The songs that we sing often convey some of our deepest cries for truth. I hope to look at some songs over the next while. The first song I want to look at is called "Crystal Ball" by Keane.
    The artist is speaking about how his life is falling apart. He has no basis for truth anyone, since his previous foundation has been shattered, and so his only hope is in a crystal ball to tell him reality. This reveals much about the contemporary hope in nothingness. A crystal ball can say whatever you want it to say, but it does not speak reality. Keane wants life to be beautiful, and he wants life to be more than an empty tragedy. What are we to believe? The "truth" of modernism has fallen apart. Keane cries out for hope in post-modernity, which but he sees the own futility of his crystal ball. Both the modernist and the post-modernist hold a crystal ball to give them hope, but the difference is that the modernist this he is holding truth, and the post-modernist knows that he is holding a cheap ball of glass. Who is the more pathetic?
    Thanks be to God that there is more to life than a crystal ball, whether we are deluded by it or not. God has not only created a true and beautiful world, but he has fully revealed himself and his world to us by his words. He has given us truth in his son, Jesus Christ, our savior. We do not have a cheap ball of glass for hope, but we have the word of God to look to for reality. We have true hope in Christ, and in him crucified. May we never lose hope of this firm foundation.

    Last week, a researcher announced a new, supposedly ethical way to get embryonic stem cells. He is arguing that the new method would not involve killing an embryo, as the standard method does. Since the killing of the embryo is the main concern people have with embryonic stem cells, he is hoping the federal government will approve this method for federal funding. Should we go along with this? Is this the break we have been waiting for? The answer in brief is no.
   The new method (tentatively I will call 'early embryonic cell extraction') is morally wrong. First and foremost, it does involve both the creation and termination of a child. Second, it uses parts of living babies for experimentation and treatment. Third, it involves using in vitro fertilization. Fourth, it involves using a pre-implantational genetic test. For these reasons, early embryonic cell extraction is wrong and should be opposed, especially when it involves our tax money.
   Early embryonic cell extraction both creates and terminates a child. The standard process for extracting embryonic stem cells is clearly murder, since the embryo is completely destroyed after around 8 days of life. The new process occurs at around 2 days of life, when the embryo is 8 cells large. The process takes away one of those cells, and leaves the main embryo (with 7 cells) to be implanted and continue in life. The main embryo is still fully alive, and around 2,000 children have been born in the United States after this process was done to them (because of the pre-implantational genetic test which will be explained below.) The other cell would then be allowed to life and grow until it reaches a suitable size to "harvest" for stem cells. I argue that if the cell was allowed to grow and then implanted into a mother, it would grow into a child as all embryos does. When the cell is separated, the scientist is creating an identical twin. When the cell, which is now an embryo itself, is destroyed, the identical twin is then killed. The process is very similar to the way identical twins are made in the womb. It obviously would be wrong to kill an identical twin and use that twin's body parts. It is no different if that twin is created by a scientist. Therefore, early embryonic cell extraction is murder.
   Early embryonic cell extraction uses the body parts of human babies for experimentation and treatment. The question is: is there anything wrong with using human babies in this way? That is a good question that is rather difficult to answer. We as a society have generally decided on several principles: 1) Do not kill so that you can use the body. 2) Have the wellbeing of the person in mind. 3) Obtain the consent of the individual. The new method violates all three principles. The new twin is killed. The twin's wellbeing is destroyed in the process. The twin cannot consent. By these principles, early embryonic cell extraction is inhumane.
   Early embryonic cell extraction uses in vitro fertilization. This method typically involves the creation of many embryos (children) that are destroyed or frozen until destroyed. This is a horrifying thing. Though it is not required, most in vitro fertilizations work this way. Even without this aspect, the method dehumanizes the natural, God-designed method of creating children. This is especially apparent for the technicians who "make babies" every day. The in vitro fertilization method is morally wrong.
   Early embryonic cell extraction involves using a pre-implantational genetic test to determine if the child is fit to live. The method was created to discover which embryo out of the bunch created is genetically better and should be implanted. This is especially important to people with a history of genetic diseases. Contrary to this, all children deserve to live, and we are not to be the ones determining who is worthy of living. A person with Down Syndrome is completely human, and should not be prevented from living. The pre-implantational genetic test is also morally wrong.
   These four reasons clearly show that early embryonic cell extraction is morally wrong. The method includes a eugenical genetic fitness test and in vitro fertilization. It violates standard principles of humane research. Most importantly, it involves the creation and murder of a human child. For these reasons, early embryonic cell extraction is wrong and should not be supported by us.

