Archive for May, 2008
Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad
Interesting. Even this gay liberal thinks gay marriage is bad.
Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad
By Frank Turek
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
How so?
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
So what?
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes-illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared-more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag – the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway – we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.
You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).
No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.
This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”
Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.
Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
LINK: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )The Detergent Church – An Alternative to the Emergent Church
Amen!! Another excellent article by Doug Giles!!! I look forward to his continuing articles on this topic. Stay tuned – I’ll post them as he writes them!!
The Detergent Church
By Doug Giles
I was being interviewed on talk radio a couple of weeks ago when the “talent” turned the discussion to my faith and my thoughts on the state of the Church in America. I’m sitting there thinking, “You invited me on your show to talk about school violence and student stupidity, and now we’re talking about Jesus? Okay, whatever. God is one of my favorite topics, and as long as I get to plug my latest book, A Time to Clash, 757 times in the next 15 minutes, I’m good.”
So, I informed my host that my faith was stonkin’ and in my humble-yet acerbic-prophetic opinion I thought a good chunk of the American church was melting like a little Twinkie under the hot sun of assertive secularism.
In particular the church was wilting like a wuss in regard to its biblical moral maxims and its stance on essential Christian doctrines and was thus well on its way to living La Vida Apostacia. Yep, if our country goes down the crapper, a lot of the blame falls on the American church for capitulating to this crap-addled culture, as far as I’m concerned.
Next question, hermano.
Jiminy Glick went on to ask me what I thought the church could practically do to heal itself and help our nation and what my thoughts were regarding the emergent church.
I told mi amigo that I didn’t know much about the “emergent church.” I’m sure there are many good guys in it, and I’m sure it has caused some damage to el Diablo; however, it looks and sounds a tad narcissistic to me. In addition, from what I’ve observed both in life and via history is that once a church movement gets a “name” it usually means it’s toast and ends up being propped up by hype instead of heaven.
I went on to edumicate my inquirer that I prefer a Detergent Church to an emergent church. Yes sir, I think what we need is a “movement” that would purge the skid mark that sin has left on man’s soul and our society rather than a group of nerdy Christians trying to be Ryan Seacrest.
Yep, a Detergent Church is the type of church that flicks my switch. As far as I’m concerned, a “church” that does not alter culture in a weighty way isn’t worth its salt-no matter how “successful” it may be momentarily. And seeing that our culture is getting more bizarre by the flippin’ day I’d say that whatever the church is doing to be au courant just ain’t cutting it.
Here’s my laundry list (to become a book) regarding how the “called out ones” can be the holy hellfire Detergent Church they’re ‘spose to be. You might want to put on a cup . . .
1. Get men who dig being rowdy back in the pulpit.
2. Could we have some sound doctrine, por favor?
3. Preach scary sermons (at least every fourth one).
4. Get rid of 99.9% of “Christian” TV and sappy Christian music.
5. Quit trying to be relevant and instead become prophetic contrarians, I’m talking contra mundus, mama!
6. Put a 10-year moratorium on “God wants you rich” sermons (yeah, that’s what we need to hear nowadays, you morons, more sermons about money, money, money!).
7. Embrace apologetics and shun shallow faith
8. Evangelize like it’s 1999.
9. Push lazy Christians to get a life or join a Satanic Church.
10. Demand that if a Christian gets involved in the arts that their “craft” must scream excellence and not excrement.
Allow me to elaborate, my little ones . . .
1. Get men who dig being rowdy back into the pulpit. When I hear one of the ubiquitous whiny, weepy ministers get on TV or radio and whimper about Jesus and life, I think it’s no wonder we’re getting our ecclesiastical clocks cleaned by secularists; our “leaders” are oh so very lame.
Look, God’s men aren’t suppose to be effeminate, spiritually neutered, prancing nice guys. Biblical ministers are to be sons of thunder who are daunting and not David Archuleta-like grinning hand-holders and cliché dolers to messed-up wienies. You can’t transform boys into men when you’re a Peter Pan pastor. Capice?
