered, or terror states would spring back over time. Liberty had to be established to supplant terror, both in the streets and in the capitals of the Middle East. Let the people freely decide.

If it’s a “long shot,” then it’s a world-shaking long shot – and deserves the full, unified support of the American people.

Remember, this is a political war as well as a military one – on our side as well as theirs. As I said in a previous commentary, the terrorists cannot beat our military so they must beat our people psychologically. Conversely, we must fight politically as well; we cannot stop every terrorist malcontent but we can offer a greater dream to the people of terror nations. And this dream was desperately needed by the dawning of the 21st century.

In fact, the moderates of the Middle East, having been intimidated into silence by radical Islamists, needed a two-fold boost. They needed to be the emissaries of a “better way of life” than the radicals offered, and most importantly, they needed to be stronger. In other words, they needed a powerful force behind them, one more intimidating than the masked Islamist intimidators. Without a confident force behind them how could they hope to win out over terrorism?

The people of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) had to know that there was now a genuine alternative to the terrorist/terror-state network and its endless cycle of anger and violence. They needed a radical shift in the balance of power. They needed to see the bully himself get bullied by a force that could not only strike hard, but could take continual hits and come back – and continually come back – to destroy the Islamist enemy by day or by night, city by city, block by block

Muslim moderates (freedom fighters, really) needed to see true grit from us, because that would mean there was real hope for the future.

But then, for Americans to stand fast in winning this war in Iraq, we have to be unified here at home. This may not happen, but if we lose this war, you’ll never hear the real reason from the “old media.” It won’t be George W. Bush. It won’t be the missing WMD, or “insufficient” troop numbers. Nor will it be that we couldn’t stop the violence in the Sunni Triangle. It won’t be because Iraqis won’t fight for freedom, or because al-Qaida was too strong. And for sure it won’t be America’s fighting forces that are the problem.

If you are wondering what it will be that defeats us, just read up on Vietnam. Every decade we declare the Vietnam Syndrome is dead. But that defeatist attitude won’t ever leave us until we recognize the appeasers among us for what they are. We could have been unified in this fight, but we are not.

Shame on the Kerry Democrats who have been undermining the war effort with their constant, politically motivated criticism!

On the other hand, if George Bush wins this election, perhaps freedom will indeed be established in Iraq, and maybe – just maybe – the Democratic Party will apologize for dividing the country when we most needed unity – and for almost losing the war.

But don’t hold your breath.

Something ominous has occurred over the last few decades, and we are paying a terrible price for allowing it to happen.

The courts have become the primary agency of self-definition in America. Our gridlocked legislators are now close to irrelevant. Of course, the media still have tremendous power, but they can only “propose.” It is the courts that “dispose” – they decide. And their misguided moral decisions over the years have proven to be disastrous. So much so that it can be said the legal system is now the greatest threat to America’s future. However, if you were a casual observer of the political scene, you’d never know it, thanks to our clueless media elite. And they’re not the only ones at fault.

The American elite in general has betrayed this country. Its members have left the public in a condition of almost total ignorance of our catastrophic situation. Their primary historic responsibility has always been to warn of danger and guard the essential ethics of our civilization. They have done neither.

Most Americans are uncomfortable with the word “elite,” but without some kind of guardian class, a group’s code of conduct is totally vulnerable to subversion. Doctors have the American Medical Association to stop those who falsely claim to be doctors. Lawyers have the American Bar Association to protect the essentials of the legal profession. But who defends Americans from those who falsely claim to adhere to our basic tenets – from those who falsely claim to be American? The two political parties used to do that. The elite in the media, academia, and the social elite in Washington and elsewhere used to be guardians. But who sounds the alarm at danger now?

The Republicans try, but the Democrats effectively neutralize them by contradicting (for political gain) everything the GOP says. And the intellectual elite shrugs as if both parties are equally credible – or equally incredible. Remember the Cold War? The media did the same thing, acting as if there was moral equivalence between the United States and an atheist Soviet Union. Well, there was no moral equivalence between those two systems – as history has fully revealed – and there is no moral equivalence between our two political parties either. One stands on the solid ground of tried and true principles, and the other stands on shifting sands of moral relativism, where current fashion dictates behavior.

