The Cross and The Pitchfork

Teen Idol Against Abortion - Good or Evil?

2011-02-17T12:11:00.000-08:00

I don't usually watch the TV program "The View" however it is always on when I do my wash at the laundromat, and the bits and pieces I've seen over the past year have always been quite disturbing. Today, the ladies on The View were commenting about statements Justin Bieber made about sex and abortion in an interview by the Rolling Stone.

Again, I don't know much about Justin Bieber either. However I do know that he is a 16 year old Canadian pop R&B singer who is immensely popular with younger teenage girls.

In any case, the interview with Rolling Stone went like this: “I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber says. “It’s like killing a baby?” How about in cases of rape? “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.” In a separate part of the interview, Bieber stated that people shouldn't have sex until they are in love and in a committed relationship.

Personally, I thought these were very mature statements by the young Mr. Bieber; The ladies of The View did not. Joy Behar stated: "When I want the opinion of an adolescent, I'll watch Glenn Beck." Barbara Walters stated: "Well, his mother is very religious" and then implied that Mr. Bieber has some things to learn (apparently meaning, he needs to learn that abortion and pre-marital sex are OK).

Joy Behar then went on to make more derogatory comments about Mr Bieber regarding his thoughts on abortions in the case of rape, making it sound like he was against abortions in such situations. It's clear from the quote above that Mr Bieber said "I wouldn't be able to judge that."

I would ask Ms. Behar; of the 1.3 million abortions committed in the US each year, how many are for instances of rape and incest? The answer is between .o1 percent and 1.0% depending on which survey you believe. Personally, I think the decisions about abortion in all cases (not just rape and incest) should be a private issue between the mother, her doctor and her clergyman. The government should never be involved in this issue. My other question to Ms Behar is: Do two wrongs make a right? Yes, a horrible crime has been committed (either a rape or incest), but is the murder of a baby (the product of that crime) a solution? The baby is not responsible for the crime. Put the rapist or the incestuous relative behind bars and seek psychological/medical counseling for the victim. On the other hand, the baby produced from the crime is an excellent opportunity for a bright lining in an otherwise horrendous situation. Even if the victimized mother doesn't wish to raise the baby, she can bring the gift of life to another couple by putting the baby up for adoption. Again, I state that abortion is a private medical/religious matter in which the government should have no part. Ordinarily I would not inject myself into such a controversy, however when the government forces me to pay for abortions (through use of my tax dollars) against my religious convictions, I have no choice but to tell the government to get out of the abortion business.

The real issue here isn't about abortion and sex; it's about the minds of our children being polluted by the media and politics. Venereal diseases, teen pregnancy and abortion are enormous problems in our society today. It's estimated that as many as 41% of the pregnancies in New York City and 24% of the pregnancies in Los Angeles are terminated through abortion. Children as young as 10 or 12 are getting pregnant and/or contracting all forms of venereal diseases.

Now, along comes this very level-headed Justin Bieber, who is looked up to, and even idolized by many teenagers, telling his peers to not have sex until marriage and to not have abortions, and he is viciously attacked by media personalities who are attempting to put forward their political agenda at his expense.

I thought the ladies of The View were supposed to be in favor of women's rights: they always claim they are "Pro Choice" because they are looking out for the well being of women (and it is to the benefit of women to have abortions?). Don't they realize that the statements of Justin Bieber could work miracles for the well being of teenage girls who look up to, and idolize, him? Venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies and abortions wreak havoc with teenagers, families and society every day. If even a small portion of teenage girls were able to avoid this havoc by following Justin Bieber's example, life would be so much better for many.

Unfortunately, this is just another example of the media and the far left trying to silence the voices of reason. Whenever I see this happening, I have to suspect that Satan is hard at work.

On a different, but similar, issue: The next target on "The View", after Justine Bieber, was Republican US House Representative Michelle Bachman. The View played a video of Bachman being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos stated that President Obama has publicly stated that he was born in America and that he is a Christian. Stephanopoulos then asked Bachman, three times, if she believed the President? Three times, using various words, Bachman replied that "We will have to take him (Obama) at his word." After being asked the same question three times, and answering three times, Bachman stated that a more important issue is the trillion dollar deficit in the new budget (implying that there are far more important matters to discuss).

In a typical manner, The ladies of The View attacked Bachman for not answering the question ...... Wait ..... I thought she answered the question, very directly all three times? Oh, that's right, she didn't give the answer that the ladies of The View wanted (and didn't fall into the trap Stephanopoulos was baiting for her), therefore she deserves to be viciously attacked? The ladies of The View even went so far as to attack Bachman for changing the subject (to one of much greater importance after answering Stephanopoulos' "stupid" question).

It's a joke to think that all politicians always appropriately answer direct questions. I guess the ladies of The View didn't know how to respond to Bachman, a politician, who actually did directly respond to the questions.

Christmas Wars - Good or Evil?

2010-12-16T15:46:00.000-08:00

It’s that “wondrous and mystical ” time of year again. It’s Christmas time, and it’s time for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to engage in it’s annual practice of attempting to force public entities to remove any vestige of Christmas by means of fear, intimidation, disinformation and threats of lawsuits (which, as I will explain later, is totally unfounded and probably an act of legal malpractice and fraud).

This year the ACLU is really outdoing itself. It’s sending out letters to school superintendants, under the guise of wishing them a “Happy” Holidays”. They are citing US Supreme Court legal cases that are either inapplicable or have been overruled, to subtly threaten school administrators to NOT allow any religious or traditional Christmas symbols or celebrations. This is a quote from one of the ACLU letters to school superintendants:

“We believe, however, that holiday celebrations that focus primarily on one religious holiday can result in indoctrination as well as a sense within students who do not share that religion of being outsiders to the school. Similarly, we welcome holiday celebrations that share secular symbols such as Santa Claus or dreidels but we believe that holiday celebrations that focus on religious symbols can likewise result in indoctrination and the exclusion of students. The families of your students trust that you will work to ensure that this does not happen.”

Please follow this link for the whole story on ACLU actions:
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4463

This year the ACLU has been joined in this “New Christmas tradition” by other organizations such as the American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The American Atheists have spent $20,000 to erect a billboard next to the heavily travelled Lincoln Tunnel between New York and New Jersey attacking Christmas as being "unreasonable" and a "myth". Of course this is America, and all people have the right to express their religion or lack of religion in any way they desire. However, true Americans are also known for their tolerance. Can you imagine if Christians started posting billboards stating that Mohammed or Buddah, were myths, or unreasonable; or Muslims or scientology proponents started posting billboards stating that Jesus is a myth? American society would probably degrade very quickly into street level warfare (similar to what we have in many Middle Eastern countries). Quite simply the actions of the American Atheists are un-American, to say the least.

Please follow this link for the whole story about the American Atheists:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2010/12/atheists_anti-christmas_billbo.html

Just as one neighborhood resident won’t allow himself to be outdone by another neighbor’s massive Christmas light display, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) refuses to be outdone by the ACLU or the American Atheists. Earlier this month the FFRF sent out it’s own intimidating and threatening letter to the County Commissioners and Brookville Town Council, in Franklin County, IN demanding that a nativity scene on the lawn of the Franklin County Courthouse be removed immediately. As in the ACLU letters, the FFRF letter takes quotes from US Supreme Court Cases out of context to intimidate government officials to remove any vestige of Christmas from the public forum. It’s also interesting to note that the FFRF, which is located in Madison, WI was not responding to any specific complaint from residents of Franklin County, IN. Similarly the ACLU (even though stating “The families of your students trust that you will work to ensure that this does not happen.”) was not responding to any specific complaints from families of students attending the schools to which they sent their threatening letters.

Please follow this link for the whole story about the FFRF:
http://www.ffrf.org/news/releases/foundation-opposes-religious-display-in-franklin-county-ind/

Unethical actions such as these have had a chilling effect and left many government and school officials, and even attorneys, confused as to what is legal and illegal as far as secular and religious Christmas decorations and celebrations. Consequently many of these officials and attorneys have decided to be safe rather than sorry and have completely replaced any vestige of traditional Christmas with secular symbols only.

Some examples of government and school officials taking actions to replace Christmas displays with purely secular displays or to completely eliminate traditional Christmas celebrations (usually against the wishes of the community and often without any complaints having been received from community members) are as follows:

Officials of the Borough of Canonsburg, PA, outside of Pittsburgh, forced the Knights of Columbus to remove a nativity scene from in front of the borough building based upon one complaint from an alleged Satan worshiping citizen. It has been a borough tradition for 57 years for the Knights of Columbus to provide this nativity display. Town officials stated that they didn’t want to move the nativity scene but were legally obligated to do so (they obviously didn’t understand the law).

Thankfully the Knights of Columbus moved the nativity scene to nearby private property.

The link to the original story is here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pa-town-removes-57-year-old-nativity-scene-from-govt-building-after-complaint/- old-nativity-scene-from-govt-building-after-complaint/

Update: After a national outcry against removing the nativity scene and after being counseled on the US Supreme Court holdings permitting the display of nativity scenes, Canonsburg, PA borough officials permitted the nativity display to be returned to the front of the public borough building:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pennsylvania_town_restores_nat.html

The Young Men’s “CHRISTIAN” Association (YMCA) of West Village, NY has banned Santa Claus from their Christmas celebration and replaced him with Frosty the Snowman because they believe Frosty will “appeal to a broader number of kids”.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/12/new-york-city-ymca-gives-santa-boot/

The City Managers of Boca Raton, FL refuse to allow the display of a manger in a Christmas display that included items from a non Christian religion and other secular Christmas items (if the city managers understood the US Supreme Court holdings in this area they would probably rethink their actions).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/11/religious-group-protests-holiday-display-florida/

As evidence that even secular Christmas displays are being eliminated we have this ridiculous story from an Ashland, OR school district stating that the Christmas tree is a Christian symbol and cannot be legally displayed unless surrounded by other Winter decorations and/or symbols of other religions (If these teachers would do their homework they’d know that the Christmas tree derives more from pagan traditions than from Christianity).
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101215/NEWS07/12150347/-1/NEWSMAP

I recently read a blog where the author stated that “America is no longer a predominately Christian nation" and, therefore, Christian displays should not be permitted during the Christmas season. Unfortunately, this is a common misperception shared by the politically liberal and the atheists, and is evidence that the ACLU is winning the Christmas Wars.

The fact of the matter is that Americans overwhelmingly self identify as Christian. Depending upon what survey you trust (see examples below), 76% to 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This would make America the most Christian nation on earth given the fact that only 33% of the world is Christian.

Furthermore, even though only 76-83% identify as Christian, a whooping 96% of Americans state that they celebrate Christmas (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics 2003)

90% of Americans recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ (Gallup 2000)

And 88% of Americans say it’s OK to wish someone Merry Christmas (CNN/USA Today/ Gallup 2004).

All This is not surprising given the fact that many non Christians in foreign countries also state that they celebrate Christmas (albeit, more from a materialistic aspect rather than from a religious aspect).

I have listed below just a few of the surveys of predominant religions in America:

PEW Research Survey
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/easter-smaller-percentage-americans-christian.aspx

CNN Survey
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/living/us.religion.less.christian_1_american-religious-identification-survey-christian-nation-evangelical?_s=PM:LIVING
ARIS Survey
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Now, I have mentioned several times that government and school officials refuse to allow Christmas decorations and or celebrations because they are ignorant of the law. Well what is the law? That could be the subject of a whole other lengthy article. In the interest of brevity I will defer to a summary of the applicable law by the Alliance Defense Fund which states:

"Although the overall (religious) display must not convey a message endorsing a particular religion's view, Christmas displays are not banned as some people believe. Simply put, the courts ask, 'Is the municipality celebrating the holiday or promoting religion?"

The ADF also provides this summary of the Holdings of the US Supreme Court in this area:

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that public schools must ban the singing of religious Christmas carols or prohibit the distribution of candy canes or Christmas cards.

School officials may refer to a school break in December as "Christmas Vacation" or as a holiday without offending the Constitution.

School officials do not violate the Constitution by closing on religious holidays such as Christmas and Good Friday.

No court has ever held that celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas as religious holidays requires recognition of all other religious holidays.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that Christmas trees or Santa Clauses are religious symbols.

The "Three Reindeer Rule" used by the courts requires a municipality to place a sufficient number of secular objects in close enough proximity to the Christmas item (such as a crèche) to render the overall display sufficiently secular. Although the overall display must not convey a message endorsing a particular religion's view, Christmas displays are not banned as some people believe. Simply put, the courts ask, "Is the municipality celebrating the holiday or promoting religion?"

All these US Supreme Court cases dealt with government entities placing religious displays on public property, however the most recent US Supreme Court case states that it IS constitutional when churches, community groups, civic organizations, or private individuals privately display nativity scenes or other religious symbols on property which is considered to be open for the use of the public, such as public squares where other displays are permitted. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, ____ U.S. ____, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995).

I have included some links to extensive analyses of the law here:

Religious Tolerance – US Supreme Court Case Analysis
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s1.htm

ACLJ - US Supreme Court Case Analysis:
http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources/Document.aspx?ID=692

ADF – US Supreme Court Analysis:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=3579

A reading of the applicable US Supreme Court cases makes it clear that secular items such as Christmas trees and Santa Clauses are not religious items and that if a government entity or private individual truly wanted to display a religious symbol such as a nativity scene or a Jewish Menorah on public property they may do so as long as they follow certain legal guidelines that will satisfy alleged constitutional requirements.

In the final analysis; the ACLU and it’s proponents claim that the celebration of Christmas within the public schools and in the public forums produces “divisive conflicts” and constitutes “indoctrination,” “coercion,” and “censorship.” I maintain that the only people promoting divisive conflict, indoctrination, coercion and censorship are senior members of the ACLU, The American Atheists, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other similar organizations.

I come from a rather international background, having attended college and graduate school in a non Christian country (Japan) and having lived in several other different countries with their own culturally specific holidays and celebrations. In stark contrast to the ACLU proposition, I have found that I felt more welcomed and more included in foreign cultures when I participated in their local customs and holidays, whether Christian or not. I also believe it created a trust that allowed an open two-way communication about my religious beliefs and an understanding of my host country’s religions, holidays and cultural history. I never once felt that I was being indoctrinated into Buddhism when I practiced meditation at a Buddhist Temple or happily participated in Buddhist and Shinto celebrations in Japan. I only felt more accepted by the Japanese, and more included in their celebration of life.

The end effect of the actions of the ACLU and their proponents is to erase a Christian heritage that has been a primary component of America’s strength and success for more than 200 years and to divide America and turn American against American based upon religious beliefs. Regardless of religious persuasion, Christmas is one of the most beautiful holidays in America and around the world. Christmas used to mean coming together in peace and solitude to promote mutual understanding, but opponents are now trying to turn it into chaos and conflict; Satan would be very pleased.

For a different prospective on this issue I have included this link:

Don’t Let The Grinch Steal Christmas
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Dont-Let-the-Grinch-Steal-Christmas.html

And this one:

I'm Keeping CHRIST in CHRISTmas ..... Who's with me?

http://christmas.songear.com/

Christian Student Groups - Good or Evil?

2010-03-30T12:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/ReligiousFreedom/UniversityLife.aspx?cid=5230&referral=E0310E1F

The link above goes to a video produced by the Alliance Defense Fund and concerns a very important upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case entitled CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, PETITIONER v. LEO P. MARTINEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. The link to the petitioners brief can be found here:

http://www.clsnet.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/08-1371_Brief_for_Petitioner.pdf

The outcome of this case could very easily result in the exclusion of the last vestiges of Christianity and prayer in public institutions by forbidding religious student groups. The process being used by the homosexual advocacy groups in this case is indicative of the same processes they have used to destroy the Episcopal Church in recent years.

The stated issue of the case is: “Whether the Constitution permits a public university law school to exclude a religious student organization from a forum for speech solely because the group requires its officers and voting members to share its core religious commitments.” Basically the Christian Legal Society's student group at Hastings Law School is arguing that their first amendment rights are being violated because they are being denied Registered Student Organization (RSO) status because they require leaders and voting members to adhere to certain Christian orthodox principles (as stated in the bible). As liberal atheist and homosexual advocacy groups do so often; they are trying to turn the tables by arguing that this is a case where the CLS is discriminating against them rather than the school discriminating against the CLS even though there is no shred of evidence that the CLS has ever discriminated against a homosexual person (and in fact welcomes homosexual persons to group activities)

I'm a member of a Facebook group entitled "Allow Prayer in Schools" and thought the above linked video would be of interest to the group. Upon posting the link I was immediately confronted by the groups "Token Atheist" who claims the case has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with discrimination against homosexuals. The entire source of his argument appears to be a biased article in the National Law Journal and he has resisted my pleas for him to attempt to learn the true facts by reading the actual pleadings in the case. I am reposting our Facebook thread here so readers can decide for themselves (I apologize in advance as this is a long post):

Token Atheist:

This has nothing to do with Christianity, the group openly discriminates against gays and lesbians.