    Iran has been the most important nation in the Middle East since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after World War I. Historically, the Persian Empire controlled the entire Middle East, and they are still very powerful, both in morale and in power. They are the stronghold for Shia Islam, and the main supporters of Hezb Allah in southern Lebanon. They have some of the largest extractable reserves of oil in the world.
    Prior to 1979, the United States strongly supported the pro-western secular government of the Shah in Iran to ensure a pro-western element in the Middle East, and of course, for oil reserves. This was especially important during the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the Islamic revolution in 1979 completely changed Iran into an anti-western nation. Since then, our policies have been to restrain Iran. We supported Iraq in the futile war against Iran, even when Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran (and was testing them on the Kurds.) We also supported Afghani rebels in a complex maneuver to limit both the Soviet Union and Iran. Iran was successfully contained by both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's two main enemies.
    Then Al-Qaida attacked the United States in 2001. With a president guided by a moral compass, the United States could no longer overlook the many problems within both Afghanistan and within Iraq, both in human rights issues and especially with Afghanistan protection of Al-Qaida and with Iraq's capabilities with weapons of mass destruction and with their violations of the United Nations. We overthrew the evil regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but this has had an unintended repercussion. The two main enemies and barriers to Iran's expansion and domination were eliminated by us. Since this point, Iran has been capitalizing on these losses.
    In June 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most conservative candidate for the presidency, was elected by the Iranian people. He actively denies the Holocaust, has called for Israel's destruction, has been openly supporting Iran's previously covert nuclear program, and has issued an "invitation" for President Bush to become a Muslim or "lose out." These are the same invitations that the so-called prophet Mohammed sent before subjugating nations under the nation of Islam. Al-Qaida also issues these invitations before they attack. The Quran and Muslim doctrine teach that an invitation to Islam must be offered before waging Jihad, that is, war in the name of Allah to bring people under the peace/submission of Allah and Islam. That President Ahmadinejad issued this invitation should have been a frightening prospect, but many people considered it foolish ranting from a foolish man. I highly recommend for people to read the full invitation. It is not foolish and it is not a joke.
    In addition, President Ahmadinejad believes that the hidden twelfth imam will be returning very soon, perhaps within the next year or so. The twelfth imam is the Shia version of the Messiah. Approximately a thousand years ago he went into a well in Iraq, and will return to bring all people to Islam. Before becoming president, Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran. He started and completed an expensive project to improve Tehran to welcome the twelfth imam's return. President Ahmadinejad recently gave a speech to the United Nations about how the twelfth imam will quickly return.
    Most importantly, some Shia Muslims believe that the hidden imam's return will be ushered in by war and chaos. Though it is unclear whether Ahmadinejad believes this, it would provide a strong impetus for Iran to use nuclear weapons and to start a war, even if Iran's destruction was assured. Iran would become a martyr if they were destroyed after destroying Israel or any of the other infidels in the world.
    It is important to note that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is publicly in agreement with Ahmadinejad on most of these points, and he does not publicly disagree with him on any of these.
    Now onto the current conflict in the Middle East. Iran has been attempting a nuclear program, and many consider the ultimate goal to be nuclear weapons (though Iran denies this). They have been keeping UN observers from examining their nuclear program. They have all but rejected an extremely generous offer from the UN to stop fertilizing uranium. It is hard to reject this offer without looking like a nation desiring nuclear weapons. My question to all of you is this: how many of you have heard that Iran essentially rejected the proposal twice in the last two weeks? If you have heard about it, was it big news in mass media? I think both of these, especially the second, are unlikely.
    Hezb Allah is a Shia terrorist group funded by Iran and Syria. My argument is that Iran ordered Hezb Allah to attack and capture the Israeli soldiers two weeks ago as a diversion tactic. It is unclear whether the Hamas capturing was also caused by Iran or if Iran was just using it to their advantage. Either way, Iran has successful diverted international pressure away from their nuclear program towards the conflict in Lebanon, with Lebanon being the sacrificial lamb. Perhaps the conflict will continue until Iran builds a nuclear weapon(s) and destroys Israel. Iran apparently sent in around 250 soldiers to assist Hezb Allah last Thursday. Iran could benefit greatly from all of these things.
    If the United Nations and the United States do not act soon, several terrible things could happen. Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and then destroy Israel and attack US bases and other enemy bases. In the name of defending the "helpless" Shia Muslims of Iraq, Iran could annex either the Shia section or the whole country of Iraq. They could take over Afghanistan if they wished. From Iraq, they could then take over the entire "Persian" Gulf, being stopped only by Egypt and Turkey. These possibilities are not as unlikely as they sound. Hopefully the United States and the United Nations will understand this threat for what it is and will act quickly as with strength. We have no choice.

What are the religious views of Masonry?

Freemasonry is based on a set of moral (how to live) and metaphysical (what is reality) beliefs.  This is agreed upon by all Masons, but what are these beliefs?

It is a gnostic group that has many ranks, and one must precede in rank to learn the "hidden knowledge" of Freemasonry. I believe there are 32 ranks total.

Masonry required belief in a Supreme Being, whom they call "The great Architect of the Universe." This is compatible with any religion that is Monotheistic, including Christianity. The Bible clearly states that God created all things, including mankind.

A central tenant of Freemasonry is that a Mason must have absolute free will. A slave or a former slave cannot be a Freemason. A person cannot be coerced to become a Freemason. This is incompatible with Christianity, because the Bible shows that God is in control of all things. He not only created everything, but He rules over all things. We are to be slaves to Christ, as the apostle Paul regularly stated in his letters. Christians have been redeemed (bought) from sin and Satan and brought into a good slavery under Jesus Christ. He is our Lord and Master, and we are His servants.

Secondly, Freemasonry believes that there are many ways to salvation in God. I think that Albert Pike, a high leader in Freemasonry, in "Morals and Dogma" (pg. 160) confirms this. Jesus clearly stated that He is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Light. Nobody can come to the Father except through Him. We do not worship a generic god who created the universe and then left. We worship the true God of the Bible who created all things and who reigns in Heaven over all of His creation. We worship the triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is incompatible with all other religions.

Apparently, vocal praying in the name of Jesus is not authorized at any Masonic lodges. All prayers are to be addressed using the Masonic terminology, such as "the Supreme Being," "the Maker," and the "great Architect of the Universe." This is not acceptable for Christians.

Unfortunately, I do not have many good sources for this information. Does anyone have anything helpful, either from the perspective of Freemasonry or from the perspective of Christianity?