These “two Americas” are headed for a monumental clash. Add the War on Terror to that, and the situation is even more dangerous than the Cold War, when at least we were reasonably unified against an outside force. Now there is no unity – nor any real prospect of it. We’re stuck with our two major parties, who are themselves waging “cold war,” one party representing an America most of us still recognize, and one representing an America we’ve never seen before in our history – an imposter nation (still pretending to be mainstream) increasingly embedded within this great nation of ours. I still hope for reconciliation, as do most traditional Americans, although the prospect of that is more and more remote. The American system of government seems almost defenseless against the internal hostility we see in the news almost every single day.

What do the citizens of this “imposter nation” believe? It is hard to tell. Of course, they can’t define right or wrong with any clarity. They can’t even define marriage. They cannot define patriotism (love of country) because they can’t define either “love” or “country.” They reject serious borders. They are at best confused about the war – and at worst, they are America-hating appeasers, ready to withdraw. They reject America’s unique place in history – something that helps define our very being. In fact, they reject Americans who hold any traditional views: They reject traditional faith, family, and in the end, they reject freedom, which they have redefined as being able to do whatever you want – in other words, rights without clearly defined responsibilities, without a reliable moral code.

The majority of Americans reject this nihilistic worldview, but the secular left presses on with the support of a clueless elite. They have one reliable weapon – the courts. Secularists are is in the process of overriding the firmly held beliefs of the majority by way of judicial fiat. Laws are no longer made to support historical America. Instead, judges make law in order to establish this new country within a country. We are losing an understanding of who we are and what we believe.

In his Farewell Address, Ronald Reagan warned us against the “eradication of the American memory.” Well, it’s happening. We are losing our identity. And this makes it almost impossible for us to lead the free world, or to even defend ourselves from terrorists who do not love the idea of liberty.

We’ve never faced such a dangerous enemy while being so poorly united here at home. We have become a family with two parents who increasingly have nothing in common, and worse, one of those parents hates the other and is effectively suing for divorce. But it’s about more than separation: Each parent wants the house – and custody of the children. One or the other will win.

Turning point

Now is a time of decision. We must choose who we are as a people. Voters will soon be going to the polls to actually pick a country. Sadly, most of us don’t really know that in fact this is what we are doing. Some conservatives, preoccupied by legitimate complaints about certain Bush decisions, are actually thinking of “third-party” voting. In an election where every vote counts this would be a disaster, not just because a vote for a conservative third party candidate would be a vote for John Kerry (and age-old argument against third parties) but even more because George Bush is absolutely the right man for the job. I believe he is essential to our future. Here’s why.

George W. Bush understands the choice our nation faces, just as Ronald Reagan understood it. I think President Bush knows that we have reached the pivot point in America’s effort to reclaim itself from 20th-century secularism. In his farewell address, President Reagan further warned Americans that although there was a resurgence of patriotism in America, it would not take hold unless we institutionalized this “new patriotism.” It couldn’t last if it was only a matter of popular opinion because the entrenched secular establishment described above would resist. Reagan knew we had to fight for America. And now that fight is fully joined.

Conservatives reading this must understand: A Bush defeat would be touted as a defeat of Reaganism. The similarities between the two presidents are startling. Both confronted and challenged the world to seek freedom over statism (secular or religious). Both encouraged the world to “the better angels of our nature.” And both are Christian in their worldview. This put them at odds with the secular liberal establishment, particularly the modern Democratic Party, which has increasingly turned its back on America’s Judeo-Christian traditions (dismissing them as matters of private belief, irrelevant to public policy).

Just listen to Ronald Wilson Reagan talking to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983, his famous “Evil Empire” speech. This is the Reagan you won’t hear about from the secular media:

“I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities – the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

“Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.”

None of us has to guess which party most fits that description – and which party doesn’t. The two major parties, in their social-political views, represent two entirely different nations – one is uncomfortable with the idea of a nation “under God,” and one is inspired by it, inspired by what Reagan called “the rule of law under God.” Most liberals do not understand the political significance of rejecting Reagan’s view. They don’t realize that once we are under “law” rooted in nothing more than human whim (national or global), we are following the exact same dangerous path of Communism and Nazism, two secular systems of government that ended up “lawfully” murdering multi-millions of people.