From the National Law Journal:

"Law school organizations are lining up behind the University of California Hastings College of the Law in the upcoming Supreme Court argument pitting the school against the Christian Legal Society.

The Association of American Law Schools and the Society of American Law Teachers have filed amicus briefs in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which is scheduled for argument on April 19. The American Bar Association also joined the fray last week with an amicus brief in support of the law school.

The case stems from a 2004 decision by Hastings to deny the Christian Legal Society funding and status as a registered student organization on the grounds that it excludes gays and lesbians. Society members must sign a statement of faith that the group’s national chapter has interpreted to bar people with a 'sexually immoral lifestyle.' Hastings said the Christian Legal Society violates the school’s non-discrimination policy."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446549641

Saviorlife:

And why would gays and lesbians want to join a group that believes that homosexuality is a sin?

Token Atheist:

The question isn't why gays and lesbians would want to join, the question is whether the group discriminates against gays and lesbians. This violates the school's policy, so the group is not registered. It's as simple as that.

Saviorlife:

I suggest you read the actual case pleadings rather than reciting incorrect facts from anti Christian publications. You can find the petitioners brief here:

http://www.clsnet.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/08-1371_Brief_for_Petitioner.pdf

Now that I’ve read the actual case facts I realize that your initial statement is completely wrong. This case has nothing to do with gay/lesbian discrimination and everything to do with Christian student groups being treated differently than other student groups and having their freedoms of religion, speech and assembly violated. The way the gay/lesbian issue got into this case was because a radical gay/lesbian student group called “Outlaw” intervened in the case for the sole purpose of silencing the religious speech of the CLS.

The true issue stated in the legal pleadings is: “Whether the Constitution permits a public university law school to exclude a religious student organization from a forum for speech solely because the group requires its officers and voting members to share its core religious commitments.”

The fact of the matter is that the CLS does not discriminate against gays/lesbians and allows them to participate in group activities. There has never been an instance when a gay/lesbian person has been refused participation.

What is at issue here is whether the CLS can require voting members and club leaders to agree to a statement of faith which condemns sexual immorality (specifically citing several verses from the bible). Yes some of the verses condemn unrepentant homosexual behavior but they also condemn almost every other type of unrepentant sexual immorality outside of traditional marriage, as well as condemning any violations of the ten commandments.

Is it arbitrary or unreasonable to expect leaders of an orthodox Christian organization to adhere to the word of God?

There’s never been an instance when a gay/lesbian person wanted to become a voting member or leader and refused to sign the statement of faith. I’m thinking if a gay/lesbian person signed and adhered to the statement of faith they would probably be openly welcomed to the group.

Hastings school of law allows all other student groups to “discriminate” against members in a way that would protect the inherent purpose of the group. Read this quote from the legal pleadings: “Intervenor-Respondent Outlaw, for example, reserves the right to remove any officer who “work[s] against the spirit of the organization’s goals and objectives.” Pet. App. 138a. Similarly, the bylaws of Silenced Right, a prolife advocacy group, state that “[s]o long as individuals are committed to the goals set out by the leadership, they are welcome to participate and vote in Silenced Right elections.” Id. at 143a. Under the constitution of the Hastings chapter of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (“ATLA”), all members must “adhere to the objectives of the Student Chapter as well as the mission of [national] ATLA.” Id. at 110a. Students may be members of the Hastings Democratic Caucus (“HDC”) only “so long as they do not exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization as stated in [HDC’s bylaws].” Id. at 118a. The sole objective identified in those bylaws is the group’s ideological commitment “to advance Democratic party principles.” Id. at 117a. All of these groups were accepted as RSOs. As Hastings acknowledged in its answer to CLS’s complaint, “the Policy on Nondiscrimination permits political, social, and cultural student organizations to select officers and members who are dedicated to a particular set of ideals or beliefs.” J.A. 93.” …… “The record further indicates that Hastings’ Policy was not applied where it would interfere with the identity and message of a student group. For example, the La Raza bylaws restrict “policy” membership to students “of Raza background” (meaning persons of Latino or Mexican descent) who timely pay their dues and regularly attend meetings. Id. at 192. Only “policy” members have the right to vote. Ibid. La Raza also has a category of “associate” members that “encompasses all [Hastings] students * * * who are of Raza background.”

It’s obvious, that once again, Christian student groups are being singled out and treated differently from all other student groups and their freedoms of religion, speech and assembly are being violated.

All legalities aside, common sense tells you that you wouldn’t want a Republican running a Democrat organization, or a white man running a black advocacy organization, or a radical terrorist running a pacifist organization, or a pedofile running a girl scout brownie troop. Similarly you wouldn’t want a person who does not adhere to Christian principles running an orthodox Christian organization such as the CLS. If you have people running your group who have views diametrically opposed to the objectives of the group, your group will most likely cease to exist. This is exactly the objective of the atheist and gay/lesbian alliances. They want to infiltrate religious organizations and destroy them from within.

Token Atheist:

The National Law Journal is an anti-Christian publication? Paranoid much?

Saviorlife:

Don't know about the National Law Journal, but the author of this article is most certainly biased toward the homosexual viewpoint. Nowhere in her article does she state the true issue (as it is stated in the pleadings). She makes it appear as if the entire case is about discrimination against homosexuals which is never even mentioned in the case. The only mention of discrimination against homosexuals comes from the intervenor group, Outlaw. Furthermore, for the life of me, I can't figure out how Outlaw has standing as there is no evidence anywhere of any discrimination against a homosexual person. Not paranoid at all, just stating the facts.

Token Atheist:

Then why did you say it was an anti-Christian publication? BTW is the American Bar Association anti Christian? Or is it pro-gay? How many ways can you spin this?

On rereading the article from the National Law Journal, I see the problem. You can't tell the difference between unbiased reporting and "biased toward the homosexual viewpoint."

Unlike your case pleadings, the article simply reports the facts.

In any case, the case pleadings you list are not the "facts of the case", they are the Christian Legal Society's attempt to dissuade the court from believing that the reason the school disallowed their group is due to the group's discriminatory policy. Does the group define being gay as immoral? Does the group require members to sign a document agreeing to this position?

Saviorlife:

What???? The facts stated in case pleadings are submitted to the court by professional attorneys who adhere to a strict code of ethics and under penalty of perjury. Are you trying to imply that the attorneys are mis-stating the facts and the National Law Journal article is unbiased when it ONLY focuses on a minor (and rather insignificant) aspect of the case (discrimination against homosexuals)? If the author is trying to somehow force a Christian student organization out of existence by proliferating facts that don't exist in a well documented case; yes, I'd say she is anti Christian (and so too, is her publisher who allows such reporting).

What does the ABA have to do with anything. The National Law Journal is not a publication of the ABA.

If one loses on the facts argue about something completely unrelated.

Saviorlife:

BTW, the author of the National Law Journal article also makes it sound like all these reputable organizations are filing amicus briefs and siding with the pro homosexual argument. The truth is there are at least 23 amicus briefs filed supporting the CLS, including briefs from many universities and several gay/lesbian organizations such as the one you can find here:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1371_PetitionerAmCuGLIL.pdf

Saviorlife:

To answer your question: Yes the ABA is considered to be very liberal, pro gay and very possibly anti Christian. I refer to the following:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/03/liberal_bias_at.html

Token Atheist:

"pro homosexual argument.'

No. The anti-discrimination argument. This is the part you just don't get. Being on the side of tolerance does not mean supporting some sort of perceived pro-homosexual agenda. By your standards it would seem, most Christians are pro-homosexual. Tolerance is after all, a prime component of mainstream Christianity.

"Are you trying to imply that the attorneys are mis-stating the facts?"

That's what attorneys do. The case pleadings represent ONLY their side of the argument, because they are trying to convince the court to take their side. Bias is not merely perceived, it is professionally required. Journalists may or may not be biased, but they have nothing to lose by stating the facts, while the lawyers on either side of the case absolutely do. It is up to the court to decide what are facts of the case.

Your link to http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1371_PetitionerAmCuGLIL.pdf leads to a corrupt file. And it doesn't surprise me that there are organizations lining up to support a Fundamentalist Christian case. The Christian Right is very good at circling the wagons. But how many of them have no inherent right-wing agenda? The ABA has no such agenda, and any bias is merely representative of social momentum. Society has been moving in the direction of liberalism for all of human history. Jesus was a big part of that.

And you do realize that your "liberal bias in the ABA" link is nothing more than the comments section of a blog, right? Yes I looked at the links that point to a New York times article and an academic paper which report that conservatives consider the ABA to be a liberal organization, but all this proves is that the conservative right doesn't know where the middle is.

Saviorlife:

The statement of facts and the arguments are two different parts of pleadings. When there is disagreement about the facts, the attorneys are obligated to make these disagreements known and allow the judge to decide the truth. There is no such disagreement in this case. They've had 6 years of arguments to establish the facts. The facts in this case are undisputed. Yes, each side will attempt to present the facts in a light most favorable to their argument, however an attorney cannot lie about the facts. Mis-stating the facts of a case is an act of perjury and grounds for disbarment.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that a journalist, with no firsthand knowledge of the case, has a better grasp of facts than the attorneys who have been arguing it for well over 6 years?

What I'm trying to tell you is; get your information from the primary source (the pleadings) and not from some biased article (whether it be a liberal or conservative ). If you think the facts are different in the respondent's pleadings, please show me their version, I've looked and have found no other version of the facts. Please, please, show me an instance where the CLS has refused to allow a homosexual person to participate in their group on the Hastings Law School campus, PLEASE.

Journalists are not constrained by any professional code of ethics or threat of perjury (which is probably a good thing). However human beings are pre-disposed to bias. Show me the facts that this journalist has put forward to support a claim of discrimination by the CLS against a homosexual person? You can't do it, because she has recited no such facts. There are no such facts in this case. The only reason there is a homosexual discrimination facet to this case is because the Hastings student homosexual advocacy group, Outlaw, intervened on the grounds that "its members WOULD be excluded from membership in CLS.” (not that there was , in fact, any such exclusion). That's akin to saying a black person can bring a discrimination suit against a restaurant because the waiter MIGHT refuse to serve him, IF he ever decided to dine in that restaurant. Ordinarily this would not satisfy the requirements of "standing" to get the case to the Supreme Court. Yet the author of this National Law Journal article never states any facts and pretends the whole case is about discrimination against homosexuals. Because she is writing from a "pro homosexual agenda" bias.

I use the term "pro homosexual argument" for lack of a better term. The pro homosexual argument in this case is that the CLS is discriminating against homosexuals, when in fact there is no such evidence. Don't confuse refusal to accept this "homosexual argument" with refusal to accept homosexuals (as people).

Christian organizations should accept homosexuals, the same way they accept all sinners (and we're all sinners). What they should not be forced to accept is the arguments of homosexual organizations whose agenda includes depriving Christians of their freedoms of religion, speech, assemble and expression. This is not just a "perceived" agenda. As I stated in the original title of my post - "Christian student groups are constantly under attack on state run campuses" (I gave you links to 36 high profile cases/examples, in just the past year, in one of my previous posts in this group). I hate to burst your bubble, but I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will even address the homosexual argument in this case because it's not included in the courts narrowly defined issue of the case. As usual, the liberal anti Christian groups are attempting to score points in the media because they know their arguments will not survive the legal challenge.

Of course conservative Christians, such as I, have an agenda. And yes you're right that there is social momentum in the direction of" liberalism". If you believe the way I do, this momentum toward "liberalism", is really a slippery slope toward sin that Satan has disguised as liberalism. There is nothing wrong with liberalism when it doesn't advocate sin. The purpose of the church is to hold fast to the word of God in the face of intense social pressures (such as this momentum in the direction of "liberalism") and Satan's temptations to sin. The church is the last defense against Satan and the last hope for those sinners who wish to repent and inherit eternal life in heaven.

Just put your sentiments aside for a second and look at how ridiculous the arguments against CLS are. Every other student organization on the Hastings Law School campus is allowed to establish rules for its voting members that support and protect the basic tenants of the group. ONLY the CLS is being forced to abandon those rules (because they are a Christian organization). The very groups that are arguing against CLS are the ones that have the most to lose. A judgment against CLS means that all special interest groups, such as gay advocacy groups, and many of the groups the ACLU represents, will be required to allow persons with agendas hostile to their own to vote on matters that will affect the very existence of their groups. The respondents in this case, if they prevail, will not only destroy Christian groups across the country but destroy the very concept of a group. What they're advocating is "CHAOS". Satan would be very pleased.

Discrimination is not always bad, illegal or unconstitutional. In fact, many times discrimination is absolutely necessary.

Earlier in this thread you stated: "The question is whether the group discriminates against gays and lesbians. This violates the school's policy, so the group is not registered. It's as simple as that." I hope you now realize it's not "as simple as that" and that is why this case is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I refuse to get into a petty argument about the political leanings of the ABA or the National Law Journal. Do your own research and you can decide for yourself where they stand. The issue here is about the CLS case.

I believe I've made my views clear and I have nothing further to say.

The Right To Commit Adultery - Good or Evil?

2010-03-18T18:48:00.000-07:00

This is a very good article indicating how complacent we've become as a society toward sinful behavior that destroys children, families, people and society. Please click on this link and read the article:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2010/03/17/the_right_to_adultery

A "MUST READ" For All Concerned About Good and Evil

2010-03-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

In the tradition of C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters", David Virtue brings us the following blog entry. I have loved reading his Screwtape analogies in the past, but this one is particularly on point. Thank you David.

Please follow this link and read:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12264

Freedom FROM Religion - Good or Evil?

2010-02-28T21:05:00.000-08:00

I was inspired to write this article after reading several blogs by people complaining about being subjected to religious images, such as the cross, the ten commandments and nativity scenes, in public and being bothered by “religious fanatics” knocking on their doors or preaching on street corners. These people are claiming, and demanding, that freedom ”of” religion includes freedom “from” religion. It immediately occurred to me that these same people never seem to be offended by the constant imagery of murders, brutality and bizarre sexual portrayals that they are being subjected to every day on TV, in the movies, in video games and on the Internet (please remember that the average American child will witness more than 8000 murders on TV before graduating from elementary school and more than 200,000 acts of violence on TV by the age of 18 and this doesn’t even include the abundance of sex and violence in video games and on the Internet). In essence these people are attempting to use the same First Amendment, that protects this right to broadcast sex and violence, to impede the freedom of speech that supports freedom of religion. If I had to choose between being constantly bombarded with images of bizarre sex, violence and murder or with fleeting reminders of our traditional Christian heritage, I think I would choose the fleeting reminders of our Christian heritage. Why wouldn’t these people complain as loudly about the evil they are constantly confronted with, every day, in the mass media?

I was also inspired to write this article by the actions of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the mass media, and even the United States Government, who are manipulating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to silence religious speech and to discriminate against Christians. Recently I was appalled to hear the outcry from the media and government officials when a Catholic bishop in Massachusetts suggested, privately, to one of the Kennedys that he not attend church because he supported abortion in the United States House of Representatives. Some pundits rationalized that the church has tax exempt status and should, therefore, be barred from exercising its first amendment freedom of speech rights to speak out against abortion. How do people justify denying the first amendment rights of others simply because they have a different point of view from their own (and theirs isn’t even in the majority)? Yet, abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood speak out in favor of murdering unborn babies, and no one ever questions their right to freedom of speech (even though speech advocating murder and/or violence is an exception, and is not protected by the First Amendment) . Furthermore, nobody questioned the actions of the Pro Abortion organizations who attempted to forcibly silent the voices of Tim Tebow and his mother who appeared in an anti abortion commercial during the 2010 Super Bowl. The ACLU and other groups advocating freedom “from” religion have used the fallacy of “separation of church and state” to:

- Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for

Sunday worship services.

- Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed

from public buildings.

- Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or

football games.

- Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction

for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

- Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade

- Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”(1)

On October 22, 2009, hidden within a defense department bill, the U.S. government passed the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act which intentionally chills the free speech rights of Christians to express their biblically based opinions about homosexuality and same sex marriage. The Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and similar local laws, have already been used to force people to take actions that violate their religious beliefs: In New Mexico, a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same sex marriage, based upon his religious beliefs, was fined by the states Human Rights Commission. In New Jersey, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was threatened with prosecution for abiding by its religious beliefs and refusing to allow its private property to be used for same sex civil unions. Similar laws in other countries have been used to arrest and interrogate clergy preaching against homosexuality using biblical scriptures. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act represents the first time the U.S. government has codified disapproval of a widely held religious belief (that homosexuality is a sin condemned by the Bible) and unconstitutionally elevates “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to a protected class under federal law.

