Baby Born after 5 Months of Pregnancy and Weighing Less Than 0.5kg Survives!

Harper Rose Schultz, a beautiful baby girl born to two Michigan parents, was born June 29th, four months before her due date.

Weighing in at just 11 ounces, Harper is the smallest baby to ever be resuscitated at the Covenant HealthCare Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, where she was born, Michigan Live news reports. One-hundred and twenty-eight days after her birth, Harper's parents were finally able to take her home, at a healthy 6 pounds 10 ounces.

"We came in for some abdominal pain that was radiating down her sides and we just thought, worst case, we'd go home on bed rest," the father, Patrick Schultz, said in a YouTube video published on Covenant HealthCare's YouTube channel. "And that Monday was life-changing for sure."

The mother, Emilee Wendzik, also commented on the experience in the YouTube video, saying, "That day went by so fast. When they told me later in the afternoon, ‘we're taking you in for an emergency section,’ my mind was blown. We expected somewhat early just not that early."

Dr. Martin Nwankwo, a neonatologist who also works in pediatric care for the hospital, noted in the video, “To see her grow from where we started to going home now in reasonably good shape, it's mind-boggling for us. We've never done this before. And, to be honest with you, half the hospitals in the United States would not have attempted this."

The reason Dr. Nwankwo said most hospitals would not attempt such a resuscitation is because the equipment is not designed for babies that small, so there is a much larger risk of hurting or killing the micro-preemie (the term for babies born very early). Statements from other hospital staff reported they did Harper's breathing for her when she was firstborn. "She needed to grow into our equipment," Respiratory Therapist Sara Nitz stated in the video. "Our equipment is made for preemies, but she was really small."

In all, the father and mother are very thankful for the care they received, calling it "nothing short of extraordinary." The father also stated, "The fact that they can take something so small and be life-sustaining is nothing short of a miracle."

Source

Americans getting more comfortable with the church's disregard of COVID-19 restrictions according to survey

A new survey reveals that the American public is much more accepting of churches defying coronavirus lockdowns than they were when the pandemic first broke out in March.

Paul Djupe, an affiliated scholar with the Public Religion Research Institute, and Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University, collaborated on a survey asking 1,750 Americans for their views about the coronavirus pandemic in October. They had previously collaborated on a coronavirus-related survey in March, when they spoke to 3,100 Americans.

When asked if they agreed with the statement, “If the government told us to stop gathering in person for worship I would want my congregation to defy the order,” 34% of respondents who participated in the October survey agreed (with 16% strongly agreeing). By contrast, 21.8% of Americans surveyed in March said that they agreed (with 10.7% strongly agreeing) with their congregation defying in-person worship restrictions.

Meanwhile, the share of Americans who disagreed with churches’ defiance of worship restrictions dropped significantly from March to October. In October, 39.1% of Americans disagreed (with 25.8% strongly disagreeing) with the defiance compared to 55.6% (with 36.4% strongly disagreeing) in March.

Those who strongly disagreed with churches’ defiance of in-person worship restrictions made up a plurality of the respondents in March but by October, a plurality of respondents (26.9%) said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with defiance of worship restrictions.

The survey also analyzed the responses to the question based on political party affiliation, finding that support for defiance of coronavirus worship restrictions had increased among all party identifiers. “Our data suggest defiance is growing across the board. Even strong Democrats are urging a more defiant stance, though the growth among Republicans is much greater,” Djupe and Burge wrote.

According to Djupe and Burge, another factor explains the increased support for churches defying worship restrictions: adherence to the prosperity gospel, which teaches that “religious belief is a quid pro quo, returning a wide range of benefits for believers, especially health and wealth.”

“Prosperity gospel belief is also linked to opposition to state health orders, and the connection is easy to see: if the church is the instrument of personal health, then shuttering the church is a direct threat to personal safety during a pandemic,” they said.

Data collected by the researchers show that the correlation between adherence to prosperity gospel beliefs and the opinion that churches should defy worship restrictions was even stronger in October than it was in March. They measured adherence to prosperity gospel beliefs using a “three question index.”