If your church is remotely serious about salvaging society then here’s a little raw 411 for you, el pastor: You’re not going to change the USA by being nice but by being bold. And to be bold boys you must have high doses of holy testosterone. Matter of fact, in Moses’ day you couldn’t be a priest if you didn’t have cojones (see Deut. 23:1-4). I say we, the Detergent Church, start kickin’ it old school again and retable that deuteronomic prerequisite for current ministers and wannabes; i.e. you don’t get to lead if you don’t have your boys intact.
From rank secularism to islamo-fascism, our country is between a rock and a hard place, and I’m sure the USA would appreciate the church’s help, hello. Obviously, I don’t believe we can help if our leaders don’t have holy huevos to stand up for God and what is sane in this psycho society.
As far as my imbalanced backside is concerned, if the “man of God” is not a dude in a Clint Eastwood sense of the word, then we really don’t need him right now to preach or lead worship-maybe later after 100 years of work, but not now-which means there’s going to be a lot of job openings in churches across the land if my advice is heeded because the church has officially become wussified.
What’s the solution to our cultural pollution? Historically it’s always been men who would be men, which means we don’t need puppets, panderers, Wallys and wusses. We need prophets, patriarchs, warriors and wild men.
To be continued . . .
LINK: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2008/05/24/the_detergent_church
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Crime of Being White
As usual, it’s okay to be racist against whites.
The Crime of Being White
By Selwyn Duke
May 25, 2008
Recently I wrote a piece about Keith John Sampson, a college student who was charged with “racial harassment” for reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book. Not surprisingly, the article evoked a great response, including emails from those with their own stories to tell about persecution inspired by what I will call caucaphobia. A couple of these accounts are so compelling — compared to one even Sampson’s problems pale — I’ve decided to publish them in this piece (both readers allowed me to use their names; their correspondence has been edited for punctuation, grammar and style). These are the stories the mainstream media won’t tell, straight from the front lines of the culture war. They give voice to a persecution whose name most dare not utter.
First we have Mr. David Gonzalez of Illinois. He wrote:
Dear Mr. Duke,
I can empathize with Mr. Sampson. I’ve been through the same sort of ordeal. After retiring from the U.S. Navy, I accepted a position with Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry as its Manager of Safety (I’m a safety engineer). After four years there, a female (black-militant) employee noticed my tie bar (Celtic knot-work with the emblem of my Celtic family – despite my Iberian surname, gained by being adopted, my genetic heritage is Scot/Irish) and asked me what it was. Stupidly, I responded, ‘This? Oh, it’s just my clan badge [referring to the Scottish clan from which he was descended].’
I’ll leave it to you to guess what ensued. I’ll tell you this: by the next morning, the rumor that I had been ‘outed’ as a Klansman had spread, like wildfire, through the ranks of the museum’s black employees (~ 60%). Two security officers frog-marched me out of a class I had been teaching (with every black person in the room glaring at me, with utter loathing!) and escorted me to my boss’s office — there to be grilled by him. Later in the day, I was called back in and fired from my position.
As I said, I can empathize.
Note that the very people who tout multiculturalism, ethnic sensitivity and tolerance violated the tenets of all three in their names. Not only was no respect shown for Mr. Gonzalez’ display of ethnicity, but he was actually punished for it. That’s what happens when you have the “wrong” ethnic heritage.
But the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Despite the fact that one of the main links at the museum’s website is labeled “education,” management made no attempt to educate employees who were obviously too ignorant to know what a Scottish clan is and too bigoted to listen to reason. Instead, because of caucaphobia and/or cowardice, Gonzalez’ boss listened to the mob that preferred Barabbas and crucified a good man.
The next testimonial is, believe it or not, even more staggering. It comes to us from Mr. Greg Reese, who wrote:
Dear Mr. Duke:
In the fall of 1994, I (a white American) began studying at American University in Washington, DC. At the time, I lived on campus with my Japanese roommate. I lived with him for a year and a half. In the spring of 1996, he and I started to develop problems living together. One day, while in the restroom speaking with another student, I made the comment that ‘we should just nuke the f******,’ in reference to the Japanese. Little did I know at the time, my roommate was standing outside and overheard the comment. A few days later he moved out of the room we shared.