Soon after the passage of this law it was revealed that Youtube.com has systematically violated the free speech rights of Christians who have posted videos expressing their biblically based opinions about homosexuality by removing the videos without the owner’s permission.

Over the past several years the U.S. government has been chipping away at the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and is now embarking on campaigns to allow people to be “free from” religion resulting in discrimination against Christians and a violation of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Just under 400 years ago Pilgrims and Puritans came to America seeking freedom of religion and freedom from government interference with, and control of their religious practices. There is no dispute about the fact that America’s beginnings are deeply rooted in Christian principles and the desire to allow people to exercise their religion, free from government control.

As a testament to how seriously the founding fathers considered freedom of religion, and the necessity to keep government out of religious affairs, one only has to look to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The very first right guaranteed to Americans in the very first amendment restricts the government from making any law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of religion. Clearly this is a provision to guarantee that government will not interfere with, or attempt to control, religious practices.

This guarantee of religious freedom from governmental interference and control appears to be of equal importance with freedom of speech (which occupies the second spot in the first amendment). Therefore when people argue that freedom ”of” religion includes freedom “from” religion we should ask ourselves: Does freedom “of” speech include freedom “from” speech? The answer is clearly NO. When you seek to be “free from” something you are necessarily trying to be away from it and stopping it from doing whatever it is doing to you. When you have “freedom of” something you are being inclusive and want to be part of, or with that thing.

People who argue for “freedom from” religion are simply trying to violate the people’s right to speak freely about religion. They are trying to force these people to stop speaking, acting and believing the way they desire. Unfortunately, in a truly free society people often have to listen to, and tolerate what other people do, say and believe. This does not mean you have to agree with it, but you should protect their right to express themselves without interference or control. You even have the equal right to express your difference of opinion, but you don’t have the right to coerce the government to pass laws against it because their speech is already protected by the Constitution.

Arguing that people have the right to be “free from” certain types of religious expressions is similar to saying people have a right to be “free from” whatever principles the Republican Party, or Democratic Party is expressing and have a right to stop those political parties from espousing those principles. You don’t have to agree with what is said/expressed; you don’t even have to listen to it; but in those circumstances when you can’t avoid it; you should tolerate it. This is what sets America apart from totalitarian religious states that punish non believers with death, torture or imprisonment when their citizens disagree with the government’s religious edicts.

It is important to note that there is no language in the first amendment implying that there is any separation, or wall, between the church and the state. In 1789, when the first amendment was ratified, it was probably inconceivable that any government official would not adhere to Christian principles, or would exclude religion from governmental proceedings or government controlled property. This is clearly evident from the American tradition of beginning most governmental proceedings with some type of glorification of God and country, and adorning government buildings with symbols of our Christian heritage. By the words, laws and actions of our founding fathers it should be evident that the intent of the first amendment and of the establishment and free exercise clauses is to “keep government out of religion” rather than to “keep religion out of government”. In other words: to have freedom “of” religion and not freedom” from” religion.

Many people attempt to argue that the first amendment requires a “separation of church and state”, implying that no government entity, or government supported entity, can ever display or utter Christian oriented images or principles, even if purely historical or traditional in nature. In fact, the term “separation of church and state” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The exact phrase is “a wall of separation between church and state” and it first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in 1801, when Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that their freedom of religion would be protected even though they were encountering persecution from local Congregationalists. In other words, the government would not side with the Congregationalist and interfere with the Baptists; The government would protect the Baptists to worship as they wished. The Congregationalists would not be granted "freedom from religion" and the Baptists would be granted "freedom of religion".

The writings of Thomas Jefferson are often referred to when interpreting freedom of religion issues, because he was not a strong advocate of Christianity. It is also important to remember that he was not even one of the signers of the Constitution, did not take part in original discussions about the First Amendment and his opinions are not controlling. Many writings by Jefferson espouse a strong desire to keep government from intermeddling with religious affairs, but none of his writings indicate a desire to keep religion out of government. Again it appears that even though Jefferson was basically a deist he still supported “freedom of religion” but not “freedom from religion”

In fact, the term “separation of church and state” did not become a legal principle until 1947, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, when Justice Hugo Black wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” His opinion and this statement were arguably based upon a misreading of the Jefferson Danbury Letter, mentioned above.

In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”(2) In other words, freedom “from” religion silences religious speech to the point where only secular speech is permitted. Furthermore, it results in a lack of knowledge about Christianity which will leave people ignorant of a large part of human and American history and ultimately, violates the rights of religious Americans to exercise their religions freely.

Finally, In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains...fundamental flaws...[It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT DEMAND A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.”(3)

People in favor of freedom “from” religion often argue that the “founding fathers” such a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not ”good” Christians and therefore this country is not a country based upon Christian principles. These people miss the point. It wouldn’t matter if these “founding fathers” were Muslim; They understood the principles behind the First Amendment, and knew that it derived from the desire for freedom of religion and freedom of speech as envisioned by the pilgrims and puritans, and that these principles were absolutely necessary to the survival of a truly free state. They all supported the First Amendment and freedom of religion according to its original intent (which did not include freedom “from” religion).

Actually James Madison is usually the founding father referred to as "the father of the Constitution" and Madison was a graduate of Princeton Seminary, and even learned Hebrew in his last year so he could better understand the Old Testament. Madison also authored more than one third of the Federalists Papers which were an attempt to explain the intent behind the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion. The Federalists Papers make it crystal clear that the founding fathers believed that all law and politics must be based upon the Holy Scriptures and that the first amendment is intended to exclude the government from interferring with religion rather than excluding religion from involvement in politics/government.

Although Jefferson was the most zealous in not supporting Christianity, even he placed his hand on the Holy Bible and swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, “So help me God” when he became president, and he maintained traditional customs of saying prayers at the start of all government activities and approved Christian imagery on government properties. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the primary driver behind allowing the capitol building to be used as a church from 1800 until after World War II (see the Congressional Record for November 1800). The personal diaries of Sentors and Congressmen, of his time, reveal that Jefferson attended church in the capitol building regularly (riding his horse to services every Sunday). These same diaries state that James Madison arrived in a carriage drawn by two white horses, every Sunday, to attend church in the capitol building.

Many "freedom from" religion advocates also argue that George Washington was not a good Christian because he did not attend church regularly. While it may be true that Washington did not attend church every Sunday, the record is clear that Washington was a devout Christian. This is evidenced by the fact that the wall of his tomb in Mt Vernon, that was built according to the wishes expressed by Washington in his will, contains the scriptural verse: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" john 11:25-26. Resurrection of the dead is a key premise of Christianity and Washington was very clear that he wanted to be associated with this premise for eternity by having it emblazoned on his tomb.

If these founding fathers thought the government should be free "from" religion, would they have allowed all these "church centric" governmental activities?

All these men took actions to keep government out of religion, but none of them took actions to keep religion out of government. These “founding fathers” knew that America was a nation built upon Christian principles and that if they attempted to keep religion out of government, the way politicians do today, that they would likely be removed from office with extreme prejudice.

Although Christianity was the predominant religion in the time of the founding fathers, we must understand that the First Amendment is not protecting just the rights of Christians, but the rights of all religious philosophies, believing in God or not. If the government can discriminate against the largest and most populous religion in the world, there is no security for any religion or belief in America.

Recently it has become common for people to claim that it is a violation of their freedom of religion when a cross, the ten commandments or the words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned on government property or on government printed material; however, they are ignoring the fact that these are historical symbols, reminding us of our Christian heritage, and are not attempts to influence people to adhere to, or agree with Christianity. If anything, these symbols should be reminders of the Christians who risked their lives to come to America to establish a system that honors, and upholds freedom to believe, or not believe, in any religion they choose, which includes the right to speak freely about that religion, or deny religion all together.

Arguing that having a cross or the Ten Commandments displayed in a government building is somehow endorsing one religion over another is similar to saying that the Hippocratic oath posted in a hospital is an attempt to ensure that all visitors to the hospital agree with and adhere to the teachings of the Greek healing gods. The Hippocratic Oath is a historic reminder of the principles upon which the medical profession was built. Yes, the Ten Commandments are known for being of Judeo/Christian origin; however they are the historical basics upon which America was founded, and are also excellent principles upon which to base social/legal rules and regulations. Most atheists, and even some criminals, would probably agree with the basic principles of the Ten Commandments: Honor your mother and father, Don’t steal, Don’t lie, Don’t kill, Don’t commit adultery, etc. It appears that just because the Ten Commandments have a Judeo/Christian origin and mention a belief in God, a minority of people, denying the Christian heritage of America, can force the government to abandon the encouragement a display of the Ten Commandments instills in Americans to live by some traditional, historical and universally accepted rules of secular law. The erosion of the Judeo Christian principles in America is leading to a similar erosion of secular rules and regulations.

In the final analysis, Americans should stop whining like spoiled little babies. It is time they accepted the fact that America was built upon Christian principles. It is unfortunate that some people are so defensive and feel threatend by what others say or believe; but America is a country built on the principles of Freedom of speech and freedom of religion and not freedom from speech and freedom from religion. It’s unlikely any other country in the world will put up with selfish whining inspired by a desire to live an ungodly, immoral life. If you are American you are expected to exercise tolerance of the religious beliefs and expressions of others. If you can’t do that you are not a “true” American.

(1), (2) & (3) ADF Alliance Defense Fund Pamphlet: Separation of Church and State, page2.

THOU SHALT STEAL - Anglican Priests Who Advocate Crime & Sin - Good or Evil?

2009-12-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

This is a topic that requires much more thought, analysis and discussion than I am affording it now. I hope to expound upon this later.

Over the past several years, Episcopal and Anglican priest, bishops and lay delegates have been making outrageous statements that are in complete contradiction of Biblical scriptures and, in particular, the Ten Commandments. We have heard that: "The resurrection of Christ is pure conjecture"; that "Jesus is not the only way to the father" That homosexuality is OK, and even a blessing; that abortion is "a blessing from God". And now we have an Anglican priest in York, UK advising his poorer parishioners to STEAL from large retail stores rather than turn to other forms of crime. Apparently this priest was not paying attention in seminary, and does not understand the eighth commandment that states: "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL".

These are the links to the full story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237470/Priest-advises-congregation-shoplift.html

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9856312544.html

http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/12/27/former-archbishop-condemns-uk-priests-call-to-stealing/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/8426205.stm

Personally, I believe priests making statements such as this should be immediately excommunicated. If I were a manager in a corporation and made a disparaging statement about my corporation's brand, that caused my corporation international embarrassment and irreparable harm, I would be immediately terminated (even if I wasn't advocating a crime or mortal sin). Why should the church be run any differently? Thank the Lord for people like Ray Comfort who understands the word of God.

Mal 2:7 You priests should be eager to spread knowledge, and everyone should come to you for instruction, because you speak for me, the LORD All-Powerful.

Mal 2:8 But you have turned your backs on me. Your teachings have led others to do sinful things, and you have broken the agreement I made with your ancestor Levi. (CEV)

Ghosts, Psychics and the Paranormal on Reality TV - Good or Evil?

2009-12-29T13:56:00.000-08:00

Over the past several years there has been an explosion of reality television programs dealing with the true life experiences of ghost hunters, psychics and mediums interacting with supposedly dead people and the paranormal. There has also been a plethora of mainstream programs dealing with fictional enactments of similar encounters. Some of these programs include:

Ghost Hunters (including Ghost Hunters International and Ghost Hunters Academy) (SciFi)
Ghost Lab (TDC)
Ghost Whisperer (TDC)
Ghost Adventures (TRAVEL)

Celebrity Ghost Stories (A&E)
Paranormal State (A&E)

Paranormal Cops (A&E)
Psychic Kids (A&E)
Pet Psychic Encounters (ANIMAL)
Supernatural (TNT)
Medium (LIF)
The Haunted (ANIMAL)
Most Terrifying Places in America (TRAVEL)

World's Creepiest Destinations (TRAVEL)
Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (FAM)

The question that arises is whether this is another attack by Satan upon our children and our society through the medium of television or whether any good can come of such programming?

First, I must admit that I was intrigued by paranormal research at the age of 10 or 12 and read every book I could get my hands on related to the paranormal and UFOs. This was long before it became trendy to have an interest in such things. This was also a time of searching in my life, and I firmly believe it was my research into these topics that eventually lead me to a strong belief in God. On the other hand, I do consider myself lucky because I don't have an addictive personality and was able to look at this research subjectively without becoming emotionally involved in the darker realms.

At that time, the closest that mainstream media came to dealing with such topics was to air special television events featuring ESP advocate, The Amazing Kreskin, the "spoon bending" Uri Geller, and to relate the latest predictions by atrologer Jeane Dixon.

In fact, on the current television program, Paranormal State, whenever the researchers encounter a supposed demonic entity, they call in a demonology expert named Lorraine Warren. She's a dear sweet, gray haired, little old lady. For those to young to remember; Lorraine Warren and her husband Ed Warren were trail blazers in the field of ghost hunting back in the 1960's and early 70's. At that time Lorraine was a very assertive, statuesque and glamorous blonde. I know because I attended their presentation at Temple University in Philadelphia in 1974. I also remember, while Ed Warren, was giving his presentation, I felt something lock onto my mind like a vice. I realized it was Lorraine trying to "read my mind". I fought back by thinking, "get out of here, don't read my mind". It must have worked because the vice loosened. After Ed finished speaking, Lorraine mentioned that she was picking up thoughts from the guy next to me, that he was very skeptical (she must have moved on to him when she couldn't get through to me).

In any case, over the years there has been a progressive interest in, and acceptance of ghosts, psychics, UFOs, the paranormal and Satan. In fact, in May of 2008 the Vatican's chief astronomer proclaimed that belief in aliens and UFOs does not contradict a faith in God. We had movies such as "The Exorcist" in 1973, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" in 1977 and "Ghost Busters" in 1984. The late 1990's and early 2000's saw people such as John Edward and James Van Praagh supposedly communicating with dead people on TV. And, now, we have this onslaught of ghost and paranormal oriented TV programming. Yes, it's true that most of this programming is taking place because it is cheaper to produce reality programs than to pay script writers, directors, etc. to produce a mainstream program. However, the question remains: What effect is programming such as this having on our society, and how should Christians react?

From my standpoint, I believe exposure to the paranormal, and specifically to evidence of Satan, lead me to a stronger belief in God. To this day, when I see, or hear of exorcisms or encounters with demons, I am so impressed by how easily Satan can be defeated by merely invoking the name of Jesus or the Archangel Michael and having faith in God.

I also see, what appears to be, "good things" accomplished by these ghost hunters and psychics. Paranormal State appears to have saved the lives of many people by recognizing that they are possessed by Satanic forces, and assisting them in the exorcism of these forces. Psychics have long been used by police departments to solve crimes that would otherwise go "cold" and be forgotten in a file cabinet in a storage room somewhere. Many ghost hunters seem to be bringing peace of mind to the haunted. Could these "good things" just be a trick of Satan?

The church views all dealings with the paranormal, and attempts to communicate with the dead, as Satanic and states that they should be avoided at all costs. Is this just another attempt by the church to "corner the market" on speaking to God? If all supernatural communications are Satanic and to be avoided at all costs, should God's numerous communications with the prophets in the bible be shuned as Satanic communications? If God should communicate with someone today, how will we know it is actually He and not a trick of Satan? Certainly we need people who have been trained to "know thy enemy" and be adept at deciphering the difference between Godly and Satanic communications.

Nevertheless, the Bible states:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 ....And do not let your people practice fortune-telling, or use sorcery, or interpret omens, or engage in witchcraft, or cast spells, or function as mediums or psychics, or call forth the spirits of the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord..... (CEV)

I believe it is necessary to be vigilante and to study your enemy Satan. However, this is not some innocent game, as TV shows such as Ghost Hunters imply. Make no mistake, Satan is real and he is very active in the realms of the supernatural, paranormal, and pychic. He is on the prowl for the naive and those who are too accepting. Some of the truly professional paranormal researchers, such as those on Paranormal State, and professional excorcists make it clear that dabbling in the areas of ghost hunting, paranormal and psychics can lead to true Satanic possession, even if you know what you're doing.