A great deal is at stake. Think of George W. Bush as a “general” in the current struggle to reclaim America from secularism. He is the commander in chief and he is acting like one. He is picking his battles, prioritizing his “troop placement” and avoiding being drawn into battles that might distract from the larger victory, without which all is lost. And that means the courts. A man like that does not come along very often. That is why liberals hate him just exactly as they hated Ronald Reagan. They hate Bush’s confidence. They hate his faith – which they do not understand. But most of all they hate his decisive way of thinking – his logical mind – which is an anathema to the confused, consensus-driven, emotionalized thinking of PC secularists.

President Bush is a typical “bottom line” guy, not just because of his business background, but because he was trained that way as far back as his traditional prep school. Not everyone learns the lesson but he clearly did. You can tell, not only by listening to him but also by looking at the people with whom he surrounds himself – Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the like. These people are traditional thinkers. Emotions do not rule over them. They are cool under fire – all of them. Just read Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem “If” and you will know how these people were educated – whether in public school or private.

They believe there is truth, and that truth is expressed in fixed principles. They guide their thinking by these principles. This allows a person to know what’s essential and what is non-essential in achieving goals. It allows a person to choose those goals wisely in the first place – and then pursue them wisely and aggressively. And this, coupled with faith, is what gives Bush and his loyalists that personal “confidence,” which the left finds so annoying (and which is so dangerous to our global enemies). Bush, like Reagan before him, is a man on a mission, and like Reagan, he has established his priorities. The attacks of 9-11 added to those priorities but they did not subtract from the essential one – stopping the ever-growing judicial tyranny.

“We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God,” Bush said after the 9th Circuit rejection of the “under God” Pledge of Allegiance. Bush had already declared during his 2000 campaign that he would appoint “strict constructionists” and not judges who “write social policy” from the bench.

You cannot fully understand George W. Bush as a president unless you understand this priority. I believe that President Bush decided long ago that the only way to win this fight was to win it by giving America new judges, men and women who adhered to historical interpretation of the Constitution and want to leave law-making to legislators, where “the will of the majority” is accurately ascertained and expressed. The secular judges who seek to build the new “imposter nation” are perfectly willing to make things up as they go along – because as secularists, they do not believe in truth. Truth is what they say it is. Let’s face it: We are frighteningly close to having a Supreme Court willing to establish itself as God – the final moral arbiter of right and wrong.

George Bush has realized that we don’t need mere nominal conservatives on the court; we need genuine, believing conservatives who serve a truth higher than themselves. That’s why the liberal Democrats are in a tizzy trying to stop him (and it’s going to get a lot worse). They don’t mind a “Christian” on the court as long as he or she doesn’t actually “believe that stuff.” Devout Catholics, for example, need not apply. For secularists, people like Bush are “ideologues” (a buzzword for “believer”). They know that with a president like George W. Bush in power they cannot hope for the appointment of “liberal-lite,” secular conservatives or “Chinos” (Christians in name only).

If you object to the idea of “Chinos,” remember your history: Adolf Hitler had no problem with “Christians” who would accept him as Messiah, what the Nazis called “Positive Christianity” or “German Christianity.” Many thousands of “Chinos” did accept him in that way, exchanging the cross for the swastika. This really happened; they even tossed out most of the Bible as too “Jewish.”

Along with his hatred for Jews (who were given no “opportunity” to convert to Naziism), Hitler’s problem was with Bible-based Christians who actually believed that stuff. In other words, Christians who believed there was a higher authority than the Nazi state. A modern American version of this age-old struggle is going on now. Consider Robert Reich’s recent rejection of Americans who believe in a higher authority than government. A prominent Democrat, and Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, Reich’s not kidding.

Again, the simple and very ancient question: Is the state God, or is the state “under God?” You can be sure of George Bush’s answer, just as you were sure of Ronald Reagan’s.

