Scientists continue to find more and more evidence that the universe is finely tuned for complex life. Many even refer to it as a “Goldilocks Universe” because the parameters for the universe as well as the position of earth in our solar system and galaxy are “just right.”

Paul Davies is a physicist with a PhD from University College London and postdoctoral work at the University of Cambridge. He explains: “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.”

Scientists have observed and documented the fine-tuned parameters of the universe for some time. Many years ago, British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle observed: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

The precision of the fine-tuning is something that physicists find fascinating. There are lots of examples that scientists have used to explain it. Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab uses the following analogy. “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Robert Jastrow was the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Although he called himself an agnostic, he nevertheless wrote a book with the provocative title God and The Astronomers. In the last chapter before the epilogue, he wrote: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

All this evidence of design in the universe, certainly points to a Designer. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Debate about gun control and the George Zimmerman verdict have drawn renewed attention to the Stand Your Ground laws around the country. These laws

(also known as Castle Doctrine laws) allow people to use force to defend themselves without having to retreat.

President Obama acknowledged that this law was not used in the George Zimmerman defense. He said: “I know that there been commentary about the fact

that Stand Your Ground laws in Florida were not used as defense of the case.” But he then asked: “On the other hand, it we’re sending a message as society

in our communities that someone who is armed has a right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to

be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?”

Attorney General Holder was even more critical. He argued that: “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow

dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.” Using a turn of phrase, he said: “It is our collective obligation – we must stand our ground – to ensure that our laws

reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.”

Do these laws make us less safe? The facts appear to be on the other side. John Lott is a professor of economics and author of such books as More Guns,

Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. He has discovered that in states with Stand Your Ground laws in place between 1977 and 2005, murder rates fell by 9

percent and the overall violent crime rate fell by 11 percent. This occurs, he documents, even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national

crime trends, law enforcement variables, income and poverty measures, and demographic changes.

The president and the attorney general seem to think there is a causal link between these Stand Your Ground laws and gun violence. If there is, then the data

shows that it is an argument for more Stand Your Ground laws not fewer. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

One of the lessons we can learn from the recent bankruptcy of Detroit is that you can’t trust the way state and local governments are structuring their pension

funds. You could call them a Ponzi scheme. Detroit, like many other governments, promised teachers, fire fighters, and law enforcement pensions and

retirement benefits but were unwilling or unable to set aside the money needed to fund those benefits.

Detroit provides an example that sadly will be followed soon by other cities and even states. The bankruptcy filings for Detroit list $18.25 billion in debt. That

amounts to more than $26,000 for every man, woman, and child living in Detroit. More than half of that debt represents unfunded liabilities of the city’s

retirement benefit plans.

John Goodman, in a recent column, points out that it is illegal under federal law for a private corporation to do what Detroit did. Any private company must fund

a defined-benefit pension plan each and every year. There are a few companies with large unfunded pension plans that were grandfathered. But any new

pension plan must set aside funds to pay for future benefits. Detroit and other local and state governments did not do that.

Cities suffer when their unfunded liabilities rise. They can fall into a death spiral. In order to pay for its promises, the city raises taxes. In response, families

and businesses leave the city for places with lower taxes. When more people leave, the city is forced to raise taxes even higher and cut back on city services.

Detroit isn’t the only city facing pension problems. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis “discovered that when state and local retirement benefit

programs are accounted for properly, they have a $3.1 trillion unfunded liability.” Another study put the total at $4.4 trillion for pensions alone. These estimates

are three and four times as large as the official estimate.

Governments are promising benefits but not funding them. They shouldn’t be allowed to do what a private company would never be allowed to do. I’m Kerby

Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

No doubt you have heard the phrase, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” It is common phrase that was popularized by General Dwight Eisenhower. You may not know that this phrase has been the center of controversy in the military.

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes used the phrase in a “Chaplain’s Corner” online website. The title of his post was, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” He wrote it to encourage his troops with the fascinating story of the brave man who first coined the phrase.