After that, I started to receive harassing calls. I would have unknown Japanese students knocking on my door in the middle of the night. Later, I had my property destroyed with a note from a Japanese student that he would drop a bomb on me. This was then reported to and filed with campus security.
A few days later, I had numerous charges of ‘threats, harassment, and intimidation’ filed against me not by my roommate but the floor’s Resident Assistant [RA]. In a meeting with him and the Area Director [AD] (a black immigrant from Africa), I asked how I ‘threatened’ my roommate — the AD stated ‘It was because he felt threatened.’ I was also told not to go near my roommate or further charges would be filed.
I then contested the filing of the charges with the Director of Judicial Affairs (a black woman) who then had the RA amend the charges to represent my creating a ‘threatening’ environment for the residents on the entire floor. This was done to justify the RA filing the charges rather than my ex-roommate, since I could not counter-file charges against the RA, who represented the university [in other words, they wanted to make sure he was powerless to resist this racial persecution]. I was also told by the director that this was being viewed as a ‘racial’ incident.
At the time I was home on Spring Break. Due to all the stress created by the charges and a scheduled judicial hearing — where I faced potentially being expelled from the university — under medical advice I did not return to the university the rest of the semester. By not returning the situation escalated further.
Because I was enrolled full time, I drove 3.5 hours to Washington to meet with my professors concerning my classes and would return home. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet with all of them. I then requested the assistance of the dean of the business school to attempt to get incompletes for my classes. The incompletes were given with the forms signed on my behalf by the dean; however, that information was never provided to me. I thus failed the courses.
While at home, I would receive harassing phone calls from the Office of Judicial Affairs. On one message I was told I was a ‘liar’ when I had told the director I was no longer living at the university because I had been ‘seen’ on campus. When I returned to the university to get my possessions out of my dorm room, I was greeted by six security officers. I was escorted to my room, allowed to get my things and then taken to the campus security office, where I was photographed and told that if I ever step foot in the dorm again, I will be arrested by the DC police for ‘criminal trespassing.’ Apparently, at the request of the RA, I had been ‘barred’ from the dorm but yet was never provided this information. I had requested the information from security regarding the request the RA had made but they refused to provide it, stating it could be ‘libel.’
In the fall of 1996, my [Japanese] roommate and I spend the semester studying abroad in London. I made various offices at the university aware of the charges and that he and I would be together. I was told I would be allowed to go, but should there be any ‘problems,’ I would be immediately sent back to the United States and none of what I paid for that semester would be refunded. Then, after speaking with the Director of Residential Life the charges were dropped. She stated that my roommate would be going back to Japan and without their ‘key witness’ they had no case. Additionally, she basically stated that next time I should keep my mouth shut, saying ‘think before you speak.’
During all of my communication with the university, I was told that everything was being done on my roommate’s behalf. However, at the end of 1996, the director of the London program, my roommate, and I had the first opportunity to discuss what had occurred. My roommate admitted it was not racial, that he was just angry because we were having problems living together, and that it was the RA that approached him initially. Furthermore, everything that had happened to me on his ‘behalf’ he was totally unaware of.
In the spring of 1997, I was supposed to graduate from American. However, given the status of my courses from the spring of 1996, that was in doubt. Upon returning to campus, I was informed that although the charges had been dropped, the barring from the dorm had not been. Additionally, the university’s ‘solution’ to my classes was for me to ‘sit in’ on the courses and retake them and then I could graduate in the fall of 1997. However, this apparently was not ‘officially’ sanctioned by the Registrar’s Office.
Given a year’s worth of threats, harassment, and intimidation by the university, I believed it to be nothing but a hostile environment at that point. I then submitted the paperwork to the university to withdraw. However, because of the ‘reasons’ for my withdrawal, the dean refused to sign the paperwork. To this day, I do not know when or how I was withdrawn since they refused to provide me that information.