Look at the men and women Bush has nominated as federal appellate judges. Now imagine what a Bush Supreme Court would look like. The left knows this, and feels seriously threatened. After more than 100 years of quietly aggressive secularism, they know Americans are waking up. They know that Bush is serious in his efforts and that he will persist. Yes, he will compromise as he did with the Senate Judiciary Committee recently, but not on essentials. Watch for the Supreme Court battle to come if there’s a conservative victory this November.

Despite congressional efforts, I do not believe this country can avoid being overwhelmed by the new “PC Amerika” unless we start replacing their politically correct judges with our own more traditional judges. Bush clearly knows this and has set a course of action just as any general would.

He keeps the primary domestic goal in front of him at all times – winning the “culture war,” which as others have pointed out is actually the struggle between radical secularism and America’s Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, inevitably, President Bush is going to disappoint many people by his unwillingness to fight battles that could keep him from winning this larger war. And yes, that means some very important issues will get thrown over the side, whether it’s federal spending or illegal immigration or so-called assault rifles. All of these are crucial issues, but ironically, none of them will matter if we continue to have judges who legislate from the bench in a “progressive” effort to change America under force of law.

Conservatives (Christian or otherwise) need to pay attention to this. No matter how precious your political priority, it must be considered in the light of the larger struggle. Any issue that allows radical secularists (Christian or otherwise) to undermine President Bush’s political credibility, anything that loses him important allies, or takes serious energy or focus away from his top priorities becomes an enemy of the primary goal – to save America from those who would use the court system to redefine our political soul without our permission.

Thus President Bush must not be drawn into political battles he cannot win – or those where victory will not help him win the essential struggle to reclaim America for the people. He must keep his eye on “the ball,” and that means the judges. That’s not part of the ball. That is the whole ball – and the only thing that competes with it when it comes to the survival of traditional America is the War on Terror. We cannot lose either fight.

So pick your party, pick your man, and pick your country. It’s your future.

“Proclaim Liberty

throughout all the land

unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

Note: This verse is inscribed on the Liberty Bell, which was rung in Philadelphia to call citizens to Independence Hall to hear a public reading of the new Declaration of Independence.

July 4th is the day to shine our car headlights for Ronald Reagan’s beloved “Shining City,” this country we call America. I was gratified to see the public response to this idea reported in WorldNetDaily in the days after Ronald Reagan’s passing. Thanks also to “Fox & Friends,” Sean Hannity, Barry Farber, Joseph Farah and many others who got the word out on the air, headlights were shining across America as we headed for Independence Day.

This is the day it has all been for. By shining our headlights on July 4th we honor what President Reagan honored, the true meaning of American liberty – and that it’s precious and fragile. In his Farewell Address to the American people, Ronald Reagan warned of the “eradication of the American memory,” which he said could bring about “the erosion of the American spirit.” Remembering the real significance of this special day is a good start on establishing what Reagan called a “new patriotism.”

Today we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a distinctly “religious” document using famous phrases like “the laws of nature and nature’s God” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the Declaration is also a political and legal document, because we had no right even to create a constitution unless we could claim a higher authority than King George III who represented the supreme law of the land. We were, after all, a British colony. Our answer was clear: God was our authority and His liberty was our cause.

Historical recognition is an important part of the July 4th celebration, but Independence Day is – most importantly – a day to recognize that faith in God is central to America’s political character.

Reagan understood this. He knew that faith is what made this country (and what made her great). He was also deeply concerned that Americans would forget their “under God” heritage due to a powerful and influential secular culture – for whom patriotism meant something entirely different than what it meant to our forefathers.

The Ronald Reagan who declared 1983 “The Year of the Bible” was a man we won’t hear much about in this secular culture. That same year Reagan gave his famous “Evil Empire” speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, and it was about a great deal more than the evil Soviet Union. Reagan knew that the Christian audience he addressed that evening fully understood the significance of Independence Day – and the unique place the American people had in the world. But he wanted them to understand his own heart on these matters – and to take comfort in knowing their president also understood the dangers of secularism, which even back then was undermining our religious heritage at every opportunity.

“I want you to know,” Reagan told the gathering, “that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities – the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

“Now, I don’t have to tell you,” he went on, “that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.”