They attributed the increased support for lockdown defiance among prosperity gospel believers to “the messaging they are hearing from religious and political sources,” including Republican politicians who “continue to take a freedom-first approach.” 

“Agreement with prosperity gospel views has grown about 3 percent since March,” they said.

Other findings show a drop in the percentage of adults who believe “the government should tell churches and houses of worship that they should stop meeting in person to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.” While 66.1% of Americans agreed with that in March, 56% said the same in October.

As the idea that churches should defy in-person worship restrictions has gained ground since March, the idea that “hysteria over the coronavirus is politically motivated” has become less popular. In October, 22.5% of Americans strongly rejected that idea, an increase from the 14% who strongly disagreed with that assessment in March. The share of Americans who either agree or strongly agree with the idea that hysteria over the coronavirus was politically motivated dropped from 42.5% in March to 40% in October.

In their analysis, Djupe and Burge offered two theories to explain Americans’ changes in views about the coronavirus over the past seven months. The first theory contended that “people are responding to an elite messaging that combines with unorthodox Christian beliefs to promote an individualistic, go-it-alone style response,” an idea that they argue is “widespread enough to spell doom to efforts to inspire collective action against the behaviors that are spreading the virus.”

Their other explanation rests on the premise that “Trump’s gross mismanagement of the pandemic soured Americans on Trump as well as on government efforts to curtail the pandemic, which, strangely enough, redounded to the benefit of Republicans opposed to state action.” They concluded that “a bit of both explanations are in play.”

The survey comes as more states returned to strict lockdowns after reporting another surge in coronavirus cases since October.

After the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America sued, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday to temporarily block New York’s restrictions on houses of worship, saying that the rules “cannot be viewed as neutral” and appear to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Source

Important Information for Pro-Lifers about the Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford COVID-19 Vaccines

 

Pharmaceutical companies in recent days announced promising trial results of three separate vaccines, boosting hopes that the worldwide pandemic could be months away from an end.

Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna/National Institutes of Health, and Astrazeneca/University of Oxford each released results from their phase 3 trials showing the vaccines to be at least 90 percent effective in preventing Covid-19. 

But from a pro-life perspective, the three vaccines were not created equal. 

The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute lists the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as “ethically uncontroversial,” yet it lists the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine as “unethical” because of its use of a fetal cell line, derived from an abortion, in the design, development and production of the vaccine. The Lozier Institute is the research and education institute of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

Representatives of the National Catholic Bioethics Center reached a similar conclusion, as did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both said the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are ethically sound. 

Following is a more detailed overview of the three vaccines:

PFIZER/MODERNA VACCINES

Neither the Pfizer vaccine (known as BNT162b2) nor the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273) used fetal cells in their design, development or production. Because of this, the Charlotte Lozier Institute lists both as “ethically uncontroversial.” 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a memo on Nov. 23 approving the ethical soundness of both vaccines. 

“Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development, or production,” the memo said. 

Some controversy, though, has surrounded the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines because a fetal cell line was used in a later testing stage. The fetal cell line (known as HEK293) was derived from an abortion in the 1960s or 70s. 

John Brehany of the National Catholic Bioethics Center said the action by Pfizer and Moderna is far less problematic than using it in the design, development and production stages. 

“The Moderna vaccine and [the] Pfizer vaccine, which are closest to implementation, are not produced using the [fetal] cell lines,” Brehany told Currents News. “… They did come in at a certain point in the process, sort of at a final stage ... in testing, but they are not produced using those cell lines, like many other vaccines are.”

The U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops called the connections between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and the fetal cell line “relatively remote.”

Because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines did not use fetal cell lines in their design, development or production, they do not contain traces of DNA from the aborted fetus within the vaccine itself – as does the Astrazeneca/University of Oxford vaccine. 

ASTRAZENECA/UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD VACCINE

The Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine (known as AZD1222) used the HEK293 fetal cell line – derived from an abortion in the 1960s or 70s – during all four stages: the design, development, production and testing phases.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute lists it as “unethical.” 