A year later, I then received information from the Department of Education [DOE] concerning my financial aid. According to their records, I had borrowed several thousand dollars for the spring 1997 semester. I had informed them that I had withdrawn and therefore did not borrow the money. They had no record of this. Apparently, there was a ‘glitch’ in the computer system according to the university. The money eventually was refunded to DOE but not within the 30 days required by law. I then filed a complaint with the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights given everything that had happened. However, since my complaint was being filed after the180 day limit from the first incident, it was not accepted.
Upon withdrawing from American, I then spent another 2.5 years in school to finish my degree by transferring to a local community college and then to the University of Miami in Florida. By doing so, I also put myself in debt another $30,000 on top of the $30,000 borrowed to attend American.
While I have not been at American for years, the loans have been a consistent issue. I received no benefit from that money since I had to repeat everything all over again. Thus, I have been in a constant dispute with the DOE. Their response has been, ‘You signed the note. You attended the classes. You owe us the money.’ However, my point to them has been that for American University to qualify for the federal loan program they must comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which mandates equal treatment in all operations of the university, which was not the case. I filed charges with security for being threatened by a Japanese student and nothing was done. I did nothing to my roommate and had the full weight of the university fall upon me.
As a result of my refusal to pay the loans, DOE has since garnished my wages. I was informed by them that I have a right to a hearing to contest the garnishment. I filed the appropriate forms and sent 120 pages of documents regarding the situation. My hearing was denied and the garnishment imposed. According to DOE, I had attended American until August of 2000, and, therefore, because I was still at the school, I needed to repay.
When I spoke with the representative of DOE (a black woman), she stated that I ‘alleged’ discrimination but did not prove it. I asked her where the August 2000 date came from; she told me it was provided by American University. I told her that they were providing fraudulent information because I was at Miami at the time. She then became very belligerent, stating ‘I know how to do my job’ and hung up on me.
So, 12 years later, I am still dealing with the repercussions of a simple comment made in a restroom at the university. Because of the various individuals involved and their own racist agenda, I have essentially had my life ruined. The future that I felt I was going to have when I first arrived at the university was taken away from me and their actions have cost me dearly — mentally, emotionally, and financially. Every two weeks when I get paid and have the garnishment taken I am reminded of what happened. Of course, the absolute irony in all of this is that I’m still friends with my roommate.
In conclusion, I would like you to know how much I appreciate what you wrote in describing the situation Keith Sampson unfortunately found himself in. Your statement, ‘people of low character, often vile, ignorant, unintelligent individuals’ is very accurate, although phrased much nicer than I would say it.
Unbelievable, isn’t it? It’s a story so outrageous that if the mainstream media actually did their job, Mr. Reese would be on 60 Minutes. Just imagine, a young man pays a pretty penny to attend a university, with dreams of bettering himself. Then, using as a pretext a loose comment no different from millions of others students make every day, the caucaphobic institution that took his money embarks upon what looks like a racial conspiracy to destroy him.
And these stories — Sampson’s, the two here, the Duke lacrosse witch hunt — are simply those we hear about. For every one of them, how many never see the light of media exposure?
If America continues on its present course, the thought police predators who lurk on college campuses will extend their hunting grounds beyond the academy. In Europe, Canada and elsewhere, hate-speech laws have already empowered such scoundrels in the wider society. Thus, should we visit such laws on ourselves by continuing to elect leftists, you may one day find yourself at the mercy of a statist bureaucrat, a far lesser person who at best will be a mindless cog in the machinery of government, at worst a vindictive social engineer bent on your destruction. He will have more hatred than brains, more hubris than humanity, and more power than you. Then you will have your own story to tell.
The only question is whether there will be anyone left to tell it to.
LINK: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_crime_of_being_white.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )What is Jesus’ View of War? A Biblical Perspective
How does Jesus view war?