Even more than 20 years later, I believe President Reagan is still right that determined secularists are a minority in America. Yes, there are many people who do not grasp the true significance of the Declaration, but I believe the majority of Americans understand full well what Reagan stood for, and what I am saying here. When Reagan called for a “new patriotism,” it was a shining city patriotism he was talking about – not a secular patriotism, which will inevitably accept the state as God, the final moral arbiter of right and wrong.

Reagan’s America was an “under God” America. Our history and traditions make no sense unless they are understood in this way. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights come from God. As I’ve said, without the Declaration, there is no Constitution, but without God, there is no Declaration.

America started a political revolution in this world when people stood up and proclaimed liberty as a thing given by God for the sake of all of mankind. Thus it is our responsibility to shine the light of freedom, and to understand the significance of this calling.

Today is the first Independence Day we celebrate together since Ronald Reagan’s passing. Although toward the end, President Reagan’s mind had faded, his heart still beat – and we all took comfort in that. Now the man is truly gone, but we have our memories, and the one that’s strongest for me is not his victory in the Cold War, but his vision that America is still the “Shining City” envisioned by John Winthrop. This country is a beacon of light, with a distinct biblical mission to “proclaim liberty throughout the land” – and throughout the world. In this sense, it is undeniable that America is exceptional as a nation. Reagan understood that and urged Americans to always remember our special mission as that “shining city upon a hill.”

Consciously or unconsciously, secular America wants to forget this reality. I’m sure secularists wish July 4th celebrated some other document – like the Constitution, truly America’s political heart. But the Declaration of Independence is America’s political soul – without which we also die. Any country can write a constitution (even the Soviet Union had a high-minded-sounding constitution). But proclaiming liberty under God is another matter entirely. And there is too little understanding of that in our society. President Reagan knew this.

Reagan’s farewell warning to America

When Ronald Wilson Reagan was leaving office he gave the American people a final warning, as other presidents had done going all the way back to George Washington. You can guess at what he considered essential. It was not a warning about excessive taxation, or staying militarily strong, or about civil rights, as important as all those are, but a warning about maintaining our essential American identity, something always under attack by those who want to change our identity in the name of progress.

I had the occasion to meet Ronald Reagan when a group I belonged to gave him the Teach Freedom Award for his farewell warning to the American people. As head of the group, I promised him that we would do what we could ourselves to promote this important warning.

Hear are the words of Ronald Reagan. Let us pray we all heed them.

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I’ve got one that’s been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I’m proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won’t count for much, and it won’t last unless it’s grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn’t get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-’60s.

But now, we’re about to enter the ’90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven’t reinstitutionalized it. We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection.

So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion, but what’s important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, “We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.” Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.

Let’s start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that’s about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.

And that’s how I see it, and how millions upon millions of Americans still see it. So proclaim liberty throughout the land! Shine your headlights to remind your family, your friends, and your community that America is exceptional – not because Americans are a special people, but because we’ve been given a special gift – liberty.

I’ll leave you with my favorite Ronald Reagan quote: “God bless America.”

]]> http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/07/25406/feed/ 0 http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/05/24747/ http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/05/24747/#comments Tue, 25 May 2004 01:00:00 +0000 Bob Just http://wp.wnd.com/?p=24747

Imagine you’ve got a Muslim neighbor who is actually a radical, but hasn’t yet revealed to you his inner radical thoughts. He may seem like a nice family-oriented, hard-working, reliable guy, but then at a barbecue he tells his private view that the “worldwide Jewish movement” is the embodiment of evil, and that Israel must be destroyed.

One moment you think he’s a reasonably normal guy, and a moment later you realize he lives in a very dark world. Still, there he is, smiling at you while he flips a burger and offers you another cold soda.

That’s what it felt like for me recently to read a quote by the French ambassador to Britain. According to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, the ambassador said Israel was a “[expletive] little country … why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?”

With this as the sentiment of a major ambassador from a major Western country, could a global betrayal of Israel be far off? Indeed, a European Commission poll reported that 59 percent of its democracies thought that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace.