The use of the HEK293 fetal cell line means the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine contains a trace of the DNA from the aborted fetus, according to Politifact. Paul A. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a video this summer that vaccines derived from fetal cells contain “small quantities of trace DNA” from the abortion “in the vaccines.”

Source

Condemning Islamic Terrorism does not Translate to Islamophobia

 

For more than two weeks now, the world’s attention has been on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. As I write this, America remains divided on who is the rightful victor of the 2020 presidential election — and it could take weeks before the matter is officially settled.

Yet outside of the U.S., life has gone on, and other countries are dealing with political crises of their own. In particular, France has been in an intense debate over the limits, or lack thereof, of freedom of expression following the death of Samuel Paty, a French teacher. 

According to news reports, Paty was beheaded by an 18-year-old refugee of Chechen descent after the teacher showed his class cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. These were the same cartoons published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, which inflamed tensions with the Muslim community, culminating in a mass shooting at the magazine’s offices that killed 12 people.

Paty’s murder is inexcusable — that is something we should all be able to agree on. We should also be able to agree that freedom of speech allows for people to express what they think or believe, even if we find it offensive, and condemning this horrible crime as an act of terrorism is not in the least Islamophobic. Yet some state and religious leaders do not seem to agree.

President Recep Erdogan of Turkey called for a boycott of French products after French President Emmanuel Macron condemned Paty’s murder and cracked down on religious leaders and groups spreading extremist ideologies in France. Imran Khan, prime minister of Pakistan, also accused Macron of encouraging “Islamophobia” when the French president condemned “Islamist separatism” in his country. In fact, Macron’s stance triggered protests in Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan and even India, my home country. 

“I understand and respect that people can be shocked by these cartoons,” Macron said in an interview with the Arab news channel Al Jazeera. “But I will never accept that someone can justify the use of physical violence because of these cartoons. And I will always defend freedom of speech in my country, of thought, of drawing.”

The anti-French protests are not as much against France, Macron or even “Islamophobia” but against freedom of speech. The inability of leaders such as Erdogan and Khan to tell the difference is disturbing, and sadly, religious leaders who should be able to call these protests out for what they are have remained silent.

As a religious leader myself, I am deeply grieved to have to say something that should be obvious: religiously-motivated violence committed anywhere, by any religious group, must be classified as an act of terror. 

Religious leaders should have no qualms about speaking up when faced with the realities of religious terrorism or extremism. And there should absolutely be no discussion about whether we will hurt someone’s feelings if we call the attacks in France — or last year’s Easter church bombings in Sri Lanka and the shootings at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and at the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand — acts of terror.

However, we live in precarious times. It seems religious leaders are sometimes more quick to be offended than to call out those who exploit their religions to do harm. In some cases, these attacks are explained away or even condoned, as if a religious motive gives a divine sanction for terror while victims and their families and friends have to quietly watch and endure. 

Another common argument against calling religiously-motivated extremism “terror” is that such extremism does not represent that particular religion in its entirety. That is a purely academic argument, one that does not sound borne of personal experience. What is needed is an unflinching argument by religious leaders of those same faith groups that such protests actually empower extremist forces. 

Any ideology that promotes violence against adherents of other religions, agnostics or atheists must be dealt with under the strongest possible means of the law. There must not be appeasement of or allowances made for any religious group, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or otherwise when they engage in terror attacks. Moreover, a history of religious struggle in any nation cannot serve as an excuse for not standing against present-day violence.

President Macron is right not to compromise the hard-won freedoms of speech and expression and the democratic values developed in the West. He clearly believes in freedom of religion for all, which is why his tough stance is not Islamophobic as some are claiming. Simply condemning the individual perpetrators and saying “this is not Islam” is no longer a sufficient response.

Source

Physics and Free Will: What Do Our Decisions Actually Mean?

When Christians use the term “free will,” it’s often in discussions about divine sovereignty and predestination. Whether we choose God or God chooses us has been at the center of theological debate for centuries. On the other hand, when the term “free will” is used by evolutionary biologists, the debate is over whether choice itself is real, whether it is an illusion produced by our brains.