Let me start off by saying that no one likes war! It should be a last resort after other avenues have been explored and exhausted. I personally believe that has been done in the current war we are in. We have given these countries and terrorists YEARS to stop their atrocities and nothing has worked. We have warned them, sanctioned them, talked peacefully with them, and have actually let them continue their evil for far too long. But there comes a time when you have to step in to protect and defend innocent people.
Therefore I believe we have exhausted every avenue. So….what do we do then?
Well, there are a lot of people out there who think we do nothing. They believe we turn the other cheek, and that there is no just cause for war. They believe that to be like Jesus we don’t defend ourselves or other innocent people. They believe NOT fighting our enemies is the Christ-like thing to do. They think that when Jesus came, He ushered in a new way of doing things and therefore it is different than the Old Testament way that God worked.
I disagree with that and I’m posting this because some of them wanted to know what I base my belief on. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I’m terrible at explaining myself. I’m not exactly a wordsmith, but hopefully I can explain this so that people will understand. So here goes…
If we want to know what God’s point of view regarding war is, we need to first know WHO he is by looking at both the Old and the New Testaments. The God of the Old Testament is the Jesus of the New Testament. They are one and the same. Therefore, they cannot and do not contradict each other.
Since God is perfect, then we know He is not only LOVING, but also JUST and FAIR. For Him to be too much of either of these would mean He is not perfect because either extreme is bad. Pacifists believe that God’s overriding character trait is LOVE, which means he would never strike out against someone – even an evil person- because that would not be loving. This actually astounds me because in reality, if God doesn’t want evil stopped, then He is not showing much compassion and love for the innocent people who are suffering at the hands of evildoers. I believe, according to the Bible, that God is the perfect mix of love and justice, which means that there are appropriate times and situations for each of those traits.
He was the “I AM” of the Old Testament, the One who gave Moses the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. He is the One who parted the waters for his people and then killed the soldiers following them by drowning them. He is the God who told Noah, “”From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” He is the same God who explained in Deuteronomy, “…If anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies…[T]hen the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”
And he is the same God who, throughout much of the Old Testament sanctioned war against those nations who threatened Israel’s national security. He told Israel to go to war against Amalek, told Saul to go in there and destroy the Amalekites because they were a blight on humanity. He told the children of Israel to go into the land and destroy the Canaanites. Did you know the Canaanites used to bury a living baby in a jar in a wall when they built a house or a building as an offering to the gods?
God sanctioned all of this.
Then we come to the New Testament. This is where people think Jesus changed the way he does things. He did teach of love and he was a gentle, humble, loving man, and because of that some folks think to be like Him means we never fight. But they are not taking into account that most of his teachings were directed to individuals, not nations. His ministry was mainly one on one. He rarely directed his teaching towards anyone other than individuals or small groups – his disciples or the Pharisees for example. He only made token reference to the government, reminding Christians that they were to render to Caesar what was the emperor’s just due. So as individuals he wants us to be loving, humble, and gentle. But he makes it clear that a nation’s government is responsible for other things.
Nothing Jesus taught contradicted Mosaic Law. “Turning the other cheek” did not negate, “an eye for an eye,” the former being an admonition to the individual against exacting revenge, the latter, a point of law emphasizing that it was the state’s duty to exact justice.
In fact, Jesus was very explicit on this point, stating, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
The Bible distinguishes clearly between directives given to individuals and those given to nations, and this is a distinction that pacifists don’t make.
In the New Testament when we’re told to “turn the other cheek”, it’s talking to individuals, not countries.
According to Romans 13, the government exists primarily to punish evildoers and protect innocent people. It bears not the sword in vain.
Romans 13: 3-4 says, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
In Luke 14:31 Jesus said, “When a king goes to war, he is careful to count the cost knowing he has 10,000 soldiers and he’s going to go against 20,000 so that he doesn’t get in a battle he might lose.”
Jesus was using that illustration to teach a lesson, but He did not condemn war when he spoke of this. You would think if he thought all war was wrong, he would have mentioned it and not used it as an example. Jesus knew that as long as there is sinful man, there will be wars. That doesn’t mean we like war or rush into it, but once someone evil starts a war, it is a given that just, righteous men will defend themselves and the innocent.