Skeptics might ask how the world could possibly turn against Israel with America as her staunch ally? After all, we are the world’s only superpower. The answer lies within America itself, specifically the Democratic Party – the “blue state” half of the country. A paradigm shift is occurring – one that will affect not only Israel’s security, but America’s as well. Howard Dean’s famous comment about not taking sides between Israel and the Palestinians was directed at the many radical Palestinian sympathizers in the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” a group that will become increasingly vocal as the war on terror continues.

Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is alive and well as a political force – and so is appeasement. The two will combine, and my Democratic Party will soon betray Israel. It may not be an overt betrayal. It may come in a thousand cuts rather than with a single blow. But it will come.

All this is more than a hunch on my part. It has to do with core values. One party has them, and the other doesn’t. The Democratic Party’s leaders may look like traditional Americans. They may say they support Israel. They may “stand with our troops” in Iraq. They may go to church and take communion. They may even sing, “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps – but increasingly their inner thought life is not what it seems to be.

Inside they seethe at “red state” America. We watch the weird, angry behavior of prominent Democrats like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean or even John Kerry and we scratch our heads in wonder. Who are these people? What are they thinking? What caused all this anger, and why is it directed at fellow Americans? The furious fringe is taking over the party. They are solidified in their sense of victimhood. They aren’t looking for compromise, but for total victory – revenge almost – in fulfilling their vision for a new America, one that has nothing to do with biblical Christianity or Judaism, the pumping heart of true Americanism.

Last November, famous Soviet Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky wrote a piece for Commentary Magazine in which he made clear that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were related. Both express hostility toward the “moral clarity” of Jews and Christians and their shared love of liberty. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is increasingly evident both globally and locally – and you’ll find them both in my angry Democratic Party!

Now here’s the sobering reality: Defeating “angry leftists” at the polls does not solve our problem any more than disarming a crazy person makes him a safe roommate. If I am right that the Democrats (under current leadership) are no longer an American party in any traditional sense, then this has massive implications for our two-party system – which depends on mutual respect and common goals. It’s as if Israel were forced to accept radical Palestinians from Gaza as voting members of the Jewish state. Needless to say, shared power combined with radically opposing agendas would spell disaster.

Democracy is too vulnerable a system to withstand an entrenched and determined hostility, serving no higher purpose than itself. Whether or not you call this treachery hardly matters. The end result is the same – conflict, not compromise.

Everyone is talking about the growing red-state /blue-state divide in America. The words “parallel universe” have even been used to describe the two ethics that dominate our political scene. To put it simply, the red side believes in “one nation, under God,” and the blue side doesn’t. We think rights come from our Creator, they think rights come from our government. We think there are moral absolutes, they think everything is relative, including the Constitution.

Yes, a paradigm shift is in process, a change in national political character that could destroy any hope of national security – from winning the global war on terror to defending our interests in the Middle East, including Israel, to defending our borders right here at home. The “PC” movement that Newsweek famously called “totalitarian” in 1990 is alive and well – and now controls one of our two major parties.

In “Fascism, corruption and my ‘Democratic’ Party”
– written before the 2000 election – I use expressions like “fascism” and “cold civil war” to make the point that America faces an immediate and very real danger from within – a growing anti-traditional, “party first” mentality among “Clinton Democrats” that would stop at nothing to achieve power and remake America in their politically correct image. Although the attacks of 9-11 seemed to inspire the “new patriotism” Ronald Reagan sought, in the end nothing really changed.

Witness how my party acted during the Iraq War – undermining the president at every opportunity – even while knowing America’s terrorist enemies were taking comfort in words like “liar” and “fraud” and “regime change.” It was a very sad thing to watch for those of us who remember a different Democratic Party. At this point, our only hope is for the public to wake up to what is happening. It won’t be easy – for reasons I’ll explain – but traditional Democrats can turn the tide by blowing the whistle on our own party.

Mainstream Democrats, especially Jews, better start understanding what is at work here. Time is running out. This political party, which still smiles at you and offers you “a cold soda,” sadly no longer thinks like you do, or shares the same loyalties.

Now here is our big problem. These Democrats don’t need to win elections the usual way. All they need to do is solidify their angry base – then entrench like an occupying army – and wait until Americans are desperate for a political “change.” No one can break the stranglehold of a party that has a solid 40-45 percent base (as some experts claim), and few moral limits.