His blog post also encouraged the ire of anti-Christian forces gaining influence in the U.S. military. Mikey Weinstein organized a letter to the commanding officer of Lt. Col. Reyes demanding the chaplain be censored. The letter argued that the use of the phrase “no atheists in foxholes” was a bigoted, religious supremacists phrase. That was not what the chaplain wrote. He was merely giving the history of a story that many would find encouraging.

Unfortunately, his commanding officer didn’t see it that way. Within five hours, he demanded that the chaplain’s post be removed immediately from the website. He also wrote a profuse apology to the atheist and his atheistic organization. But that was not enough for Mikey Weinstein who demanded punishment for the chaplain in the form of at least a formal reprimand.

I would think that most people would applaud the chaplain for doing his job of encouraging the troops with a story from the past. His job is to pray for the men and women, minister to them, and encourage them. Not only was he doing his job, but the chaplain was engaging in constitutionally protected speech. At the very least, shouldn’t the military support the very Constitution they are charged with defending?

Once again we see the growing hostility to the Christian faith in the military. Members of Congress are working to provide conscience protections of chaplains and others in the military. These stories illustrate why such protections are needed. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

In a few years, we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth colony and the Mayflower Compact. When these Pilgrim families arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts, they signed the Mayflower Compact. It was an agreement among themselves, with God as their witness, to build a community and abide by its laws.

They set a pattern that was followed by others: Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Baptists. It was the foundation of our constitutional government.

A century and a half later, the descendants of those who came to this land pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to found this nation. Most of them paid a price. A number forfeited their fortunes. Some forfeited their lives. None sacrificed their honor.

After years of fighting and then trying to live under the articles of confederation, other framers decided we needed a Constitution. Young men, they were. James Madison, known as the architect of the Constitution was in his thirties. He, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers to explain and defend the Constitution, often citing biblical principles. James Madison studied Calvinism under Witherspoon at what later became known at Princeton University. John Jay, at that time was the Vice President of the American Bible Society. He later became the first Chief Justice of the United States.

Four score and seven years after America’s declaration of independence, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at Gettysburg during a time of Civil War. In that short speech he called upon all Americans to renew their dedication and their commitment to a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Today America is at another crossroads. I believe it is time for us to once again renew our compact with freedom. I believe it is time to reaffirm our commitment to a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. I believe we must do this for the sake of our blessed and beloved land.

Citizen participation in our government is in decline, and that is not good for our republic. Thomas Basile cites some disturbing statistics in a recent commentary. Actually he begins by talking about former President Jimmy Carter. But later in his piece, he argues that: “our democratic process is crumbling.”

He explains, “Every day we must remember that the vitality of our democratic system depends on us—active engagement—and our faith that when we engage can have an impact.” Citizen participation is crucial in selecting our elected representatives and in holding them accountable. Unfortunately, voter participation rates show a high level of apathy and demonstrate that Americans are disengaging from the political system.

The new mayor of Los Angeles was elected with a turnout of only 17 percent. In New York City, 7 in 10 registered voters stayed home for Michael Bloomberg’s reelection. Sadly the percentages for local school board elections and city council elections are even lower.

Low voter turnout makes it possible for a small but dedicated minority to have a disproportionate influence. The political advances for the homosexual agenda illustrate that. And Christians can learn a lesson from this. A dedicated group of Christians can make a significant impact on state and local elections when turnout is so low.

Voter apathy and inaction also have led to a virtual political aristocracy. Today, the political class enjoys an 85-90 percent reelection rate. Meanwhile confidence in government has plummeted. Public Policy Polling found that Congress is less popular than root canals, colonoscopies, head lice, cockroaches, traffic jams, and used car salesmen.

We need to encourage our fellow citizens to participate in the political process. Moreover, we need to teach our children and grandchildren the importance of political participation. It is for their good and the good of the republic.