In Luke 22:36 He says to His disciples, “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” It’s believed that he was telling them to get ready to defend themselves when they went out for him.
Jesus doesn’t say a lot about war, but His words are not the words of one intrinsically opposed to self-defense, on an individual or national basis. Indeed, Revelation 19:15 prophesies that Jesus will make war on the nations Himself one day.
Also, loving your enemy doesn’t mean that you never hold him accountable for his deeds. This is another area where I think pacifists are off track. You can love someone and still hold them accountable. It happens all the time with our children. If we didn’t discipline our children we would be doing them a disservice and we’d probably be raising monsters.
So, my basic points are:
• God is perfect, which means he is LOVING and JUST and FAIR.
• The Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus are One and the same and they do NOT contradict each other.
• There are differences between what an individual is to do and what nations are called to do and this is the main point where I think pacifists get off track.
• It is just and righteous for nations to protect innocent people and to punish and stop evil. It is their duty to do so.
I hope this explains why I disagree with pacifists who think there is NO just cause for war, and why I believe it is a Biblical perspective.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 18 so far )Homosexual “Youth Pride Day” Includes hardcore ‘gay’ anti-religious propaganda
This is what the gay activists are doing while we sit by and let them. Sadly, the taxpayers of Massachusetts are helping pay for this. Also, kids were bussed in for this!!!!
If you want to read any of the pamphlets listed below or see some of the videos mentioned, then please go to the MassResistance website at: http://www.massresistance.org/
Homosexual “Youth Pride Day” includes hardcore “gay” anti-religious propaganda
May 13, 2008
MassResistance website
This past Saturday was homosexual “Youth Pride Day” in Boston, run by the tax-funded Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. It included a “celebration” on the Boston Common followed by a parade past the State House and a “transgender prom” that evening at Boston City Hall.
Kids were bussed in from all over the state. Homosexual activists were everywhere.
Pushing homosexual radicalism and anti-religious bigotry
The “celebration” drew a huge crowd of hundreds of kids around a stage and several invited speakers. There was a main theme, which was constantly repeated: That the kids need to understand that they are being oppressed by our homophobic society, which doesn’t not allow them to enjoy their true (gay) sexuality.
The kids were given these hardcore sexual propaganda handouts:
• “History of Saints Servius and Bacchus”, handed out by a man dressed as a Catholic friar, claiming that these two Catholic saints were actually homosexual lovers.
• “Catholic Theological Defense of Same-sex Marriage” pamphlet which states that there is “no moral right to declare marriage off limits to persons whom God has made gay” and that the Pope “is definitely wrong and he will be corrected some day by one of his successors.” (Also handed out by the abovementioned “friar”.)
• “Reading the Bible with New Eyes” – a pamphlet that portrays Jesus as having had a homosexual affair with Lazarus and Mary as a lesbian. It also describes the Book of Acts as “defining a lesbian and gay ‘nation'”. It also states that Jesus “was a functional, if not physical, eunuch.”
• “Queer Spirituality” – “Coming out is a life long spiritual practice. Because we live in a heterosexist society, Queers will always be invited to claim their unique identity.”
• “Embraced for a Spiritual Journey” Invitation to worship at “a Christian church in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer communities” which has “reclaimed from the homophobia and transphobia of the mainline church tradition that was the heart of the ministry of Jesus Christ.”
Special (depraved) award given out.
As part of the speeches to the kids, an award for outstanding service was given to hardcore homosexual and transgender activist Mark Snyder. In accepting the award, Snyder bragged about his “service” to the homosexual community: how he had disrupted a Catholic Mass with a homosexual “kiss-in” to protest the Church’s objection to same-sex marriage, and how he had organized a demonstration that terrorized a downtown Boston church to the point where they had to order lunch to be delivered rather than go outside for lunch. Finally, he bragged how he had personally persuaded the vulnerable special-needs daughter of MassResistance staffer Amy Contrada to “come out as a lesbian”. (Actually, the girl never was a lesbian; this was simply meant to cause her and her family confusion and distress.)