Unfortunately, none of these shows carry a warning stating that the program participants are professionals and that none of the activities should be attempted without professional guidance. I foresee an avalanche of young followers of these TV programs engaging in amateur investigations of the paranormal, and I believe they will immediately become possessed by Satan or other demonic forces due to their naiveté. On a much larger scale, this is like children playing with a oujee board, having no idea that it is associated with demons, and that they are unwittingly opening a door to Satanic forces. The media has no idea what they are dealing with (their only concern is to make money) and the actual participants are either too unprofessional to offer warnings to the producers, or are also after nothing more than money. Both may be unwitting accomplices of Satan.

After years of research and attending seminars on the supernatural and paranormal, I have arrived at the conclusion that the majority of participants in these activities are actively seeking the truth about life and love the rush of trying to solve a mystery and pursuing knowledge beyond that of the average person. They want to believe in a higher power and want to find the true meaning of life and solve mysteries that have dumbfounded men for ages. I say to these people: If you truly want to witness the supernatural and miracles and to believe in a higher power and discover the meaning of life, look no further than the Holy Bible. There are no greater mysteries than those revealed in the Bible. The events related in the Bible are far more believable and far surpass anything I have ever seen in my years of paranormal and UFO research. Attempting to understand/solve the mysteries of the Bible is a truly magnificent endeavor whereas pursuing Satanic and demonic forces could have very real and harmful consequences.

For anyone who is attracted to this new wave of ghost, paranormal and psychic reality shows, I recommend that they educate themselves of the very real dangers by visiting the following web site:

http://thedotpproject.com/index.html

8 Shopping Days Left Until Christmas - Does It Really Matter?

2009-12-16T19:11:00.000-08:00

This Christmas wouldn't you love to give a truly priceless gift that has profound satisfaction and significance for you and for the recipients?

Think of the possibilities.

This Blog is About The Struggle Between Good and Evil; Between The Cross and The Pitchfork

2009-11-25T20:57:00.000-08:00

Things are changing on my blog. It is no longer called "The Bible Babble" and is now called "The Cross and The Pitchfork" to reflect it's new emphasis. This primarily stems from a blog article I wrote several months ago entitled "Where is God as Satan Wins the Battle for the Hearts, Minds & Souls of Man?". After writing that article, this blog has slowly morped toward the analysis of good and evil, or the influence of the cross and the pitchfork. I have reproduced that original article below as a starting point for the rejuvenation of this blog:

Is Satan winning the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of man? What is God doing to stem the attacks of Satan, if anything? These are my opinions:

We live in a country where:

Satan influences politicians to support laws banning prayer and the reading of the bible in public schools while crime, unethical and sinful behavior have become the norm.

Satan influences politicians to support laws allowing the murder of millions of unborn human beings, by means of abortions, while doctors and medical institutions make billions of dollars.

Satan influences politicians to support laws mandating the marriage of same sex couples and attempts to force existing churches to adhere to an ungodly definition of marriage and moral conduct.

Satan influences high ranking church officials to condone homosexual behavior, ordain unrepentant homosexual priests, ministers and bishops and to support same sex marriage.

Satan influences some church officials to molest young boys and girls and then have superiors take inappropriate actions upon discovery.

Satan laughs as more than 4 million people go to bed homeless, and 50 million people go hungry, every night in the richest country in the world.

Satan influences the mass media and video game producers to promote criminal and sinful behavior and discriminate against those who would promote Godly and family values.

Satan ensures that the average American child witnesses 8000 murders on TV before graduating from elementary school and witness over 200,000 acts of violence on TV by the age of 18.

Satan has promoted the Internet as a more efficient breeding ground for the proliferation of pornography, prostitution, abhorrent sexual behavior, violence and criminal activity.

Satan encourages Americans to spend over $13 billion per year on pornography while contributions to churches dwindle.

Satan guides children as young as 9 years old to download pornography from the Internet and prompts children as young as 10 years old to engage in "sexting" on their cell phones to send nude pictures of themselves to other people.

Satan influences pre teenage children to join gangs, do drugs and murder whole families as a requirement of gang initiation.

Satan facilitates the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives through drugs, crime, pornography, abhorrent sexual behavior and suicide every year.

Satan influences banks, mortgage companies and credit card companies to be greedy, ignore fiduciary duties, and take advantage of innocent consumers.

Satan has invaded the hearts, minds and souls of hundreds of millions of Americans and hardened them against the word of God.

We live in a world where:

Satan influences the president of Iran to threaten Israel with total annihilation and to develop the means to do it.

Satan supports the proliferation of murderous groups such as the Taliban and Al Qaida and allows their leaders to evade capture.

Satan convinces naive people that it is honorable to strap explosives to their bodies and murder innocent people in crowded places around the world.

Satan promotes the rape and/or murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Sudan by means of the most horrendous methods imaginable.

Satan promotes the death of 15 million children from hunger each year while the U.S. government pays farmers to insure they do not produce food products at maximum capacity that could be used to feed the hungry.

This is just a short list of Satan’s battle plan. What is God’s plan?

First of all God has created soldiers such as you and me to carry out his will and battle the forces of Satan. When you watch videos and TV shows such as Paranormal State when they are attempting to exorcise the devil from possessed people you realize that God is all powerful. The mere mention of the name of Jesus Christ is usually sufficient to utterly destroy Satan’s domination of a human being. God is with us and we cannot fail with his support. Satan is no match for us.

God has a long history of allowing man to exercise his free will. Like any good manager, God lays down his rules and tells us his expectations. Then he delegates his management authority to the church and the prophets. Inevitably man strays from God’s commandments and the managers try to lead man back to the word of God. Eventually God loses his patience with man and sets an example by destroying the sinful (i.e. Noah and the great flood and Sodom and Gomorrah).

We are probably in one of those periods of time where man is exercising his free will and, under the influence of Satan, is ignoring the commandments of God. Time is probably short before God will, once again, destroy the sinful.

Now is the time to act, to sharpen your sword, align with God and defeat the forces of evil.

Luke 10:19 I have given you the power to trample on snakes and scorpions and to defeat the power of your enemy, Satan. Nothing can harm you.

Big Win for the Pro Life Movement and 40 Days For Life

2009-11-13T16:32:00.000-08:00

This video speaks for itself.

Prayer In Schools and On Facebook Under Attack

2009-11-08T20:40:00.000-08:00

I belong to a group on Facebook called"Allow Prayer in Schools". I posted the video above to the group several days ago. Low and behold, I was attacked by an Atheist person today (yes, in a group called "Allow Prayer in Schools") who stated that the video was all lies and there were no quotations of case facts etc.

In my discussion with this person he basically stated that all these allegations of First Amendment religious rights violations are all lies by the religious right to appear persecuted. He sent me an atheist oriented article about a minister who tried to discover "ANY" cases of discrimination against students for attempting to pray on school grounds outside of class, and that he couldn't find a "SINGLE" one.

I responded that the minister should have researched the website of the Alliance Defense Fund at http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/ where he could find new cases of religious discrimination against students almost every week (granted they're not all prayer related but they all have a chilling effect on prayer in schools).

I sent him a link to a specific page of the ADF, and after viewing it he said it was all lies. Now mind you; the ADF is an organization of Christian lawyers and all the articles on their site include times, dates, specifics and in most cases copies of the actual lawsuit filed. In any case, I did a quick search of the ADF website for recent (in the past year) incidents of religious discrimination against students and found the following 36 violations/articles:

Denial of Right to wear religiously oriented T-Shirts When Other Messages Allowed:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3221

Pro Life Group denied Access to School Premises When Other Groups Permitted:

http://adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/1778

University Discriminates Against Men’s Christian Fraternity:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5110

State Discriminates Against Students Seeking Scholarships to Religious Schools:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5109

School Officials Refuse To Allow Students To Hand Out Religious Invitations While Other Types Allowed:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5108

School Coach Not Allowed To Bow Head while students Pray:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4758

University Denies Activity Fees To Religious Organizations, Not Denied To Other Organizations:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4577

Public Library Denies Access To Christian Group While Allowing Access To All Others:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4548

ACLU Attempts To Block All Religious References In Schools:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4538

ACLU Attempts To Stop Religious Organizations Giving Shoes To Needy School Children:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4345

University Denies Christian Speech On Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4345

ACLU & Atheist Move To Stop “Period of Silence” In Illinois Public Schools:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4345

University Professor Denies And Ridicules Student Speech About Religious Faith:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5072

Public School Denies Recognition Of Christian Club:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5065

Public School Censors Posters stating “In God We Trust”:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5065

Texas A&M Refuses To Recognize Christian Club When Other Clubs Recognized:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5065

Public School Denies Religious Group Access To Campus When Others Granted Access:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5037

Boise State Denied Club Fees To Christian Club While Allowing Fees To Atheist Club:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5028

Atlanta Public Schools Refuse To Recognize Christian Student Group:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5020

Wright State University Refuses to Recognize Christian Student Group:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4988

UCLA Refuses To Allow Graduating Students To Thank Jesus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4978

Florida Public Schools Refuse To Recognize Christian Student Group:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4969

California Public School Denies Student's Right To Recognize National Day of Prayer:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4969

Religious School Denied Right To Enforce Religious Standards:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4969

Yuba Public College In California Restricts Students Religious Speech on Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4969

Church Refused Permission To Distribute Flyers On Public School Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4969

Christian Club Forced To Pay Fee To Meet On School Grounds when All Others Not Charged:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4729

Shippensburg University Discriminates Against Christian Student Club Again:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4729

Christian Arrested For Expressing Faith On Public College Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

Arizona Public Schools Prohibit Christian Student Club Fliers While Allowing Others:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

University of Maryland Censors Speech of Pro Life Students:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

Temple University Attempts To Halt Student’s Expression of Faith on Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

Georgia Institute of Technology Attempts To Tell students What Religious Belief They Should Have:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

Men Threatened With Arrest For Expressing Religious Belief On University of Miami Campus:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4675

East Valley School District Forbids Christian Club From Using Meeting Room For Prayer When All Other Clubs Granted Access For Any Purpose:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4537

Christian Student Forbidden From Performing Christian Song In Public School Talent Contest:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4537

Cheerleaders Won't Be Defeated By Atheists

2009-10-28T18:58:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I saw a news report of cheerleaders at a public high school in Fort Oglethorpe, GA who, as a remembrance of 9/11, have been hand painting scriptural messages on gigantic banners so their football team members could crash through the banners as inspiration at the beginning of each Friday night game.

This tradition has been ongoing for the past 8 years. However, when it was brought to the attention of the school district that this practice may violate the first amendment separation of church and state clause, the school district unilaterally banned the practice to avoid any potential lawsuits .

The news team interviewed numerous students, parents and residents of the community and it was clear that no one supported the school districts decision, and even the school board members expressed dismay and stated they only took this drastic action to avoid potential lawsuits. The news report ended by stating that the cheerleaders were attempting to hold pre-game rallys at another location on school grounds where they could continue to create the religiously oriented banners and have the team members crash through them before each game. I wondered at the time whether this practice would also violate the first amendment.

I recently stumbled upon this new article about the cheerleaders:

Barred From Field, Religious Signs Move to stands

The actions of these cheerleaders mirrors the action I advocated in one of my previous blogs, suggesting that when atheists use the first amendment to quash religious speech, religious organizations should use the first amendment to bury atheists in the word of God. My specific suggestion was for churches to sponsor "Cross Planting" on private properties in response to atheists forcing the removal of crosses from federal properties.

Altghough there was no lawsuit in this cheerleader incident, the cheerleaders and the community responded in a way that was truly inspired by God. A drive was started to print scriptural verses on T-shirts and have fans wear the T-shirts to the games. The end result is, that instead of one scriptural verse on a gigantic banner, the games are now attended by hundreds of people with scriptural verses on their T-shirts. If there are any atheists in this town they will now be subjected to the word of God everywhere they look.

The more Christians are persecuted by atheists the more God will reveal himself to defeat the enemy.

What Does Satan Have To say About Carnal Knowledge

2009-10-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

Regis Nicoll Writes some beautiful blogs under the heading of the Swillpit Chronicles (apparently in the fashion of the Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis). This particular blog relates a conversation between Satan and his student concerning carnal knowledge. It's great reading, enjoy:

The Swillpit Chronicles

Learn About The Sacraments From a Really Cool Episcopal Priest

2009-10-24T13:38:00.001-07:00

This guy is great. Wouldn't you like to get baptized by him?

Or attend his communion?

Go to Youtube.com to see Father Matthews explanation of all the sacraments.

Episcopal Response To Catholic Invitation

2009-10-24T11:02:00.000-07:00

I'm attaching a link to Josh Indiana's blog below. He puts forward a very valid response to the Popes recent invitation to Episcopalians to reunite with the Catholic church. I couldn't have said it better:

http://joshtom.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/episcopal-church-announces-special-outreach-to-roman-catholics/

Is This The End of The Episcopal Church?

2009-10-20T09:51:00.000-07:00

Today, the Roman Catholic Church announced an apostolic constitution (Papal decree) to allow Anglicans, including Episcopalians, who are dissatisfied with the heretical actions of the Episcopal hierarchy, to reunite with the Catholic Church while retaining elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.

I, like many Episcopalians, have considered many actions of the Episcopal hierarchy over the past 30 years to be acts of heresy to the point where they now constitute apostasy. I feel that the Episcopal church has made it clear that conservative orthodox views, such as mine, will no longer be tolerated. Also, like many Episcopalians, I have seriously considered a conversion to Roman Catholicism where conservative orthodox views are not only tolerated but are the requirement. For this reason, I believe today's announcement by the Roman Catholic Church, inviting Anglicans back into the Roman Catholic Church will have resounding historical effects, not the least of which may be the ultimate demise of the Episcopal Church. I have included several links to this story below:

The main story, videos and stements/letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams:

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/10/pope-unity-move-not-act-of-proselytism-or-aggression-says-rowan-williams.html

Statement on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Website:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2572

Various other news reports and blogs:

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/10/20/pope-benedict-to-anglicans-come-home-to-rome.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/20/roman-catholic-church-receive-anglicans

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdPBCaGtHcdITCACaEBWARF9CFnAD9BEP9KO3

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100014171/pope-announces-plans-for-anglicans-to-convert-en-masse/

"Where Is Your God Now?" - Christianity Under Attack as Never Before

2009-10-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

The first link below goes to a very disturbing article about the violation of first amendment rights of Christians. The 2nd link exemplifies the actions of Atheists and the ACLU to stamp out any vestige of Christianity on federal property. How did Christians become such objects of persecution? Especially when we're supposed to be in the majority.

I think it's time Christians fought back. I think every Christian should erect a large cross in a very visible spot on their properties. I think Churches and religious organizations should seek out people who own property on top of high hills and mountains and rent the land from them to erect giant crosses. What is it going to take for Christians to start neutralizing the Satan inspired actions of atheists and the ACLU?

watch the video and save the Mojave Cross: http://www.donttearmedown.com/

Christians arrested for exercising 1st amendment rights:

http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/10/07/nh-christians-arrested-asked-where-is-your-god-now/

ACLU demands that cross in wilderness be torn down:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/02/supreme_court_t.html

Evidence of the Demise of Morality in America

2009-09-29T08:48:00.000-07:00

If you have lots of money, many rich and powerful friends, and hide from the police for 30 years, you can avoid punishment for even the most heinous of crimes. Apparently that is the new morality in America.

Roman Polanaski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl 30 years ago and has used his connections and money to avoid extradition from Europe for 30 years to avoid prosecution for this offense. He's admitted he did it, so there's no question about guilt. However, his rationalization is: "I like younger girls".

This man, if you can call him that, is the worst kind of criminal and now he has people like Whoopi Goldberg defending him by saying it wasn't "rape - rape". I'm sorry, is this some new type of category, for rich powerful people, that allows them to drug under aged girls and have forcible sex with them without it being a crime? RAPE IS RAPE, especially when it involves child molestation (even if the child consented to sex as Whoopi Goldberg contends, she was still a minor and Polandski took advantage) . We shouldn't care if the victim (now an adult) forgives the perpetrator. His crime was a crime against society as well as a crime against the young girl.

In all honestly, I don't know what Roman Polanski is charged with: Rape, Child Molestation, or Sex With A Minor. Does it really matter? He's now added a whole host of other charges to the original ones such as Fleeing Prosecution and Bail Jumping. Whatever you want to call it, the man is a criminal.

Rich, powerful and immoral people, like Whoopi Goldberg, are now trying to make Polanski look like a wrongly persecuted hero. He is not, he is a criminal of the worst sort.

This other friend of Polanski said he is a Brilliant and talented artist who "just made a little mistake". Where do these people come from who think that committing rape or child molestation is a "little mistake"? And since when is being a brilliant artist a defense to being convicted of such a crime?

