Oliver Cromwell: not a "bad guy" after all

Puritan Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of Great Britain from
1642 to 1659, is one of the more controversial figures in history. However, research suggests that whatever dictatorial powers he may have had were largely forced upon him. In fact, English government under Cromwell became more based on the rule of law than it had ever been in either medieval or modern times.

Recognized individual rights were immediately enforced. There was more freedom of religion than even with Queen Elizabeth, an Anglican who persecuted Catholics.

A blueprint was begun for a Parliament with authority derived solely from the people, as opposed to grants from monarchs. Unfortunately, these plans were never quite executed.

Freedom of trade became popular, and international commerce prospered.

Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of Great Britain possibly accomplished the first modern government under a written constitution other than that of Connecticut Colony.

On the whole, the Commonwealth republic seemingly consisted a great boon to the English tradition of free government and common law. Although objections to this idea exist, such as an alleged massacre of Irish Catholics by the English army, or the government censorship of certain publications opposed to their ideals, the fact remains that Cromwell was a hero in his day, and overall English freedom flourished.

Additions to "Science" Category

I have re-published a number of writings on Evolution which I had on the Chapman 08 ID Advisor site. You may view them by clicking here.

Little Chance of Conservative Republican Prez

According to Rasmussen Reports Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice are leading the field for the 2008 Republican nomination.

In a recent poll Giuliani received 24% of the total and Condi Rice beat out John McCain for second place with 18% compared to McCain's 17%.

Both Giuliani and Rice are pro-choice.

(Conservative President 2008)

"Intelligent Design" Is Not Enough

Q: Is recognizing design “enough”?

A: “Enough for what?” you might ask. The Intelligent Design Movement teaches that design in nature points to a designer, but it doesn’t say who the intelligent designer is, and it is compatible with millions of years and evolution. So is belief in intelligent design enough to be saved?

Intelligent design may seem very appealing at first because it brings up some good arguments against the idea that life arose by natural processes. But sadly, the ID movement has little or nothing to do with the Bible.Believing in design alone doesn’t tell us why there’s death and suffering in the world … or that we all need to be saved. It’s only through God’s Word that we can understand the bad news that Adam’s sin brought—death—and the good news that Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, brought—eternal life with Him.

While Romans 1 tells us that we can know there’s a God through His creation (and that’s an important first step), to understand who that God is and to know His nature and what life is all about, we need to believe and understand God’s Word.

Want to learn “the good, the bad, and the ugly” behind the Intelligent Design Movement? See The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the identity of the Creator really matter?


(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)

Did you know...?

In 1982, the Congress of the United States proclaimed a "Year of the Bible." Its reason for doing so was stated in Public Law 97-280, 96: "The Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation.... The Holy Scriptures...inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."It is unfortunate that the United States has come so far down the road of evolutionary "progress."


-R. Josiah Magnuson

Politics As Usual?

"Politics," or the obsession with public policy or government for its own sake, is seen today by some as a grand operation for one to become involved in. Yet Christians are not instructed in the Bible to be involved in the world's political game. Nowhere does God's Word declare, "Thou, disciples of Christ, shalt contribute to politics and thereby hope to promote democracy (...etc.) around the world."

Believing that politics is Godly, many Christians have addicted themselves to the Republican Party and its goals. They justify this activity by stating that the Republican Party is less evil than the "other" alternative. But if the Republican Party is "less evil," doesn't that mean it is evil? How can a Christian promote evil? As an article in Liberty Forum magazine has asked, "On Judgement Day, when Jesus asks you, "Why did you vote for evil?" do you want your defense to be, "Well, Lord, I see where you're coming from; technically you're right, but you see, I was really voting for the lesser of two evils."

As Biblicists, we should not vote with political winners or losers in mind, but instead, vote solely for those who support our Biblicist principles. Patrick Henry once said, "Americans must select and prefer Christians as their rulers," meaning that those who do not believe in the Christian worldview and Biblicist absolutes will not be a good choice. However, when one thinks "politically," he votes for and supports leaders simply on the basis of who else there is to choose from. Politics in this sense can never be based on true values or conservatism.

"Politics," the relativistic approach to government, is not a Christian activity. Rather, Christians should seek to promote and vote for limited government under God's absolutes and Biblical liberty.

On November 7, let us refrain from "politics as usual," and instead elect those who endorse the rule of constitutional Law and our unalienable, absolute rights from our Creator. The Constitution Party website is a good place to look, and there are also plenty of local candidates from various groups who also display these characteristics.


-R. Josiah Magnuson