Materialists have long insisted, because they kind of have to, that human actions and decisions are determined, not free. In other words, we think we make real choices as humans, but we don’t. Our choices are really the inevitable outcomes of a whole chain of material causes that go back, like falling dominoes, to the Big Bang.

This idea is called “determinism.” If true, a scientist with perfect knowledge of all of the conditions from the beginning of the universe could, like a cosmic weatherman, predict everything that would ever happen. 

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who runs a popular blog called “Why Evolution Is True,” has long held this view. As he puts it, “our choices and behaviors are the result of the laws of physics…” Given our chemistry, the arrangement of atoms in our brains, and outside forces acting on us, we cannot help doing what we do. 

Obviously, determinism does quite a number on issues like meaning and moral responsibility, among other things.

Determinism is an unavoidable conclusion if you start with the assumption that the world is only a place of natural causes and processes. However, if you start with the evidence, it’s another matter altogether.

For example, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor points out at “Mind Matters” that quantum physics suggests we do not live in a deterministic universe. As early as the mid-60’s, physicists had devised experiments that strongly pointed to the fact that nature does not determine every event beforehand. Quantum events, such as those that put a certain spin on an electron, are not the result of “hidden variables” at the subatomic level. In fact, we don’t know what determines them!

While Jerry Coyne seems to be recognizing the implications of quantum physics for his determinism, he has chosen to double down rather than admit his framework is flawed. Reviewing a PBS video entitled “Can Free Will be Saved in a Deterministic Universe?” Coyne reiterates his belief that our sense of having free choice is merely an illusion. “…we could not have done other than what we did at any moment in time,” he writes. “And, except for the action of any quantum events, the future is completely determined by the past.”

In other words, Coyne’s determinism applies everywhere in the universe … except for quantum events. Other than an undetermined variable that influences literally every physical process in the universe, everything else is determined?

Michael Egnor has responded with a personal challenge to Coyne: What in nature isn’t the action of quantum events? Certainly, every event in the brain is quantum in nature—every brain state…every bit of protein synthesis or ion flow—is the consequence of quantum events. Because all quantum events are non-deterministic, then all brain states are non-deterministic, and the free will deniers’ claim that nature is deterministic falls to pieces.”

All of that physics jargon is making an important worldview point. In a Christian worldview, human attitudes and human actions are not only morally significant, but central to what it means to be in the image of God. We are not mere effects of material causes. It is because our minds are not mere emanations of our brains that we can talk about “right” and “wrong” as real concepts, to hold people accountable for their actions.

It also makes all of our talk about physics or neuroscience meaningful. To borrow an argument from Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, if our minds are merely the products of material causes, why should we trust our thoughts to conclude anything, including that our minds are merely the products of material causes? Ironically, Jerry Coyne is assuming free will and rationality in arguing against free will and rationality.

This is one of those things we can’t not know about ourselves: Our thoughts, decisions, and beliefs are morally meaningful, not pre-determined. Anyone who is determined to deny this must assume their denial wasn’t determined.

Source

Dr. Ben Carson Says 'God is Still in Charge' after Being 'Desperately Ill' with COVID-19

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson and his wife Candy are thanking everyone for their “support and prayers” after dealing with COVID-19.

In a Facebook post on Friday, Carson explained that he experienced “dramatic improvement” after taking the initial treatment, Oleander 4X. But his symptoms would later accelerate as he became “desperately ill” due to several co-morbidities.

Carson noted that President Trump had been following his condition and cleared him for the monoclonal antibody therapy that Trump took during his bout with the infectious disease last month. After taking the treatment himself, Carson believes that it ultimately saved his life.

“President Trump, the fabulous White House medical team, and the phenomenal doctors at Walter Reed have been paying very close attention to my health and I do believe I am out of the woods at this point,” Carson wrote.

He hopes that “that we can stop playing politics with medicine and instead combine our efforts and goodwill for the good of all people. While I am blessed to have the best medical care in the world (and I am convinced it saved my life), we must prioritize getting comparable treatments and care to everyone as soon as possible.”

Carson noted that there are a number of “promising treatments” that still are in need of testing and approval before it can be distributed. He also spoke of a legal process that must take place before the vaccines can officially be released to the public.