Inciting the crowd to assault photographers.
And it got violent. During this event, homosexual publications had photographers there taking pictures of all the kids. (Over 350 pictures were on the gay websites the next day.) But when one of the speakers spotted the independent ComFLM people pointed them out to the crowd as being from MassResistance, and exhorted the audience to “send [MassResistance] a message.” Things got very ugly. The crowd of kids started screaming, then surrounded them, blocked their cameras, and assaulted them. Not surprisingly, the uniformed Boston policemen standing right there would not arrest anybody, though eventually the cops asked the activists to stop their harassment. (A police report has been filed.) It was a hideous scene. This is what the homosexual movement is pushing on young children.
LINK: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/youth_pride08/intro.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )Evangelicals with no backbone called ‘Evan-jellyfish’
AMEN!!!!!! We are doing exactly what Satan wants us to do – stay out of anything political and cultural – that way he can take over.
‘Evan-jellyfish with no spiritual vertebrae’
Jeff Johnson – OneNewsNow – 5/15/2008
An outspoken pastor and pro-family activist is speaking out about Evangelical leaders he says have no spiritual backbone.
Pastor Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church in suburban Seattle is known as much for his straight talk as for his former NFL career. And when it comes to Evangelicals who want to disengage from allegedly “political” issues, his comments are as hard-hitting as his tackles.
“Right now a lot of white Evangelicals are just ‘Evan-jellyfish’ with no spiritual vertebrae,” he says.
Hutcherson is particularly critical of the many liberal and some mainstream leaders who signed on to the recently released document “An Evangelical Manifesto.” He accuses the signers of “trying to hijack evangelicalism because of their moral standards and because of their cultural background.”
The Manifesto’s call away from allegedly political issues, Hutcherson argues, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of the culture war.
“We haven’t gotten political as Evangelicals,” he asserts. “What has taken place is, the government knows [that] if it makes something political that the church will step out — and that is exactly what has taken place. They are hijacking our moral issues and then telling us to be quiet about it … and that isn’t going to work.”
The Seattle-area pastor believes the best thing that could happen to churches would be to lose the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status that liberal activists currently use to threaten pastors who might speak out on moral issues in the political realm. Then, perhaps, churches would “find [their] backbone again,” Hutcherson says.
“The government did not give us our 501(c)3 because they like us,” he shares. “The government gave us our 501(c)3 so they could control us.”
Pastors need to stand up for biblical truth in every area of society, including politics and government, Hutcherson says, ignoring any threats to their church’s tax-exempt status. “We need to start standing together to do the things that God has called us, take back these moral issues that belong to the church, and stand strong on them — regardless of who says or regardless of what the government threatens us with.”
LINK: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=115368
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )Dr. Ergun Caner DID NOT Endorse the ‘Evangelical Manifesto’
Dr. Ergun Caner DID NOT Endorse the “Evangelical Manifesto”
I was so glad to hear this. I was surprised and disturbed when I first read that Dr. Ergun Caner (of Liberty University) endorsed the “Evangelical Manifesto”. It just didn’t seem right to me, and now I know why…because he DID NOT endorse it. He has a much better way with words than I do (no surprise there), so I’ve included some of his statement as to why he did not endorse it. I totally agree with his take on it. Thank you, Dr. Caner, for clearing that up!!
By the way, every once in a while I’ll doubt myself, and this was one of those times. I respect Dr. Caner and his views, and when I saw his name on the list I thought, “Am I crazy? Did I read too much into this?” But after reading it again I still couldn’t get behind it, but was still bothered that he could. And now I see that my instincts were right and he did not sign it. Part of his statement is below:
“[R]eading the document sounds like an extended apology, and I do not apologize for the stance we have taken for decades: evangelicals are unapologetically and unabashedly pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-prayer,” Caner writes. And when it comes to standing for truth and righteousness in the political realm, he states: “Popularity is not the goal of an evangelical; converted souls in heaven are the ultimate goal. You do not change a culture by surrender. This is precisely what the [Manifesto] seems to do.”