Society had, and still has, a perfect opportunity to enforce the law, and the morals of America. This is a high profile crime and a high profile criminal. We should make an example of Roman Polanski to prove that America will not tolerate such violations of our laws, our morality and our sensibilities. We shouldn't care how much money he has, how many powerful friends he has, how successfully he's evaded extradition for 30 years or how old and frail he now is. Roman Polanski should not be allowed to get away with this type of crime and neither should anyone else. Stand up and show the world that God still exists in America.

As far as Whoopi Goldberg is concerned, I can't say it any better the the fellow in the following Youtube.com video:

The Only Way To Preach On Campus

2009-09-25T10:55:00.001-07:00

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are brilliant. If you were to hand out free bibles on a university campus you would be heckled and sneered at. However, students will eagerly ask for a free copy of "The Origin of Species" by Darwin. This is due to the ungodliness of our government and the atheism of the army of university professors teaching heresy today.

Well, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have come up with a brilliant idea. Ray has added the counter argument of intelligent design (God's design) to this copy of "The origin of Species" (legally) and is handing out free copies on university campuses to allow university students to hear both sides of the argument (which they do not ordinarily hear in university).

I guess you could say they're preaching the gospel through the back door, or using Satan's works against him.

Abortion - The Annihilation of a Generation

2009-09-20T18:33:00.000-07:00

I have recently noticed something startling being exposed on this very blog site. On the left hand side bar of this blog, some of you, may have noticed 2 widgets. I call the first widget "Satistics of Life" and it continuously calculates and displays various statistics. Starting from January 1 of this year.,It counts items such as number of births and deaths (not including abortion deaths) worldwide. The second widget calculates and displays only the number of abortion deaths, worldwide, since January 1.

As I've watched these counters progress over the past several months I've noticed that the number of abortion deaths this year are gradually catching up to the total number of non abortion deaths for the year. This is really startling to me because it indicates that abortions are killing off a generation of people equal to one year of all non abortion deaths. As I type this blog there have been 41,056,538 non abortion deaths since January 1 of this year, while there have been 33,090,110 unborn babies murdered, worldwide, in the same time period. The yearly number of abortion deaths are approaching the number of non abortion deaths.

We are killing off generations of human beings. How many of these murdered babies might have been Nobel prize winners, the next Einstein, kings, queens or presidents, doctors who may have saved your lives, or even the messiah?

The ramifications are astounding. Human beings are now making "God-Like" decisions of who should live and who should die. If we continue at this pace, is it possible that we could "abortion murder" ourselves into extinction? Considering 83% of abortions occur in underdeveloped countries: are we partaking in a type of genocide to ensure that the developed countries will never grow or progress?

What's on TV Tonight?

2009-09-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

I don't consider myself a prude, and I have been known to occasionally digress to cursing like a drunk Marine, but I was absolutely appalled by the type of TV programming I saw on the FX channel last night (channel 70 in my area). Granted it was 10:00 at night and outside of the "prime time viewing hours" when children might be more likely to watch, but the foul language and sexual portrayals were completely unacceptable for public television.

First I watched "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" with Danny Devito. I was rather astonished to hear them use phrases such as "God dam it", "Shit" and "Fuck" without reservation. Is there no oversight of the entertainment industry at all any more?

To my horror, this was only the beginning. Following "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" at 10:30, the network aired a new animated show called "Archer". Archer is described as a "comedy". The animation is very "life like". It portrays the escapades of a James Bond like character who treats everyone around him with complete disrespect. To my disbelief, in the first 5 minutes of the show, I heard the phrases "God dam it", "son of a bitch" and "sucking cock". And it didn't get any better as the half hour "comedy" progressed. I must say that there was no overt violence, although guns we drawn several times, but there was a lot of nudity, shot from the backside, and a lot of graphic sexual innuendo. Apparently the foul language was used with no real purpose except to flaunt the fact that they apparently can do so without intervention by regulators.

Archer does air at 10:30 P.M. outside of "prime time viewing" when young children are less likely to be watching and it does flash the "Mature content warning" at the beginning of the show and after each commercial (which I'm sure acts as a magnet to many children).

When I was a young teenager (13 or 14) the height of rebellion was to watch a TV show called "For Adults Only". Although there wasn't much adult content, the mere name ensured that every unsupervised teen and preteen was going to watch every chance they got. The program basically aired old foreign movies, starring people like Gina Lolobridgetta and Sophia Loren dubbed into English. The highlight for every young teenager came when occasionally a movie would show the rear view of some sexpot's naked butt. This TV show also aired at 10:30 or 11:00 at night but didn't stop the 13 and 14 year old from watching.

I also remember going to see the James Bond movie "GoldFinger" with my mother when I was 10 years old. When the Honor Blackman character introduced herself to Bond as "Pussy Galore" the whole audience broke out laughing. I asked my mother "what' s so funny?" and she replied "It's just a funny name". Back then, creative artists were clever in the way they used unsavory language, and it was funny, very funny. Today, it seems that the creative artists have absolutely no creativity and expect the mere use of, "in your face", curse words and sex to be funny, and it's not (except to the multitude who have never experienced true creativity in entertainment).

The most distressing part of my experience last night was the fact that I did a search on the Internet expecting to find loud protests by concerned parents against programs like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Archer". Instead, I found rave reviews (apparently by teenagers) extolling how awesome Archer is. The entertainment companies are posting what a great breakthrough in animation Archer is, and how progressive the programming is. I didn't find one post or one organization speaking out against this type of programming. The websites of the few organizations that attempt to watchdog the entertainment industry were completely out of date siting statistics and actions from 1998 and 1999.

Have parents and regulators given up on trying to stop irresponsible public broadcasts? Has Satan won the battle for the minds of our children? Programming such as these shows convey the message that it's alright (indeed, expected behavior) to speak and act like this, to treat everyone with complete disrespect, and to have "bizarre sex" with everyone.

The FCC regulations established in 1934, and still in effect today, demand that public broadcasting be for the "public good". Although I think the days of "Leave it to Beaver", "Father Knows Best" and "The Andy Griffith Show", when all episodes seemed to have a lesson or moral, are long gone, this new genre of TV shows is completely without value. If the regulators do not reign in this type of programming now, when the shows first aire (for Archer anyhow, because Sunny in Philadelphia has been on for a while) we will lose the battle and this type of programming will become the norm just like unbelievably violent and sexual video games have become the norm.

The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN on channel 17 in my area) often has very good Christian oriented movies etc. but unfortunately most of their programming turns the average secular viewer off because it is primarily evangelical prayer vigils or scripture reading (which isn't necessarily bad). I would love to see them start a Christian channel with more subtle Christian themes that is enticing enough to compete with the action/violence/sex themes presented non stop on other channels.

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1 Peter 5:8 (NIV)

Of Course The Episcopal Church Is Discriminating Against Homosexuals

2009-08-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

Actually, it is more succinct to say that the Episcopal Church discriminates against UNREPENTANT homosexuals who preach that homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God.

While I was volunteering at the Episcopal General Convention recently, I had the opportunity to engage in friendly unofficial debates with several people from Integrity, the gay activist organization. They were arguing that it is discrimination for the Episcopal Church to forbid the ordination of openly (meaning actively practicing) homosexual priests and bishops and by refusing to bless same sex unions (meaning monogamous couples who engage in homosexual acts outside of a traditional marriage).

My immediate response was: Of course the church discriminates. It is the mandate and the duty of the Episcopal Church to discriminate against, not only homosexuals but, anyone who breaks the law as proclaimed by God through the holy scriptures.

What surprised me most was that two of the many gay activists I had a conversation with tried to make the same argument (and one of them is studying to become an Episcopal priest). They both said something to the effect of "whenever you orthodox conservatives try to defend your position you always fall back upon what is stated in scriptures rather than looking at the effect your actions have on society and individuals."

To me this was an absolutely astounding statement, especially coming from someone studying to become a priest. Of course orthodox conservatives fall back upon scripture when analyzing the actions of people claiming to be good Episcopalians or good Christians. Don't people understand that the scriptures are the LAW. They are the word of God. They are the foundation upon which the church (and previously, society) is built. If you do not uphold the laws of the church, the church will degrade into chaos just as society would degrade into chaos without the enforcement of civil and criminal laws. Without God's law there would be no church, just as there would be no legal/judicial system without societal laws. It is NOT the duty of the church to help individuals, or society as a whole, to "feel good about" their moral, sexual, and religious indiscretions.

First, let me say that the church has not singled out homosexuals for discrimination.The church discriminates equally against all sinners. This does not mean that the church treats sinners poorly. In fact the church was established and exists primarily for the sinners. It is the ultimate goal of the church to welcome sinners (including homosexuals), show them the evilness of their actions and beliefs and to lead them to a righteous and godly life that may result in them receiving the gift of eternal life in Heaven. By some perverted thought process, the homosexuals seem to believe they are better than all other sinners and should be entitled to special treatment by God without repenting for their sins.

In legal terms, to establish discrimination, one must prove that the people allegedly discriminated against are a protected class or an insular and discrete minority without access to legal recourse and that the alleged discrimination does not pass a "strict scrutiny test" proving there is no less restrictive way to obtain a necessary outcome other than the alleged discrimination. The original definitions of discrimination did not include sexual preferences, because these were considered personal choices and not unchangeable attributes indicative of a discrete and insular minority.

The issue of discrimination is usually only raised in the legal or political realm when one group of people are denied certain "LEGAL" rights. Any other type of discrimination is usually referred to as a personal preference.

In our society many people think discrimination is evil. In fact discrimination is a very necessary process in almost all human endeavors. We exercise our personal discrimination (or preferences) in everyday life by discriminating between vendors, doctors, bankers, lawyers, realtors, potential employees, etc. The way to avoid this discrimination is to become a better vendor, doctor, banker, lawyer, realtor or potential employee.

Discrimination becomes absolutely necessary when establishing and upholding laws. Law enforcement agencies and legal institutions necessarily discriminate against law breakers in order to keep society from degrading into chaos. The law treats bank robbers and car hijackers more harshly than law abiding citizens. In fact the law treats bank robbers and car hijackers more harshly than other law breakers such as traffic violators and shoplifters, although all are more harshly treated than those who obey the law. The way to avoid this legal discrimination is to avoid breaking the laws.

Discrimination only becomes evil when it is arbitrarily applied to a group of people without just cause.

The true issue here is whether the Episcopal Church is justified in discriminating against the "extraordinary Episcopalian" who happens to be homosexual and desires to be ordained as a priest or bishop. And I believe the answer is clearly YES.

Going back to my original definition. Discrimination is justified if it is the least restrictive method of obtaining a necessary outcome. The necessary outcome for discrimination in this case derives from the fact that homosexuality, along with a list of other moral and sexual indiscretions is strictly condemned in the bible (see Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians). I have NEVER heard a good argument put forward that indicates that homosexuality is not condemned in the bible. Therefore, discrimination is necessary to maintain the purity and unchanging word and law of God to prevent the church, and society, from falling into chaos. Denying promotions within the church to those who preach a contradiction of this necessary outcome and denying "some" key privileges of the church to those who continue to violate these laws without repentance seems to be the least restrictive method of upholding these laws. It's certainly less restrictive than "burning at the stake" which was the preferred method of enforcement several hundred years ago, when people, and the church, took violations of biblical law seriously.

The "extraordinary Episcopalians" who seek ordination as priests and bishops are the curators of the purity of the word of God. We rely on these people to protect and spread the unchanging word of God. we also expect them to practice what they preach. Therefore, if we encounter people seeking ordination as priests and bishops, and these people espouse doctrines that are not supported by scripture, and in fact contradict the scriptures, then the church is completely justified in discriminating against these people to ensure that the wrong message is not conveyed to parishioners.

If this wrong message (that homosexual behavior is acceptable in the eyes of God) is allowed, it could mean that millions of Episcopalians believing and acting on this message could be sentenced to an eternity in Hell.

This discrimination is no different from the discrimination the Episcopal Church would exercise against other candidates for ordination who professed doctrines that contradicted the word of God, such as statements to the effect that pedophilia, abortion and/or murder are acceptable in the eyes of God.

Make no mistake, I'm sure there have been many homosexual people ordained as priests and bishops in the past without incident. The reason they were openly welcomed was because they demonstrated repentance for their sins and preached the true word of God concerning homosexuality. In contrast the homosexual candidates for ordination today insist on defying the word of God and are, at least, implying that homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God.

The Episcopal Church is not saying homosexuals cannot be good Episcopalians or are not entitled to almost all the rights and prviledges of being Episcopalian. It is saying that ordination is an extraordinary calling, and in this respect, actively practicing and unrepentant homosexuals cannot be trusted to safegard the purity of the word of God. There is no less restrictive method to safeguard the word of God and protect parishioners from damnation other than to deny ordination to actively practicing and unrepentant homosexuals. The way for these people to avoid this discrimination is to become better Episcopalians by repenting for their sins and preaching the true word of God concerning homosexuality.

Flying Kites On The Wide Road To Hell

2009-08-05T20:03:00.000-07:00

Within the walls of the Anaheim Convention Center the Episcopal General Convention was a virtual beehive of persuasive arguments, controversy and compromises. However outside the walls, and hidden from the view of many bishops and deputies, another type of persuasion was taking place that understood there is no compromise regarding the word of God.

Around 10:00 every morning two or three men carrying large signs atop long poles assembled outside the main entrance to the convention center. I don't know where these men came from but their appearance was that of the homeless and their verbal message was nowhere near as elegant as the arguments conveyed by the bishops and deputies inside. The large signs held up by these men and their verbal messages made it very clear that they believed homosexuality is a sin according to biblical scriptures and that members of the Episcopal church are destined for an eternity in Hell for allowing the ordination of openly gay priests and bishops and allowing the blessing of same sex unions, among other decisions made in contradiction to holy scriptures.

The day after resolution D025 was passed endorsing the ordination of openly gay bishops the men arrived outside the main entrance as usual. However, on this day, there was another small group of people outside. These other people were from the gay activist organization called Integrity and they were apparently elated that D025 had been passed to their satisfaction. The Integrity people were holding up long poles as well; but at the end of their poles were the gay rainbow colored kites and these people were all laughing and dancing.

The scene unfolding outside the main entrance struck me as the perfect epitome of the controversy played out in the Hall of Deputies and Hall of Bishops the previous day. On the one hand you had deeply concerned and committed men attempting to save Episcopalians from an eternity in Hell by arguing that homosexuality is a sin according to biblical scriptures and that the Episcopal Church is committing heresy and apostasy by ordaining gay priests and bishops and blessing same sex unions. On the other hand you had a bunch of Integrity people flying kites, completely unconcerned with issues of scriptural guidance, sinful behavior or the need for repentance. The Integrity people were only concerned that they had won a social/political victory in this temporal life.

Will the supporters of D025 be laughing, singing and flying kites when they are confronted with their sins before God on judgment day?

Is The Archbishop Using King Solomon As A Guide?

2009-08-04T20:02:00.000-07:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has recently suggested a type of two tier model as a way for the Episcopal Church to deal with the TEC's recent vote to allow the ordination of actively gay Bishops and the blessing of openly gay couples. In his writings he has stated:

"This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced rather with the possibility of the two-track model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage," he wrote.

"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican."

See the full article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5919068/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-foresees-two-track-church-to-avoid-gay-schism.html

Dr Williams suggestion reminds me of a story from 1Kings 3:16-28 when another wise man put forward a solution to a similar problem:

1Ki 3:16 One day two women came to King Solomon,

1Ki 3:17 and one of them said: Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home,

1Ki 3:18 and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us.
1Ki 3:19 One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died.

1Ki 3:20 Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me.

1Ki 3:21 In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn't my son.

1Ki 3:22 "No!" the other woman shouted. "He was your son. My baby is alive!" "The dead baby is yours," the first woman yelled. "Mine is alive!" They argued back and forth in front of Solomon,

1Ki 3:23 until finally he said, "Both of you say this live baby is yours.
1Ki 3:24 Someone bring me a sword." A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered,
1Ki 3:25 "Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him."

1Ki 3:26 "Please don't kill my son," the baby's mother screamed. "Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don't kill him." The other woman shouted, "Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby."

1Ki 3:27 Solomon said, "Don't kill the baby." Then he pointed to the first woman, "She is his real mother. Give the baby to her."

1Ki 3:28 Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realized that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.

Is Dr. Williams suggesting that TEC be sacrificed to satisfy the whims of two quarreling parties in the hope that one party will reveal it's true love for the church while the other party reveals their true intention of using the church as a platform for self aggrandizement?

