Wednesday, August 30, 2006
After 13 days of harrowing captivity, FOX newsman Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig were released by terrorists…unharmed…emotional and grateful. Images of them falling tearfully into the arms of loving family graced the television Sunday from morning ‘til night. Who of us didn’t rejoice?
Only those of us, perhaps, who understood the terms of their release. Dressed in Islamic garb, Steve and Olaf, cameras rolling, bowed their heads and converted to Islam. It was convert or be killed and they chose life.
Wouldn’t you? After all, everyone knows “conversions” are just performances required by deranged hostage takers to somehow advance their cause. No one means it when they renounce their government, their homeland….their God. You can believe something in your heart and say another, can’t you? A popular talk show host weighed in Monday morning to say “anyone would do that!” For the record, she is a Christian. A doctor friend with a small child agreed….as did others….all Christians. A men’s Bible study group discussed it and with only one dissent came to the same conclusion: Far more important to return home safely to family than to refuse to say certain words you don’t mean.
It grieves me, not that Olaf and Steve converted, because I don’t know if they have a personal relationship with Christ. I don’t fault them for their choice and have nothing but empathy and grief for them for making it….my grief comes from the lack of understanding by Christians of what this means…the unwillingness up front to pay the ultimate price and the lack of faith demonstrated by thinking that saving your physical life supersedes securing your eternal soul. Oh, yes, I know about salvation by grace, but I also know that Jesus said “if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven.”
Words matter to God. They are the basis of oaths and covenants. In the beginning was the “Word” and the “word” was God. He spoke words and the world was created. He spoke words to seal an eternal covenant with Abraham. That “Word” is the same yesterday, today and forever. Could he possibly expect us to indulge the opposite in ourselves?
My father used to do business on a handshake. His word was his bond. “I gave him my word” meant something to him. How have we come to a place where saying what’s expedient to save ourselves is acceptable…even to Christians? Have we forgotten that having no other gods before him is the first commandment? Is there an escape clause to this when our lives are threatened?
Peter the disciple didn’t embrace another god; he just responded untruthfully, “I don’t know him.” I don’t know him!!?? By today’s fallen standards, Peter was just being smart….securing his safety. Just….”I don’t know him” was enough to cause Peter to weep bitterly for his betrayal and be forgiven deeply by the savior himself. Why all the fuss? Everyone would have known Peter didn’t mean what he said. After all…the others ran away.
In account after account from Daniel to Stephen to Martin Luther it’s always the same. “Just say you don’t believe. Just sign here. You can believe what you want…just say this…just sign this.” They gave their lives and endured torture to let their “Yeahs be yeah and their nays be nay.” Unwavering truth telling in the face of death.
In conversation after conversation with persecuted Christians in China, Vietnam, Russia and North Korea, I have seen the glowing faces of those who looked death in the face and held fast. Does God somehow require less of us? I don’t think so. To whom much is given, much is required.
My brothers and sisters, choose THIS day whom you will serve before the sword comes soon to persuade you differently.
- What DID Mohammed teach about Jihad?
- Is Islam really peaceful?
- Isn't Allah the same god as that of Christians and Jews?
- Just how serious is this conflict?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Taking discrimination against Christians to a new high (low?), the Minneapolis Police Department has fired a highly rated psychologist for his past affiliation with Illinois Family Institute.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that despite the fact that the Minneapolis PD gave Campion “high marks” on his “general procedural goodness and specific cultural fairness” of his testing procedures; Campion was suspended soon after liberal city activists told Police Chief Don Harris about the psychologist’s past IFI affiliation. (Campion, whose firm Campion, Barrow & Associates is based in Champaign, Ill., sat on IFI’s Board of Directors from 1998-2005.)
Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the police federation, admitted that “it never had any complaints about Campion.” Despite that fact, Delmonico told the Star-Tribune “…Any issues that have been raised should be looked into.”
IFI reports that “this is not the first time Dr. Campion has suffered discrimination after having his character assassinated by liberal activists. Last year, the City of Springfield, Illinois, fired Campion as psychological reviewer for police and firefighter candidates after the left-leaning weekly Illinois Times ran an article about his role with Illinois Family Institute.”