Here’s a link to the entire article: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118542
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Honor the Troops on Memorial Day
Memorial Day is coming this weekend and I sincerely hope people are grateful and thankful for what our military men and women have done for us. I am DISGUSTED by the folks who are speaking out against our military on this day instead of honoring them. In my opinion these people are spoiled and ungrateful. There are actually some ‘progressive’ Christian groups and churches who are doing this and I am so disheartened by it that it honestly makes my stomach sick. I actually think it’s a very UN-Christian thing to do and I’m sure our military would be hurt by it, but apparently these folks’ love and compassion doesn’t extend to our troops. For more of my thoughts on this, check out my previous post on the Waning Patriotism of Some Christians…
LINK: https://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/the-waning-patriotism-of-some-christians/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )California’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Decision will Radically Change Society
Good article by Dennis Prager!
California Decision Will Radically Change Society
By Dennis Prager
Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision — let alone the four compassionate justices — acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment — or even awareness — of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones — and their millions of compassionate supporters — allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a “right” that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system — East or West — since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism — ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion — or to any past wisdom — for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column — as to all defenses of man-woman marriage — that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person — and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state’s Constitution.
Latest U.N. Insult: U.N. Investigating the US for Racism
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? This is so preposteous I’m almost speechless!! The UN is such a joke. We should get out of the UN and kick them out of our country! They’re crooked and ungrateful!
The Latest U.N. Insult
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, May 19, 2008
Excerpt:
With the world awash in disaster, the United Nations is spending money to send a “special rapporteur” to look into racism in one of its member nations. The country? Why, the United States, of course.
The rapporteur in question, Senegal’s Doudou Diene, will investigate “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” in a number of American cities.
In fact, the U.S. is the least racist nation on Earth. Diene’s visit is a calculated insult to both the American people and President Bush, and an attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. election.
Sure we have our problems. But it’s hard to say a country where the leading candidate for president of one party is an African-American, while the other party has in the past eight years named highly accomplished blacks, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans – Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Alberto Gonzales and Elaine Chao – to the highest federal positions they’ve ever occupied, is actively racist.
The U.S. also has 40 million immigrants from virtually every nation on the globe, easily the largest such population of any nation. Will Diene look into that, too?
To see what a canard this idea is, one has only to look how America behaves globally. Each year, we spend billions of dollars, both public and private, to help less fortunate people around the globe – including people who don’t share our predominant skin color or our majority religion or our main ethnic heritage.
In the past two decades, the U.S. has intervened militarily on behalf of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, none of which is exactly American – by race or religion.
When the tsunami hit Thailand in 2004, U.S. aid flooded the country – though some of the beneficiaries included those who applauded Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 attack on America. A U.S. Navy ship dutifully anchored off the coast to dispense badly needed emergency goods. U.S. aid workers are still there today.
In Burma, a country that bears virtually no cultural, racial or ethnic propinquity to the U.S., we have aggressively sought to save lives following Cyclone Nargis.
American planes and ships filled with emergency aid and workers have been forced to wait while the murderous Burmese regime lets its people die. Why no U.N. action on that?
The record is clear: Total public and private sector aid from the U.S. to others totaled $130 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available. That’s a 6% increase from the year before, and four times what the next biggest giver delivered.
Add in $500 billion-plus in defense spending – much of which goes to protect other nations from the threat of war, terror or violent cutoffs of trade – and the U.S. is far and away the most generous nation on the planet. Not exactly a sign of rampant racism.
Meanwhile, the U.N. itself is no paragon. It’s directly responsible for holding Palestinians in camps for 60 years while passing inane resolution after resolution condemning the only peaceful, prosperous and completely democratic regime in the Mideast – Israel.
The U.N. should investigate other members’ rampant racism, which takes the form of extreme hatred for the West and its values.
LINK: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296089864326734
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Don't Get Me Started... 