If this is his intention, I think it is clear that the conservative orthodox Episcopalians are pleading with the Archbishop to not sacrifice the church and allow it to flourish under different names such as ACNA, CANA and by allowing some churches to choose to be represented by conservative, rather than liberal bishops, in the same way that the true mother of the baby before Solomon pleaded with Solomon to allow the false mother to have the baby rather than killing the child.

It also seems clear that the proponents of openly gay bishops, gay marriages and homosexual lifestyles are ready to kill the church so they can claim a personal social/political victory in the same way as the false mother before Solomon stated "Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby."

I pray that Dr Williams is wise enough to save TEC from destruction and turn it over to the people who truly love it.

Rebuttal To Bishop Jeffert Schori's Opening Address at the Episcopal Convention

2009-07-22T08:05:00.001-07:00

I am not big on quoting scriptures but when Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori made a statement in her opening address at the Episcopal General Convention that sounded like she was condemning as heresy and idolatry any attempt to have a personal relationship with God, I thought I better take a stab at it. This is the quote from Bishop Jefferts Schori's address:

“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.”

The following quotes from scripture frame my rebuttal:

2nd Peter 2:1-2

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

John 7:37-38

"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water".

Rom 4:5

But you cannot make God accept you because of something you do. God accepts sinners only because they have faith in him.

Rom 10:9-11

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that

God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

A Different Prospective On Votes Taken at the Episcopal General Convention

2009-07-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

There is a great deal of consternation in my church now that the Episcopal General Convention is done voting on the resolutions and it has been decided to allow ordination of openly gay bishops and to allow blessings and pastoral care for same sex couples. One of our priests must have sensed this fear and bewilderment and told a sort of "off handed" story that was just so "on point" that I have to repeat it here:

After reading the announcements, Father Richard Avery, turned to go back to the altar to continue the service. All of a sudden, as if by after-thought, he stopped the organist and said he wanted to make one last comment concerning the voting process and the Episcopal church. He related a time when his wife worked in a pre school and they had a project of watching chicks hatch from their shells and grow up. At one point a chick was hatched and all the children wondered what gender the chick was. Unable to physically identify the gender, the class decided to put it to a vote. Because there were more boys in the class than girls, it was decided the chick was a boy and they named him "Floyd the Boy". Needless to say, several months later Floyd laid an egg.

This struck me because "God's Will" will be done, no matter what political process we use and no matter how we vote. If the majority voted incorrectly on these issues, the church will lay an egg and "God's Will" will be done.

My thanks to Father Richard Avery.

What I've Learned At The 2009 General Convention

2009-07-09T19:10:00.000-07:00

I am so grateful that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and all the other Bishops are here to lead me to salvation.

From the Presiding Bishop’s opening address at the 2009 Episcopal General Convention I learned that I am committing heresy and worshiping idols by attempting to have a personal relationship with God. To quote the Presiding Bishop directly. She stated:

“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.”

“………I said that this crisis has several elements related to that heretical and individualistic understanding………”

According to the Presiding Bishop I also discovered that Jesus’ death on the cross at Calvary was not the most critical element in my/our salvation but rather just a “waypoint”. These are her exact words from her opening address to the General Convention:

“Jesus’ critical decision to journey toward Jerusalem is about the city of God’s dream, Yerushalayim, the city of peace, the city of shalom, the city of God’s holy mountain, toward which the nations stream. We Christians often think the only important part of the Jerusalem story is Calvary, and, yes, suffering and killing in that place still seem to be the loudest news. But Calvary was a waypoint in the larger arc of God’s dream – it’s on the way to Jerusalem, it is not in Jerusalem. Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation.”

I just want to make sure I’ve got this right:

I’m committing heresy and worshiping false idols if I attempt to have a personal (individual) relationship with God?

But it is not heresy to abandon the Holy Scriptures and condone homosexual behavior, consecrate same sex marriages or believe that Jesus is NOT the only way to the Father?

I’ve been worshiping incorrectly when I thought that the greatest thing Jesus did was to die for my/our sins?

But as the Presiding Bishop has said previously Jesus is NOT the only way to God (Interview by Robin Young “Here and Now” Oct 18, 2006); and that our salvation depends upon serving the needs of others rather than living a Godly life and repenting for our sins (Parabol, Spring 2007); and as Bishop John Chane has said: Jesus’ bodily resurrection is “conjectural” (Washington D.C. Easter sermon 2002).

If I follow the teachings of these “human beings” can I rest assured that I will be granted eternal life in Heaven? I think NOT.

Please see how the American Anglican Council (AAC) interpreted the Presiding Bishop's opening address:

http://www.americananglican.org/general-convention-day-1-report-from-the-aac/

And what USA Today Says:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494086/1

My Approach To The Episcopal General Convention

2009-07-02T08:50:00.000-07:00

I want to thank Joe Roberts at www.cottoncountryanglican.blogspot.com for leading me to the following quotes and biblical passages:

"If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's word; and if we be uncertain of God's word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new God, yea himself to be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan."

-- Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Works of Archbishop Cranmer, Parker Society I, p 53 – Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556. Ed. John Edmund Cox. Parker Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1846.

Eph 6:10 Finally, let the mighty strength of the Lord make you strong.
Eph 6:11 Put on all the armor that God gives, so you can defend yourself against the devil's tricks.
Eph 6:12 We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world.
Eph 6:13 So put on all the armor that God gives. Then when that evil day comes, you will be able to defend yourself. And when the battle is over, you will still be standing firm.
Eph 6:14 Be ready! Let the truth be like a belt around your waist, and let God's justice protect you like armor.
Eph 6:15 Your desire to tell the good news about peace should be like shoes on your feet.
Eph 6:16 Let your faith be like a shield, and you will be able to stop all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Eph 6:17 Let God's saving power be like a helmet, and for a sword use God's message that comes from the Spirit.

It's Not A Question Of Sexual Preference - It's A Question Of Unrepentant Sin

2009-06-23T15:54:00.000-07:00

Preparing To Do Battle At The 2009 Episcopal General Convention

What was the sexual preference of the twelve apostles? Were they straight, gay, transgender (the one to the left of Jesus in Leonardo da Vincis’ “The Last Supper” looks very much like a woman)? Did Paul ever have sexual relations with a man? …. I don’t know and I don’t care. That’s the whole point.

Were the apostles and other disciples sinners and did they commit some sexual sins, before coming to Jesus? Yes, probably, because Jesus preferred to work through the ordinary people and of course they were all sinners. However after coming to Jesus we have to believe they made every effort to follow Jesus’ commandments, repent for their sins and live a righteous life.

Personally I don’t care what the sexual preference is of my fellow parishioners, my priests or my bishops. I believe that issue is between them, their priest and God, and quite frankly, I resent the fact that they keep throwing their sexuality into my face. What I do care about is whether they will share in the gift of eternal life in Heaven through belief in Jesus Christ and through repentance for their sins. I care about this because I truly hope to spend my eternal life in communion with those I loved here on earth.

Basically, I take people at face value. If they appear to be good Christians and/or good Episcopalians, I will accept that. I am not qualified to judge whether they are sinners or whether they have repented for their sins. That is the duty of the church and God.

The church is supposed to guide their parishioners to a righteous and Godly life that will make it more likely that the parishioners will share in the gift of eternal life in Heaven. The vehicle, or road map, the church uses to guide these parishioners is the Holy Bible, the word of God.

The word of God has not changed for hundreds of years. The word of God is a constant and does not change in accordance with fleeting public opinions and trends in morality or immorality. The ultimate duty of any church is to ensure that the unchanging purity of the word of God is maintained and implemented correctly regardless of social and political pressures. The eternal lives of its parishioners depend upon this ultimate duty.

The greatest theological minds in history have all agreed that the Bible universally condemns unrepentant homosexual behavior and actions. If there was any thread of evidence to the contrary, I would immediately change my opinions in this article. Instead of arguing that they have a special social/political right to acceptance in the Episcopal Church I would be more greatly persuaded if unrepentant homosexuals could show me where the bible offers them special religious entitlements, that are not offered to other sinners.

There is a very real difference between social/political acceptance (which is man made) and religious acceptance which is mandated by God. Whatever happened to separation of church and state -anyhow?

There is also a difference between “Political Correctness” and “Religious Commandments”. Political correctness is a loosely defined concept that changes with social pressures and is usually dictated by a majority rule rather than by some established authority. One year you can’t say “Merry Christmas” in a business setting because not everyone believes in Christmas, the next year you can; You can’t refer to an imaginary person in a business document as “he” because the person may also be female, therefore you must use “he/she”. Religious commandments, on the other hand, have been mandated by God, have remained the same for hundreds of years and don’t change simply because a majority (or minority) of the people think it should change. The violation of political correctness most commonly results in a playful chastising by co-workers whereas a violation of a religious commandment could result in an eternity in Hell. The Episcopal Church is trying to accept Lesbian, Gay, Bi Sexual & Transgendered (LGBT) people into the church on the basis of political correctness rather than in accordance with religious commandments. This is clearly evident when the church officials state that denying ordination to a gay priest violates the anti discrimination by laws of the church. I’m sorry, by its very nature the church is mandated to discriminate against sinners (until they repent). In fact discrimination is a human invention deeply rooted in political correctness.

Furthermore, there is really is no need to accept LGBT people into the church on the basis of political correctness because, from a religious standpoint, they have always been openly welcomed into the Episcopal Church as sinners, just as all sinners have been welcomed. There is nothing different or “special” about LGBT people in the eyes of God.

Unfortunately the LGBT people are trying to be accepted into the church without guilt and repentance. They believe they are immune from guilt and repentance and should be entitled to consecrations, sacraments, ordinations and promotions where other sinners would not be so entitled. They are trying to tell God how He should accept them, rather than submitting to what God has mandated. They can’t do this directly within the religious bureaucracy so they must do it indirectly through the social/political bureaucracy.

The LGBT alliance has conveniently made homosexuality and same sex marriage an issue of sexual preference, when in fact it should be an issue of unrepentant sin. As I’ve said: I don’t care what their sexual preference is. I do care that they are attempting to pervert the word of God, destroy our church and lead us into eternal damnation by forcing us to accept religious ordinations, same sex marriages and sexual acts of unrepentant homosexuals.

Make no mistake; we are talking about the LGBT alliances’ political agenda. They don’t appear to be seeking to change the basic tenants of the Episcopal Church to foster a closer religious communion with God. They are seeking social and political acceptance and annihilating the Episcopal Church is just a bullet point on their agenda to this end. If they were seeking a closer religious communion with God they should either repent for their sins and follow the paths of righteousness mandated by the Episcopal Church or find another church that accepts their sinful behavior and actions. They should NOT be allowed to destroy the church as it has so necessarily existed for hundreds of years. Their political actions coupled with the cowardly, traitorous and heretical actions of the Episcopal Church hierarchy will lead generations of Episcopal parishioners to damnation in Hell.

The LGBT alliance has had decades of political marketing, campaigning and lobbying experience. They are well organized and efficient. They have now turned this political machine against the Episcopal Church, and this can be seen clearly in their unrelenting campaign leading up to the Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim in July 2009. They have established whole websites dedicated to the cause of perverting Episcopal Church doctrines. They already have at least 27 resolutions on the convention agenda to incorporate LGBT “jargon” and same sex marriage language into the wording of official church doctrines. If you go to http://www.youtube.com/ you will find numerous videos extolling the virtues of supporting the LGBT alliance in their war with the Episcopal Church and asking for donations. There are dozens of blogs on the Internet supporting the LGBT war against the Episcopal Church.

On the other hand, a diligent search of the Internet for Episcopalians speaking out against the LGBT alliance yields practically nothing. This may be due to the Christian nature of Episcopalians and their belief that all people have a right to their opinions and that they should not be judged. All I have to say to Episcopalians is: “WAKE UP”. The Episcopal Church is under a full frontal attack by a well organized and efficient tool of Satan called the LGBT Alliance. They have no concern for our church, our God or our people. They are going to pervert our church and make it their own. Instead of us leading them to repentance, they are going to force us, either into damnation or to the abandonment of our own beloved church. We will have no choice but to flee to a more conservative sect that still believes in the purity and infallibility of the word of God. Unfortunately, even the most conservative sects will not be insulated from future attacks.

Theoretically: If I were an adulterer and I lived with another mans wife, openly and notoriously, without guilt or repentance, and counseled others to live an unrepentant adulterous lifestyle, should parishioners feel comfortable voting for me to become a Deacon, a Priest or a Bishop? What kind of example would I be setting for my parishioners? How could I counsel my flock to repent for their sins when I openly refuse to repent for my own sins and counsel others to live a sinful life? How could I justify my lifestyle through biblical scriptures that condemn my actions? Parishioners who admired me would say, “Look he’s committing a mortal sin by living in an adulterous union and he says he’ll go to Heaven, so I can probably commit all sorts of lesser sins and still be entitled to eternal life.”

Now, suppose I band together with every adulterer in the country, organize them, have our sinners elected to high positions in the church, and tell everyone in the world that the bible is wrong and adultery is not a sin and there is no need to repent for this action. What would happen to the church? It would crumble. Basically, church officials would be saying that the word of God is wrong, the Bible is fallible, therefore you can do whatever you want, and as long as you’re a “good person” you’ll be accepted by God. There won’t be any need to follow the word of God or to repent for your sins. In fact there won’t be any sin at all. Basically if it feels good, do it, and worry about the consequences later.

And, what will the consequences be? God has shown us quite clearly, many times, what will happen in this situation. God has revealed in the Bible the many cycles where man has received the word of God, followed it religiously for many years, then fell away from God, worshiped false idols and became sinful. God’s response has always been the same. He caused the great flood, he annihilated some cities and he caused the Jews to wonder in the desert for 40 years (to mention just a few examples). Even though all the people killed in these calamities thought they were still being faithful to God in some manner, they were all condemned to an eternal life of teeth gnashing in Hell. This is why it is so important to ensure that the unchanging purity of the word of God is maintained and implemented correctly. Our very eternal lives depend upon it.

Now suppose I am an open and notorious adulterer. However, I actively seek out God, repent for my sins and throw Satan out of my life. Will the parishioners now feel more comfortable voting for me to be a Deacon, Priest or Bishop? Aren’t I now in a far better position to counsel my flock? Can’t I now speak from my own experience of doing battle with Satan and persevering over Satan with the help of God? Now parishioners who admire me will say: “Look he fought the same battles with Satan that I’m fighting and with the help of God he won and became a righteous and Godly person. There is hope for me.”

This is exactly why sinners of all types (including Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) people) have always been and should always be openly welcomed and accepted into the Episcopal Church. It was for these people that the church was originally created. It was for these people that Jesus gave his life. It is the duty of the church to help these people see the sinfulness of their behavior and actions, and to lead them to repentance, so that they may inherit the gift of eternal life in Heaven. It is NOT the duty of the church to succumb to the immoral whims of these people and to allow them to dilute the word of God. It is NOT the duty of the church to make these people officials within the church when they have no guilt and have made no effort to repent for their sins. Jesus did NOT intend for these people to pervert his message and lead the masses to an eternal life in damnation. If these people refuse to repent for their sins or adhere to the basic religious tenants of the Episcopal Church why do they insist on membership in this church in the first place? Because it's another bullet point on their political agenda.

The bible told us that Satan would infiltrate, and attempt to destroy, our church. However, it also told us to be watchful and to fight the infiltrators. We are not as well prepared or as experienced as LGBT Alliance, and the General Convention is only two weeks away, but if we care for our beloved Episcopal Church we must trust in God, organize and prepare for battle now (if it’s not already too late).

As a final note I must say that I was distressed 30 some years ago when the Episcopal Church first started ordaining women. However, it was not so much the ordination of women, but rather the first crack in the dike that bothered me. In my lifetime, It was the first separation from the traditions of the church that was instigated through “political correctness” or social pressure. So, I put my finger in the dike and waited for people “more Godly” than I to come to the rescue. Well, nobody came. Everyone just accepted that crack and went their merry way. Well now there are hundreds of cracks in that dike and I only have ten fingers. Is there any way, now, to save the traditions of the Episcopal Church from crumbling under the tidal wave of heretics and sinners supported by Satan?

Links of Interest:

27 Resolutions Put Forward By The LGBT Alliance:

/Home/KnownGeneralConventionResolutions

Web Site Sponsored By The LGBT Community:

http://www.integrityusa.org/

Transgendered Blog Speaking About The General Convention:

http://blog.transepiscopal.com/2009/06/narrating-transgender-presence-at.html

Blog Of Various Supporters Of The LGBT Agenda:

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2009/06/beyond-b033-video-calls-discriminatory.html
2006 Convention Act B033 Prohibiting Ordination Of LGBT Candidates:

http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=2006-B033

Notes From The Front Lines of The Abortion Wars

2009-06-21T12:01:00.000-07:00

My experience protesting at abortion clinics is rather limited but these are some of my observations thus far.