“The message from Minneapolis is clear: The Constitution be damned! If you work for the city, and you happen to be a person of faith belonging to a church or public policy organization that advocates traditional family values, then you might as well clean out your desk now — because as soon as we find out…you’re done.”
Mr. Campion is not the first American to be fired for support of Christian values. In 2005 an employee of the Allstate insurance company was fired from his job for comments that appeared in a men’s journal denouncing same-sex “marriage,” even though the statement was penned in the employee’s own spare time and from home, and in June a Baltimore, Maryland Metro transit board member was fired for expressing opposition to homosexuality. Christian pharmacists in Illinois have been fired for refusing to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs - not because their employers objected, but because Governor Blagojevich issued an order MANDATING that all pharmacists fill these prescriptions.
Where is the moral outrage from the Church in America? What will it take for us to stand up? -If not for our own sake then for the sake of others? For if the freedom to dissent is lost for Christians, it's only a matter or time until it is lost for all Americans.
To those brothers and sisters who admonish us to simply 'concentrate on evangelism' I say this: If we lose the right to speak the truth about moral issues, losing the right to proclaim the Gospel will shortly follow. For the Gospel is surely the greatest offense of all - being the 'smell of death' to those who are perishing. (I Cor. 2:16) Our pulpits will be silenced, by legislation or lack of interest. People who do not understand God's Law have no need for a Savior.
This is our battle.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Recently it has been JonBenet. Every minute there is a new story that reminds us of this tragedy and the press seems morbidly anxious to talk about it. It’s like a feeding frenzy in a school of piranha.
A few weeks ago a heat wave swept the country and the press loved it because there was death involved. I heard one TV reporter state that “the death count due to the heat wave is 3, however there are 7 people in critical condition so the count may go up to 10.” Seemingly watching the tote board like it was a Jerry Lewis telethon.
And then of course there is the war on terrorism. The favorite press activity each day is the death count. There is an obsession every day about the number of deaths in Baghdad. In the skirmish in Lebanon there was a constant up date on the deaths for each side as if someone was keeping score and the winner would be named based on a body count.
Why is the media so obsessed with bad news? Maybe it’s not the media, maybe it’s us. Is it possible that people are attracted to bad news? I do find my self stopping to listen when a JonBenet story comes on as if it made a difference in my life which perverse human being killed this poor girl.
Here is what Jesus said " For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "(Mark 7)
Perhaps the media is only part of the problem. Perhaps we are drawn to evil. I need to do my part to not be obsessed with the bad and focus my eyes on the things above as we are taught in Colossians 3.
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
So don't be drawn in to only listening to bad news. Don't forget to focus your mind on the things above.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
“This is an invitation to enter the religion of god before the day comes when being an infidel will not do you any good. The victory of god’s soldiers can only be achieved by god’s help,” wrote the Jihadists. Then quoting Mohammed, “’Do not be sad for god is with us.’ Therefore lords of infidelity and masters of darkness and injustice, believe in god and you will be safe or else wait for your turn for we come to slaughter.”
Such are the minds of those who will, within 72 hours of this warning, exact their justice.
Steve Centanni is an uncharacteristically humble man from California, brother to six brothers and one sister….who have been pleading for his life and he has, in this video expressed his love for family and friends.
Olaf Wiig, the New Zealand cameraman, is the son of the Reverend Roger Wiig. Both Reverend Wiig and Olaf’s wife, Anita McNaught, have been interceding…Anita in an emotional, televised plea saying, “They are good men and don’t deserve this.”
But according to the jihadists, they do. They are infidels….for you see, they DON’T worship Allah. They have been given their chance to embrace him and if they don’t, these wielders of the sword will exact justice…Allah’s justice by murdering them. It’s a righteous cause for which they will be richly rewarded. Kill or convert the infidel is the cry…no, the instruction of the Koran…which so-called radical Muslims actually believe. The question is…are they really radical or do they simply just believe all of what Mohammed taught?