First, there’s no oxygen for a third party, at least not for one that has any chance of winning the presidency. But, meanwhile, these anti-traditional Democrats can undermine the system. They can quietly block legitimate votes in the Senate; they can noisily filibuster judges; they can emotionalize debate, use their power to politicize and subvert committees, force damaging scandal hearings – and do all this while networking with their secular media allies to pressure the public. They can campaign perpetually, wage the politics of personal destruction – they can infiltrate, obfuscate, accuse, demoralize and defeat at every opportunity. Call it permanent gridlock – a wrestling stranglehold just waiting for the pin.

It doesn’t sound very American, does it?

Related columns by Bob Just:

The essential Mr. Bush, 2004

Fascism, corruption and my ‘Democratic’ Party

Most Americans have at least one Bible in their home. Most don’t read it, or don’t read it very much. In all likelihood that means you, or someone you know. Strangely, polls have shown that a huge percentage of Americans believe the Bible is the word of God but don’t have time to read it. No kidding. Either we must think God has nothing to say to us, or something else is going on.

First off, be assured I am not going to ask you to become a Bible scholar. I am not going to ask you to take umpteen Bible study classes, or memorize chapter and verse. All of those are good things – but they’re not for everyone. Most of us need a simpler approach.

The Bible is about relationship. It’s about you (with all your discouraging flaws) – and about God (who seeks to encourage you). We should go to the Bible as we go to an old friend, or to a loving parent. But that’s not reality for most people.

Let’s face it: That “big thick book” intimidates us. We act like it’s a school book and we’re going to be tested on everything we read – as if being “saved” meant being a “scholar.” Our fear of fears is that if we don’t understand the Bible, then there’s something deeply, spiritually wrong with us – maybe even that God doesn’t love us, but saves His love for the learned. Yet, the opposite is true. Jesus thanks His Father for making the Faith for regular people.

Ironically, considering all our fears, this ancient spiritual manuscript called the Bible is not some high-toned, intellectual textbook, but rather a storybook full of very human adventures, full of heroes as well as people who continually make a mess of things – and often the two together! It’s actually fun to read once you get past your Bible trauma. Here’s the key:

Don’t worry if the Bible is hard to understand. What you need for now will be there for you and will be understandable. Don’t expect some big revelation though. It may be only some small insight or oddly interesting bit of history. But on some level, it will feed your desire to relate to God. After all, it is His-story. Eventually, you’ll want to know more. So let me repeat this essential point: Don’t worry about what you don’t understand. If you read 10 verses and understand only one – you win! A little goes a long, long way.

Ultimately, the Bible is amazing because truth is amazing. The Bible is not only adventurous; it’s also touching, meaningful, instructive, ironic, sarcastic, humorous, gentle and stern – and ultimately both spiritual and human at the same time. It is also strangely modern despite its ancient text.

The Bible has been called God’s love letter to us, and yet, the majority of Americans don’t read it. If this is true for you, consider the following. The Bible could become something entirely different for you – something that can change your life in the most wonderful ways.

The impossible Bible

The main thing you really need to know is that the Bible is a “living thing” with an ability to relate to you personally – on the basis of your current needs. Simply put, the Bible is a miracle. I am not exaggerating. Let me prove it to you.

The first question a professional writer asks when given an assignment is, “Who am I talking to?” It is the key to getting started. In fact, you can’t get started if you do not know the answer to that one simple question. Unless you know who your reader is going to be you can hardly know how to approach your assignment.

If an editor tells me to write an article about love, that’s clear enough as far as the general subject, but the assignment changes completely depending on the reader. If I know I am writing to teenagers or if I am writing to middle aged married couples, my writing style changes – and so does my content. The less you know who your audience is, the more difficult the assignment. You can’t even be sure how to choose your words properly. Are you writing to highly educated people or are you writing to someone with an eighth-grade education? Or how about the references you make in writing? Are you writing to city or country folk? Sound difficult? Believe me, it is. Well, let’s make it harder.