The Planned Parenthood clinic in our area starts the process of murdering babies at 6:00AM on Saturdays. I don’t get there until 7:00 or so. There are already several of the truly devoted Pro Lifers there praying the rosaries and attempting to counsel occupants in the

cars turning into the clinic driveway.

Most of the men just drop their “girlfriends” off and come back to pick them up 3 or 4 hours after the process of killing their baby is over , and after the seed of a lifetime of guilt has been planted in the woman's heart. 6 or 7 times an hour someone will drive by and honk their horn giving us a thumbs up or a wave. These are usually men, and usually they are driving large pickup trucks or vans. More rarely, 2 or 3 times an hour, women will drive by and give us the finger (and it’s not the “you’re number one” finger). Men seem to be more amenable to speaking with us at the driveway entrance to the clinic. Women try to drive by us as quickly as possible (I do have to note that at this point we are only men protesting at the clinic but hope to have women join us soon).

There are always the routine occurrences, such as the doctors driving in with their license plates covered with paper and shielding their faces from possible videotaping, ultimately refusing to take responsibility for their murderous actions. However, every once in a while we do have an utterly unbelievable encounter.

Today, after pleading with him to speak with us over our bull horn, a man in his late 30’s approached us and told us he is an atheist and this is his fourth abortion over the past 20 years with four different women. He stated that he believed in abortions and that if the doctors wouldn’t do it, he would do it himself. He asked us for scientific proof that a fetus has a soul. (do atheists believe in a soul?) I countered with medical facts that the fetus has a heartbeat, independent blood circulation, brain waves, fingernails, etc at a very early stage. This apparently was not good enough. For him, it wasn’t a matter of taking a human life it was, rather, whether that human life had a soul (that could be scientifically proven). When I told him he was killing a human being, he stated he didn’t care. I asked him if he could kill me and he said “yes”. At one point he tried to lay all the blame for these abortions on his girlfriends by stating that they forgot to use their birth control pills or lied to him about using birth control altogether. My colleagues attempted to counsel the man with biblical knowledge and understanding which was useless because this individual was convinced that he knew more about life, religion and the bible than we do and he obviously had no interest in repenting. When I tried to impress upon him that he may regret killing these babies at a later point in his life and actually wish he had raised these children or given them up for adoption, he stated that would never happen. He said he can always make babies. He also stated that he is very potent and should probably get a vasectomy. We all agreed with him there. When we asked this man what his name was so we could pray for him, he sarcastically stated it was Bob Johnson (obviously not his real name).

My understanding of Roe v Wade is that it protects the woman’s right to an abortion primarily for the purpose of protecting the woman’s health. This man apparently believes Roe v Wade was instituted to protect his right to avoid abstinence and birth control and to possibly destroy the physical and mental health of his female sex partners. I wonder if he will be as flippant about the sanctity of human life if one of these women he forces to get an abortion should encounter complications and die.

A Gift of Life

2009-06-15T22:52:00.000-07:00

I think there is a certain moment in everyone’s life when we “meet God” and receive a glimmer of how everything fits together. This is the story of my moment.

I was raised in a family that always had a lot of animals. We had dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, guinea pigs, gerbils, snakes birds and even a monkey. So it’s no surprise that one of my childhood ambitions was to become a veterinarian. The town I grew up in was very small and host to only one veterinarian. Consequently, from the age of ten, I repeatedly applied for a job with that veterinarian. When I was twelve, he finally hired me and I worked there for 3 years during junior high school.

It was quite a job for a twelve year old. Not only did I clean up after, and feed all the animals, I also assisted in all the surgical operations. It was particularly rewarding because the town was so small, I knew most of the owners of the animals, if not the animals themselves, personally.

I remember assisting in the spaying operation of Conda, my friends German Sheppard. Conda had never liked me, or anyone, very much before the operation, but she must have recognized me as the person who took care of her before, during and after the operation because we became best of friends.

The worst part of the job was assisting the veterinarian when he had to put an animal to sleep. I remember one such euthanization very clearly. The family of one of my friends had dropped off their dog, Coco, to be euthanized. Coco was a gigantic 150 pound chocolate brown mixed breed. I’m guessing he was part Rottweiler, but he was one of the friendliest dogs you’ve ever met. I remember the veterinarian telling me it was a real shame Coco had to be put to sleep because he was still young and there was nothing physically wrong with him; the family just didn’t want him anymore.

Poor Coco was so trusting and obedient when we put him up on the examination table. The veterinarian told me to get a good grip on him because he might struggle. I did as he said as I tried to hold back my tears. I expected Coco to immediately collapse into lifelessness as all the other dogs had when they were injected with the deadly serum. To my amazement, at the very second the veterinarian injected Coco, his body went limp but this massive ball of energy surged out of Coco, struck me squarely in the chest, rushed past my face, then shot up through the ceiling, flinging me backward two or three feet. I asked the veterinarian: "Did you feel that?" I can’t remember what he said.

Not only was there this massive surge of energy that almost knocked me down, but there was also this feeling of happiness because the energy seemed to be so full of life, so enveloping, and now it was free. It was as if this energy had somehow joined with the energy of the universe. It was as if Coco hadn’t died. It felt like all the non physical elements of Coco; his youthfulness, his playfulness, his friendliness, his faithfulness and obediance, had compressed itself into this ball of energy and rushed off to Heaven.

Do dogs go to Heaven? Maybe not, but Coco gave me the gift of knowing that there is life after death and there really isn’t anything to be afraid of. This was the moment in my life that I “met God” and received a glimmer of how everything fits together.

Is God Leading the Episcopal Church Hierarchy or Is the Hierarchy Succombing to Fleeting Trends of Immorality Propagated by Satan?

2009-06-13T18:16:00.002-07:00

As some of you may know the Episcopal Church has been in an uncomfortable period of transition for several decades. Many people are saying that the decisions being made by the church hierarchy concerning the ordination of women and homosexuals and the consecration of same sex marriages, among other things, are heretical. Many people believe these decisions to be in complete contradiction of biblical scriptures. Consequently many devout, and longtime, Episcopalians are making the difficult decision to leave the church or shop for bishops that are more conservative and follow a strict interpretation of scriptures. I know because I am one of these people. However, I have started to wonder why I doubt God, and whether God may have a different plan.

My first questioning of Episcopalian doctrines came in the 1970 when it started ordaining women in, what I thought, was a direct contradiction of the Holy Scriptures. However, as time has passed, and I have learned more about the role of women in the early church, I have begun to think, possibly, God is just leading the church to accept women in the church as He had originally intended them to be accepted. Recent biblical evidence shows that Mary Magdalene was not the adulteress prostitute that Pope Gregory proclaimed her to be. In fact, research now seems to show that Mary Magdalene was a prophetic visionary and leader in the early Christian church. Furthermore modern research seems to show that many women played a role as “Pastor” in the early Christian church due to the fact that, in the absence of “brick and mortar churches”, Christian gatherings were often held in peoples’ homes where the women often took charge of the organization and some of the proceedings.

Upon these reflections, I’m beginning to think that, perhaps, God always intended women to

play a larger role in the church and now, despite the objections of mere humans, He may be leading the church where He wants it to go. Therefore I have been more comfortable with the issue of ordained women and question why I ever doubted Gods’ leadership.Unlike the ordained women issue, I am convinced that the scriptures are absolutely clear about the sinfulness of unrepentant homosexual behavior and can find no justification for the ordination of homosexual priests and bishops and the consecration of same sex marriages. There are some who say that the biblical relationships of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:16-18) and David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18; 20; 2 Samuel 1) could be interpreted as homosexual relationships. Is it possible that God, in his ultimate wisdom, is leading us to accept homosexuals (preferably repentant homosexuals) as He originally intended them to be accepted? Is it possible that future biblical discoveries will prove that God had different intentions for homosexuals just as He may have had for women?

I am still uneasy with both of these speculations. I’m especially uneasy with the homosexual hypothesis because homosexuality is a sin, whereas being a woman is not. It is one thing to ordain a person or consecrate a marriage of those who have sinned in the past and repented, but it is a totally different story to ordain someone or consecrate the marriage of those who are living in sin and refusing to repent.

Is God, in his infinite wisdom, guiding the Episcopal church hierarchy in their decision making processes to formulate the church He envisions; or are mere humans just succumbing to fleeting trends of immorality, most often propagated by Satan, that contradict biblical scriptures?

The ultimate question is whether to stay with the Episcopal church in the hope and belief that God is still leading our church, and us, in the paths of righteousness or whether the church has totally lost its’ way, is committing heresy and we are, therefore, justified in seeking a more biblically centered religious leadership. This is a question every Episcopalian must answer for themselves.

When Is The State of California Going To Stop Promoting Immoral Behavior To Our Children? California SB 572

2009-06-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

On May 6, 2009 the democratically controlled California State Education Committee passed Senate Bill 572 establishing a "Harvey Milk Day". The Legislative Counsel's Digest for SB 572 states, "This bill would provide that the Governor proclaim May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day, and would designate that date as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.

For those of you not familiar with Harvey Milk: He was a homosexual activist elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in the 1977. He was the first openly gay man elected to public office in California. He was assassinated in 1978, along with Mayor George Mascone, by a recently terminated, disgruntled, city supervisor named Dan White. Milks' primary accomplishments consisted of passing stringent gay rights ordinances and fighting for equal rights for gay people.

If signed into law, The newly passed SB 572 would encourage all public schools and educational institutions to observe...and...conduct suitable commemorative exercises in remembrance of Harvey Milk and his gay agenda accomplishments. In effect it would encourage public schools to positively portray to children as young as age 5 any and all facets of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality without parental permission.

Why is our state government so Hell-bent on promoting Satan inspired immoral behavior to our impressionable young children without our consent while ensuring that biblical and religious events and studies are strictly forbidden ? This sends the message to our children that immoral and ungodly behavior is acceptable, while living a moral and God fearing life is not condoned by government officials.

Only 3% of the U.S. population is identified as "gay". How did this small minority gain the power to influence and force a state of 25 million people to honor their immoral standards and ungodly lifestyle. Recent polls indicate that 69% of Californians are opposed to a Harvey Milk Day. Where are the Christians in this state? Why can't a Christian majority foster the same support as the gay lobbyists and promote religious and moral/ethical studies in our schools?

This is not the first time that Satan inspired democratic legislators have attempted to brainwash our children to actively accept and promote immoral lifestyles. Last year a bill very similar to SB 572 under the designation of AB 2567 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. SB 777 is another bill that has already been signed into law and indirectly requires all public schools to positively portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to children as young as kindergarten. Two other bills signed into law, AB 394 and AB 537 are being used to intimidate public schools into recognizing "diversity days" that promote homosexuality.

Isn’t it time that true Christians vote Satan inspired legislators out of our government and replace them with people of high moral, ethical and religious character?

California Supreme Court To Rule On Proposition 8 - Same Sex Marriage - On Tuesday May 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM

2009-05-22T19:01:00.001-07:00

Twice, the will of God has prevailed and the people of California have voted to NOT recognize same sex marriage. Personally I don't believe Gay couples need to have a religious marriage to gain entitlements to all the same rights and privileges granted to heterosexual married couples, and I believe they would have a much easier fight if they limited their arguments to the granting of rights and privileges only, without involving religious issues. As I've stated in previous posts, they should be entitled to non religious civil unions with the same full marital rights granted to religiously married heterosexual couples. Furthermore, they are free to start their own religion and be married by their own priests who believe that same sex marriage is valid in the eyes of God (which I don't personally believe). Their current agenda is intended to destroy the belief systems of existing religions and this agenda is most definately inspired by Satan.

In any case, on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court will issue their ruling at 10:00 AM. The issues to be decided are not, so much, the legality of same sex marriage as they are whether the process for amending the California Constitution through Proposition 8 is valid. The major issues are: (1.) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2.) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3.) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on marriage of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8.

I pray that God will lead our Supreme Court justices to the correct decision.

Homelessness: A Solution From An Unusual Place

2009-05-14T10:00:00.000-07:00

Back in 1997 I read a story by Robert Soderstrom in a book published by the Peace Corps entitled “The Great Adventure – Volunteer Stories of Life Overseas” I have been referring people to this story continuously since 1997 but Mr. Soderstroms’ story seems to be even more pertinent today, given the recent rise in homelessness due to the failing economy.

Mr. Soderstroms’ story is entitled “A Single, Lucid Moment” and it relates his and his wife’s experience as the first Peace Corps volunteers ever sent to Papua New Guinea. They were sent to Miamafu, a very remote and primitive village tucked away in a mountainous rain forest. The village could only be accessed by means of rain soaked mud trails. There were no cars, telephones or electricity. The people lived a simple life; they lived in grass huts, tended their gardens and earned approximately $200 per year by growing coffee in their backyards. The villagers had built a grass hut, with a large garden, for Mr. Soderstrom and his wife.

As many Peace Corps volunteers have done, the Soderstroms had brought pictures of their hometown of Chicago to share a small piece of American culture with their hosts. One night, while sitting by the fireside and telling stories, with the villagers, Mr. Soderstrom passed his pictures around for all to see. One of his pictures was of a famous building on Michigan Avenue. Surprisingly, the villagers didn't take note of the building, but all of them were puzzled by the two homeless men sitting on the sidewalk in front of the building (a site so commonplace to most Americans that it would usually be unnoticed). The Soderstroms tried to explain the plight of the homeless, but the villagers, being products of a truly communal culture, could not grasp the concept of “homelessness”. They could not understand how a person could not have a home and a job, and more importantly, they could not understand how the people walking past these two men could be so indifferent.

The next morning the village elders came to the Soderstroms’ hut and told them that they had a "big council meeting for a long time" and decided that the Soderstroms should contact the two homeless men in the picture and the President of the United States and arrange to have the men sent to Miamafu, the same way the government had sent the Soderstroms. The villagers would build huts for these men and give them gardens just as they had for the Soderstroms.

I’ve always been impressed with how these villagers could have such innate Christian values without ever having been exposed to Christianity. Then it occurred to me that, perhaps, our technological advancement and “me first lifestyle” has contributed to our lose of Christian values.

Mr. Soderstroms’ story has become even more significant to me now that the homeless rate in Orange County reaches close to 10,000 people, and nobody seems to be taking any action when there are so many possibilities to help.

The other night, while watching the news, I saw a story from Victorville, California where home developers are bulldozing newly built homes that have never been sold or lived in. I thought to myself “Dear Lord, there are 10,000 homeless people in Orange County with no secure place to spend the night tonight and we’re tearing down perfectly good vacant homes". Mr. Soderstroms’ story flooded my senses. Then I started to think about all the other possibilities.

I personally know of many lonely, elderly people and divorced people, who struggle to pay their mortgages, living alone in 4 and 5 bedroom homes. Wouldn’t these people appreciate the companionship and/or a couple extra hundred dollars a month in exchange for giving a homeless person a place to live. I know of many people who own second homes or vacation homes that sit vacant 95% of the year. Couldn’t the owners of these homes rent them out for a small fee if the homeless people kept them clean and did yard work? Then I think of all the foreclosed homes that are now sitting vacant. Wouldn’t the banks prefer to have someone living in, and maintaining, these homes during the extended period of time they attempt to find buyers? In fact, if the original owners had access to a couple extra hundred dollars a month from a homeless family, do you think they could have avoided foreclosure altogether? Also what about all those gigantic RVs, with all the comforts of a home, sitting in peoples' driveways vacant and idle 95% of the year? Couldn't they also be leased out to the homeless?

Homelessness is not just about having a place to stay. It’s about dignity. It’s about having a home, a source of income and acceptance by society. The villagers of Miamafu embrace this innate attitude. The village was willing to rally around the homeless men, and not only give them a place to stay, but give them the support of the community and the job of raising coffee in their back yards. In other words, they were offering them a home.

Is it possible that we, as Americans, have progressed so far that we have forgotten the basic Christian concepts of community and compassion that God has instilled, so innately, in some of the more primitive people on earth?

The American Holocaust

2009-05-13T09:18:00.000-07:00

If I were to tell you that over 46 million Americans have been brutally and systematically murdered since 1973, would you be surprised? Would you be upset and disgusted? Suppose I told you that more than 7 times more Americans, than the number of Jews killed in the holocaust in Nazi Germany, have been murdered? Would you take any action? If I told you that the people down the street are killing 40 or 50 puppies every day, I’m sure you’d, at least, call the police and insist that something be done.