“There are a number of promising treatments that need to be tested, approved, and distributed (sooner rather than later) so that the economy can be re-opened and we can all return to a semblance of normalcy,” he explained. “Also, people should recognize that there are a number of defined steps that legally have to be taken before vaccines are released to the public and trying to cause alarm by saying dangerous shortcuts were taken only serves to stoke fear.”

“Together we will be victorious. God is still in charge,” he concluded.

Source

Air Force Chaplain of 30 Years Retired for Preaching against Sexual Sin

Curt Cizek, a former Air Force chaplain, is calling believers to fight for religious freedom after he was let go from the military for preaching a message that addressed sexual immorality.

“Men put so much of who they are into what they do and having that rug pulled out from underneath me was difficult to go through," Cizek told CBN News in a recent interview.

He explained how in 2013, he had preached a sermon to recruits at Lackland Air Force Base. Prior to his message, Cizek had never faced repercussions for preaching.

“The message was about sin that we don't think is that bad,” Cizek said, adding that scriptures on sexual immorality were included.

“If you're having sex with somebody that you're not married to, then you need to stop,” he recalled. “I said, 'you know, sometimes the Christian church has gotten the reputation for being prejudiced because we look at one sin, homosexuality, and then we turn a blind eye and don't say anything about heterosexual sin, and that's hypocritical.”

Following the message, Cizek would experience a series of events that led to his eventual discharge. He told CBN News that it began when a lesbian trainee filed a complaint alleging that he said, “homosexuals were going to burn in hell.” Cizek asserts that he never made those remarks in his message.

The trainee’s complaint would reach an openly lesbian commander working in basic training and in Cizek’s words, she “wouldn’t let it go.”

“My performance reports were down-graded, my promotion recommendation was downgraded,” he explained. “I got passed over for promotion twice and involuntarily separated from the Air Force in 2016.”

He also noted that 2,500 trainees heard that day's sermon and as far as he knows, only one person filed a complaint.

Sadly, Cizek was not able to retire from the Air Force despite having nearly 30 years of service, with almost 20 years being on active duty. He added that while it's a net loss of more than a million dollars in pension and health benefits, there is a bigger issue at hand.

"Even if I did say what she said that I said, it's covered by my First Amendment right to preach and teach according to my religious beliefs," Cizek said. "Either we believe that everybody has First Amendment rights, or we don't."

Cizek’s attorney, Paul Platte added that all Cizek wants to do is “serve God and serve his country.”

“Air Force regulations specifically allowed him to give that type of sermon,” he explained. “The First Amendment protects his freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So, quite frankly, we think it's preposterous what happened to him.”

They noted that the Air Force never wrote that Cizek’s sermon resulted in the poor performance reports but that he violated unrelated protocols, which Cizek denies.

Cizek, who after appealing to the highest levels of the Air Force, received a document that supposedly explained the reasons for the decision, but the text had been redacted.

“Here at the top of the page it says the reasons for the decision and then it blanks out everything explaining the reason for the decision," Platte said as he held up the document. "But we know why because he was disciplined three days after he gave the sermon about sexual immorality.”

According to a statement sent to CBN News, Air Force officials explained that Cizek alleged that he was a victim of reprisal.

The statement reads, in part: “The applicant, Curt Cizek, alleges he has been the victim of reprisal. … based on the board's review, they do not conclude the applicant has been the victim of reprisal. the board maintains the applicant has failed to establish that …”

Cizek has also reached out to lawmakers and even the White House for assistance.

While the office of the Vice President referred his case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records for reconsideration, officials there refused to re-open his case. At the present time, the Department of Defense Inspector General's office is taking Cizek’s case into account.

Cizek is calling on Christians to help him in the matter and asserting that religious and individual freedom is at stake.

“This is a time for conservative Christians to be heard letting their legislators, letting the White House, letting the Air Force, letting the Secretary of Defense know how they feel," he argued. “The real intolerance is preventing people from speaking the truth. that's the real intolerance and bigotry that exists in our nation today.”

Cizek believes that time is short as Joe Biden may be taking office in January and is unsure as to whether or not his administration would hear him out.

Source