Now imagine this editor tells you he wants you to write about love in a way that works not only for Americans but works even when translated for people of other countries. You’re thinking Europe with its Judeo-Christian roots, but your editor is more ambitious. He wants your article to work in all foreign lands, wherever he can sell it. Consider the difficulty of this: Asian cultures, African cultures, Islamic cultures, Buddhist cultures, Hindu cultures – and regional cultures within those cultures must also be considered. You must write for them all – and write effectively!

Impossible you say?

Fine, but your editor is not moved by your objections. He has other demands. Not only should everyone in today’s world understand your book (he’s decided it should be a book), he also wants you to write something that will be relevant a hundred years from now. In fact, he really wants something timeless, but even he knows that’s impossible. Can you even imagine what American culture will be like in 100 years? How about 1,000 years from now? Now imagine writing for people living many thousands of years from now, and it will give you a little idea of why I tell people that from a writer’s perspective the Bible can’t be written in any normal human way. Nor can it be read “normally.”

It is truly a miraculous document.

Consider that the Bible was written for all people, of all backgrounds, of all education levels. It was written for all races, colors, creeds and cultures. It was written for people thousands of years ago and for people who will live many years into the future.

But even more!

It is also written for you as you are now, as you were when you were a teenager, and as you’ll be when you are old. It’s written for all the personalities of all the billions of people in all of existence. God wouldn’t leave anyone out, would he?

The Bible is amazing, and all the more so because it was written over the course of about 1,500 years – by many different people. This is not the work of a single human being with a single personality and vision. The Bible has at least 40 different authors, from all different backgrounds and walks of life – and they write in three different languages. There are almost 40 books in the Old Testament and almost 30 in the New Testament. And yet, the result is a singular Holy book, tried and true, tested by millions of readers over thousands of years. This is a book capable of befriending anyone at anytime with just the right wisdom for our needs. As I said, the Bible isn’t possible.

The Bible is written to reach you when you are happy and when you are sad. When life is good and full, and when it’s empty and unbearable. So how should you read the Bible? Go to it as old friend, one who loves you and is patient with your progress.

So don’t worry about what you don’t understand. Read it for what you do understand, and in joyful expectation that more will come in good time – when you need it. If you need it! This is not just a book. This is a Holy Book, a miracle God created for you – capable of covering all your needs in good time.

It is a living document because the God who guides you is a Living God. His Holy Spirit is always with you, if you will only listen. And the Spirit that guides you in reading the Bible is the same Spirit that guided the men who wrote it. No wonder the Bible can speak to us on our terms and in anticipation of our needs.

Hard to believe? Yes, of course! All miracles are hard to believe, even when they happen to you – as this one will. That’s right. The Bible was written for you, to reach you, to revive you, to nourish you and to inspire you to seek its Author. It asks only one thing of you. Treat it as you would a loving parent and not as a homework assignment. Remember, those scholars who sent Jesus to His death knew the Bible cold. The secret isn’t knowledge. The secret is love.

It’s about process not results. Leave the results to God. Just make sure you read the Bible – read little parts, or big parts – read a sentence here, a paragraph there. Just open the Bible and let the adventure begin. Yes, many of us find the Bible intimidating. But that’s not God’s fault. It’s our fault.

The “Good Book” is a handbook on truth. It is a living document, a spiritual thing, meant to minister to your needs over a whole lifetime, no matter who you are – or where you live – or what language you speak. We can all speak the language of truth. God helps us to know it’s His Book by writing it in such an impossible way. Start by believing He wrote it for you – as a matter of faith. Stop thinking that God is a boring, uncaring teacher! In your heart you know that’s not true.

So get that book on your shelf right now. Don’t think about it. Just do it. Start reading anywhere you like. And do it again tomorrow. Don’t give up. You might start with something toward the end of the book. The New Testament is a little easier to grab on to – but decide right now that it won’t matter to you if you don’t understand what you read. Let what you do understand come as a complete surprise – part of the continual fun of picking up that ancient book and seeking the treasures within.

Do this on a regular basis, and your life will never be the same. And remember, there are thousands and thousands of churches – and neighbors and friends who will be glad to give you any help you want. In the end, that’s the real lesson.

You are not alone. You are loved. The Bible is proof of that.