The truth is, since 1973, over 46 million unborn babies have been murdered, in the most horrendous fashion, under the misinterpreted authority of the US Supreme Court holding in Roe vs. Wade. More than 1.5 million babies are murdered in abortions every year. That’s more than all the American war causalities in the history of our country. Yet the majority of Americans is refusing to become educated on the subject and is allowing this holocaust to continue.

Pro Choice supporters would have you believe that an abortion does not take the life of a person. They’ll falsely tell you that it’s “just a blob of tissue”. The truth is, more than 165,000 abortions a year are carried out after the mothers’ first trimester. These babies have a developed face, body, hands, arms and legs. They have all the parts necessary to feel pain, they have vocal cords, and taste buds, they can grasp things in their hand, and routinely suck their thumb. They are pumping 25 quarts of blood per day independent of their mother, weigh up to half a pound and are 8-10 inches long. By the 13th or 14th week the baby can have dream (REM) sleep and can recognize their mothers’ voice. Once you see pictures of babies in the second trimester you’ll agree that taking a life through abortion at this point in a pregnancy is definitely the murder of a living person. But the abortionists will never tell you this because they don't want to jeopardize their nearly $1 billion in abortions revenue each year.

As early as the 20th day after conception, the babys’ heart starts to beat with their own blood and their backbone, spinal cord and nervous systems are forming. By the 35th day; their eyes, mouth, lips, fingernails, legs, and hands, start to develop and brain waves are detectable. Even though a picture of a baby at 35 days is clearly discernable as a person, the abortionists will still insist that it is “just a blob of tissue”.

If an abortion is carried out before the 12th week, the medical staff may be able to use suction to unceremoniously rip the entire fetus (including the head, body, legs and arms) out of the mother’s uterus during which time the baby dies. After, approximately the 13th or 14th week, the baby is too large to be sucked out as one mass. Therefore the medical staff must crush the skull, pelvis, spinal cord and other parts and use forceps to tear the body apart and pull out the individual pieces of the skull, torso, arms and legs, or what the medical staff deceptively calls “the products of conception”. Make no mistake, science has proven that the unborn baby physically and mentally experiences the unimaginable torment and pain that results from their abortion and eventual death.

The legality of abortion, as it was decided in Roe vs. Wade hinged on whether an unborn baby is a living person or not. When you look at pictures of a fetus from even the earliest stages of pregnancy it is clear that the fetus has the form of a person. They have a discernable head, arms, hands and legs. Modern science proves that they have heartbeats and blood flows independent of the mother, they have brain waves and they feel pain at very early stages of pregnancy.

There is absolutely no way the supporters of abortion can honestly believe that an unborn baby is not a person. It should be clear to all thinking individuals that abortion is murder. In light of the most recent scientific studies proving the viability of the fetus as a person at the earliest stages of pregnancy, the US Supreme Court must re-evaluate its previous decisions concerning abortion, stop the holocaust, and save the lives of 1.5 million Americans every year.

Why is this so important to me?

First of all, I was the “mistake” in my family. I was born to my 44 year old mother 8 years after the cluster of births and adoption of her first four children. As my oldest sister has pointed out, if abortion had been legal at that time, I may not be here blogging now.

Furthermore, I’ve always looked forward to marriage and having a family. At age 33 I was dating a woman I truly loved, who said she loved me. Early in our relationship we got pregnant. She absolutely refused to discuss the issue with me and told me she was getting an abortion and there was nothing I could say or do that would stop her.

I was rather uneducated on the issue of abortion at the time, but she did do me one favor: Apparently she was rather advanced in her pregnancy and after the abortion, for some reason, she felt compelled to show me pictures in a book of a fetus the same age as ours. It hit me really hard. I was staring at what appeared to be a miniature person. It convinced me that abortion is murder.

Even more troubling: I’m now 53, still single and have no children. I often think what my life would’ve been like if I had convinced my girlfriend to marry me and kept my baby (like honorable men and women used to do).

Where is God As Satan Wins The Battle For The Hearts, Minds & Souls of Man?

2009-05-08T17:14:00.000-07:00

Is Satan winning the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of man? What is God doing to stem the attacks of Satan, if anything? These are my opinions:

We live in a country where:

Satan influences politicians to support laws banning prayer and the reading of the bible in public schools while crime, unethical and sinful behavior have become the norm.

Satan influences politicians to support laws allowing the murder of millions of unborn human beings, by means of abortions, while doctors and medical institutions make billions of dollars.

Satan influences politicians to support laws mandating the marriage of same sex couples and attempts to force existing churches to adhere to an ungodly definition of marriage and moral conduct.

Satan influences high ranking church officials to condone homosexual behavior, ordain unrepentant homosexual priests, ministers and bishops and to support same sex marriage.

Satan influences some church officials to molest young boys and girls and then have superiors take inappropriate actions upon discovery.

Satan laughs as more than 4 million people go to bed homeless every night in the richest country in the world.

Satan influences the mass media and video game producers to promote criminal and sinful behavior and discriminate against those who would promote Godly and family values.

Satan ensures that the average American child witnesses 8000 murders on TV before graduating from elementary school and witness over 200,000 acts of violence on TV by the age of 18.

Satan has promoted the Internet as a more efficient breeding ground for the proliferation of pornography, prostitution, abhorrent sexual behavior, violence and criminal activity.

Satan encourages Americans to spend over $13 billion per year on pornography while contributions to churches dwindle.

Satan guides children as young as 9 years old to download pornography from the Internet and prompts children as young as 10 years old to engage in "sexting" on their cell phones to send nude pictures of themselves to other people.

Satan influences pre teenage children to join gangs, do drugs and murder whole families as a requirement of gang initiation.

Satan facilitates the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives through drugs, crime, pornography, abhorrent sexual behavior and suicide every year.

Satan influences banks, mortgage companies and credit card companies to be greedy, ignore fiduciary duties, and take advantage of innocent consumers.

Satan has invaded the hearts minds and souls of hundreds of millions of Americans and hardened them against the word of God.

We live in a world where:

Satan influences the president of Iran to threaten Israel with total annihilation and to develop the means to do it.

Satan supports the proliferation of murderous groups such as the Taliban and Al Qaida and allows their leaders to evade capture.

Satan convinces naive people that it is honorable to strap explosives to their bodies and murder innocent people in crowded places around the world.

Satan promotes the rape and/or murder of hundreds of thousands of men women and children in Sudan by means of the most horrendous methods imaginable.

Satan promotes the death of 15 million children from hunger each year while the U.S. government pays farmers to insure they do not produce food products at maximum capacity that could be used to feed the hungry.

This is just a short list of Satan’s battle plan. What is God’s plan?

First of all God has created soldiers such as you and me to carry out his will and battle the forces of Satan. When you watch videos and TV shows such as Paranormal State when they are attempting to exorcise the devil from possessed people you realize that God is all powerful. The mere mention of the name of Jesus Christ is usually sufficient to utterly destroy Satan’s domination of a human being. God is with us and we cannot fail with his support. Satan is no match for us.

God has a long history of allowing man to exercise his free will. Like any good manager, God lays down his rules and tells us his expectations. Then he delegates his management authority to the church and the prophets. Inevitably man strays from God’s commandments and the managers try to lead man back to the word of God. Eventually God loses his patience with man and sets an example by destroying the sinful (i.e. Noah and the great flood and Sodom and Gomorrah).

We are probably in one of those periods of time where man is exercising his free will and, under the influence of Satan, is ignoring the commandments of God. Time is probably short before God will, once again, destroy the sinful.

Now is the time to act, to sharpen your sword, align with God and defeat the forces of evil.

Same Sex Marriage & Separation of Church and State - California Proposition 8

2009-04-30T12:28:00.000-07:00

Since when has the government had the authority to make decisions effecting the religious rights of individuals? Marriage is a religious institution passed to mankind through a covenant with God as proclaimed in the bible. The religious definition of marriage has been accepted by mankind for hundreds of years. Marriage, as it was known to the founders of the United States, is one of the holy sacraments, along with baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick and holy orders.

The first amendment to the United States Constitution holds that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By passing laws that change the religiously accepted definitions of marriage, state and federal governments are making laws establishing a new definition of marriage in existing religions and is prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing people to either accept this new, ungodly, definition of marriage, or abandon their long held affiliations with established churches in favor of churches that will violate the new laws and suppport their traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The current actions of state courts forcing people to abandon their long held religious definitions of marriage in favor of a government mandated anti religious definition is exactly the type of governmental interference with religion that the founding fathers of the United States sought to prohibit by implementing the establishment and free excercise clauses of the first amendment to the United States Constitution.

As evidence of this; these governments' actions are forcing people to leave the well established religious institutions that they have been members of for generations. These people are being forced to form their own reformed religions that do not condone same sex marriage and unrepentant hmosexual behavior. Why should the majority of American citizens be forced to change their religious affiliations just because the government prefers to unconstitutionally support the religious (or anti religious) convictions of the minority of gay people who wish to marry?

Gay couples are not pursuing marriage as a way to be blessed and accepted by God as most heterosexual couples are, because the word of God is clear, and homosexuality is a sin. They are making this a political issue to obtain acceptance by society, and to lash out against established religions because they don't understand that established religions are not persecuting them, but rather, trying to save their souls and lead them to eternal life in Heaven. If they want social acceptance, I suggest they do what so many people have done before when they disagreed with the religious beliefs of others. They should start their own religion (whether condoned by God or not). They should not violate the rights of the majority of people by attempting to force the government to unconstitutionally interfere with existing religions.

Is the government actually joining same sex couples in "holy" matrimony? When and where did the government obtain the authority to exercise the holy sacraments? I believe opponents of same sex marriage are arguing the wrong issue. The issue is not whether gay people should be allowed to enter into a marriage but rather whether the government (either state or federal) should be allowed to confer religious rights such as "holy matrimony".

I absolutely agree that committed gay couples should be entitled to all the same legal/political rights and privileges that heterosexual couples are entitled to, but a "holy" marriage, in an existing religion, is not one of those rights. I believe the government has the power to perform civil unions, but I don't believe the civil union should mention any endorsement or confirmation from God. Gay couples joined together through a civil union may call that a "marriage" or whatever they like, but they should keep God out of it. Laws should be passed immediately prohibiting state and federal governments from mandating, conducting, or supporting, any type of "religious" marriage.

Marriage should not be a legal/political right. It should be a religious privilege, granted to a couple, by their church, for abiding by the basic tenants of that church. The church has always had the duty of prescribing the requirements for the holy sacraments. The duty of existing churches is to uphold the word of God in the face of fleeting trends of immorality, most often propagated by Satan. The duty of the existing church is to show gay people the sinfulness of their lifestyle and to lead them to repentance and salvation and NOT to give in to intense social and political pressure to accept what the bible has so clearly condemned for thousands of years.

We are so lucky to have freedom of religion in the United States. Gay people have a right to start their own religion, just as Satan worshipers and Wiccans do. Just as Jim Jones and David Koresh did. They even have the right to believe that God will condon their lifestyle and still welcome them into the kingdom of heaven. However they do not have the right to use gevernmental processes to interfere with the well established beliefs of existing churches. I believe that the leaders of existing churches who have abandoned the word of God, surrendered to social and political pressure and are forcing their followers to accept, Satan inspired, definitions of marriage, and acceptance of unrepentant homosexual behavior, are committing heresy.

View public opion polls on same sex marriage here:

http://www.pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=288

Corona Del Mar High School and The Gay Issue (Prayer in Schools)

2009-04-27T11:12:00.000-07:00

When confronted with the issue of student intolerance of homosexuality, Corona Del Mar High Schools' approach was to embrace the homosexual lifestyle by recruiting students to partake in, and support, a homosexually oriented play called "Rent: School Edition". Apparently, we live in a country where preaching the sin of homosexuality is not only allowed in schools, but overwhelmingly supported, while the teaching of biblical scriptures concerning homosexuality is completely forbidden.

Now, don't get me wrong. I completely disagree with the hatred and misinterpretation of holy scriptures that was being preached by protestors from the Westboro Baptist Church when they preached "God hates fags" and "Gays are beasts". I have to commend the students at CDM High School on this point because they totally "get it". God does love gay people. He loves them the same way that he loves all sinners, but that doesn't make it right. We are all sinners.

By disallowing prayer and bible studies, and abdicating education to homosexually oriented plays, the schools are doing a great disservice to students. It is absolutelty fantastic that the students at CDM High School understand the second new commandment That we should "love our neighbors as ourselves", no matter what sins they have committed. However the first new commandment is to "love God with all your heart, mind, body and strength". This is the part that is not taught by the schools or the homosexuals. If you love God, you will not knowingly sin, and if you do sin you will ask for forgiveness and attempt to repent. It is not hatred for gays when we attempt to guide gay people to repentance for their sins so they may enter into the kingdom of Heaven and be given the gift of eternal life.

Do you think CDM High School would have allowed a bible study course, or even a play, that embraced the holy scriptures concerning homosexuality and presented, not only love for homosexuals but also, Gods' requirement to repent for your sins? I don't think so.

What kind of country do we live in that pretends to support the slogan "In God We Trust" when we are not even allowed to mention God in our public schools while students are encouraged to support sinful lifestyles without ever being exposed to the potential spiritual consequences of their actions?

Make no mistake, the proliferation of the acceptance of sinful lifestyles, such as homosexuality, is the work of Satan and our children are only being allowed to learn one side of the story; Satans' side. Unfortunately, organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, who should be lovingly guiding homosexuals to repentance and salvation, have disenfranchised not only homosexuals, but students who are starving for spiritual guidance. While I believe homosexuals have committed a sin, I believe the followers of the extremist doctrines of the Westboro Baptist Church have committed an even greater sin because Jesus said "Those who hate others have committed murder in their hearts".

Miss California and Same Sex Marriage

2009-04-26T07:22:00.000-07:00

First of all, let me say, that I am not a "Gay Hater". I just believe gay people are sinners just like the rest of us. The difference is, the rest of us admit we are sinners, ask God for forgiveness, and repent for our sins. We try to live by the law of God. Many gay people, on the other hand, try to justify their sins and, somehow, believe they're entitled to the kingdom of God despite their unrepentant lives of sin. They are making unto themselves a false God, because their God does not exist. God does not welcome unrepentant sinners into the kingdom of heaven.

Now, as far as Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is concerned:

She was asked a question that she could not have answered to the approval of everyone and the questioner, Perez Hilton, knew this. The mass media would have you believe that the majority of Americans are in favor of "Same Sex Marriage". The truth is: 76% of people who attend church regularly and 55% of all people in the United States are more likely to oppose same sex marriage, see http://www.pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290.

Perez Hilton stated that Carrie Prejean gave "the worst answer in the history of the Miss USA contest". He also referred to her as a "dumb bitch". I disagree, and believe she probably gave the best answer in the history of the contest, and in fact, probably the only "politically and diplomatically" correct answer she could have given considering no matter what she said, 45% of Americans would have disagreed. Her answer basically stated; that she thought it is great that we live in a country where people can choose between same sex marriage and "opposite marriage" but she felt that the way she was raised, she believes marriage should be "between a man and a woman".

Because of this answer, Carrie Prejean has been subjected to an onslaught of unjustified social attacks. The forces of Satan have risen up to deprive the Godly and righteous people of their free speech. Satan, and the ungodly, are trying to make us feel that living an honest and repentant life is wrong and that living an unrepentant life of sin, steeped in the gay lifestyle, is acceptable to God.

First of all, this is her opinion and I believe she stated it in a very diplomatic fashion given the circumstances. Second, she did not allow intense political, and social pressure, to force her to abandon her spiritual convictions. For this, I applaud Miss California, Carrie Prejean. I believe she should have been given the Miss USA crown based on her outstanding answer to this question. It is unfortunate that the judges of the Miss USA contest have taken the side of Satan on this issue.

Now I turn to the person who posed this question to Carrie Prejean:

Who is Perez Hilton anyhow? Just so we know who, or what, we are dealing with here: The real name of Perez Hilton is Mario Armando Lavandeiro who has, more or less, stolen the name and notoriety of Paris Hilton by using the "aka" of Perez Hilton (pronounced "Paris Hilton") for his own personal and professional gain. I don't hold the fact that he is gay against him. However, as a human being, he is a very wretched little person who has made a living of gossiping and making rude, unfounded accusations against others. He has destroyed the careers of many by appealing to the uneducated and unthinking masses. Just so you all know exactly what we're dealing with here. The name of Perez Hiltons' previous website was "www.pagesixsixsix.com". That's right; what more clear proof do we need that this person is being manipulated by none other than Satan. Why on earth would anyone take the side of a poor, wrteched morally deprived person like Perez Hilton over a person, so true to her convictions, as Carrie Prejean.

I pray for Perez Hilton because, if he does not repent, he is doomed to an enternity in Hell.