The demands of the Brigade are so porous and obscure they will never be met by the U.S. Unless FOX News Channel can find a way to negotiate, these two men will have their dreadful moment. Captors, serving a god who promises “safety” if you follow him and “violent death” if you don’t... and captives, whose traditions honor a God who promises not safety, but abundant life and motivates men to follow him out of love, not fear of violent death. The former’s god demands his followers kill others…the latter’s implores us “to lay down our life for a friend.” Very different gods producing very different kinds of people.
Jesus said, “Fear not those who can kill the body, but those who can destroy the soul.”
Did Reverend Wiig teach his son, Olaf, that truth? Do he and Steve have a personal faith in Jesus so that that truth can seep deeply into their souls in this hour of fear?”
As the regular media seem to be ignoring their plight…let us not forget to pray for them AND their deluded captors…seduced by a false god who CANNOT provide them safety in this life or the next.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
You might be wondering why schools must teach anything at all about these sexual behaviors? Assembly Speaker, Democrat Fabian Nunez, answered this question with the following statement:
"The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing it. Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view," Nunez said of his sexual reeducation program.In other words, he wants to use the schools to indoctrinate young children before their parents have a chance to teach them anything negative about these behaviors.
Republicans offered a last-ditch amendment requiring schools to obtain parental permission. It was defeated. In their arrogance, these legislators have apparently forgotten who pays for the schools and whose children these are...
Despite the difference in opinion regarding the morality of these particular behaviors, most reasonable people can agree on one thing: Parents SHOULD NOT have to worry about their values regarding sexuality being deliberately undermined in public schools.
There is only one reason to teach about these things in school. That is to indoctrinate the minds of the next generation before they have a chance to realize the obvious - these behaviors are neither normal nor moral. If the God of the Bible does exist, then teaching children about these sexual behaviors in a positive light is not education. It is corruption.
Please pray that God will give Gov. Schwarzenegger both the wisdom and courage to do the right thing and veto this bill.
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." -Mark 9:42
Friday, August 18, 2006
"Beyond Gay Marriage"
The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live as they want.
by Ryan T. Anderson
08/17/2006 12:00:00 AM
POLYGAMY? POLYAMORY? The end of marriage as we know it? For the past few years, and with increased frequency in recent months, defenders of marriage have been sounding the alarm as to the real goals of the so-called gay "marriage" movement. . . . Scholars like Hadley Arkes and Robert P. George noted that by rejecting the grounding foundation of marriage--the unique psychosomatic unity possible only between one man and one woman in conjugal sex--the state would lose the principled basis for refusing to recognize polygamous (one man to multiple women) or even polyamorous (multiple men to multiple women, i.e. group) marriages. For pointing this out, they were called slippery-slope reasoners, scaremongers, and bigots. After all, it was said, no one seriously argues in favor of state-sanctioned polygamy or polyamory; George and Arkes were just slandering the good name and intentions of same-sex marriage activists.
It turns out that George and Arkes's points were not slanderous, but prophetic. For now, a distinguished group of scholars, civic leaders, and LGBT activists has grasped the full implications of a retreat from the conjugal conception of marriage--and has publicly embraced those implications. These gay-rights leaders have explicitly endorsed relationships consisting of multiple (more than two) sexual partners, and have even argued that justice requires both state recognition and universal acceptance of such relationships.
Their statement, "Beyond Gay Marriage," was released recently as a full-page ad in the New York Times. Full of candor, the statement's mission is "to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." The statement lists several examples of such relationships, among them "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner"--that is, polygamy and polyamory. But this is mild compared to what follows: demand for the legal recognition of "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The language is breathtaking. Queer couples (plural) who jointly create a child? And intentionally raise the child in two (queer) households? Of course, no reference is made to the child's interests or welfare under such an arrangement--only to the fulfillment of adult desires by suitable "creations."
The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices.
The "Beyond Gay Marriage" statement should not be taken lightly, for its signatories are by no means drawn exclusively from the "radical" periphery of the gay movement. They are in many cases the mainstream voices.
The conjugal conception of marriage is brilliantly defended in a short book released earlier this summer by the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey. The document, titled Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, addresses the unique importance of conjugal marriage for individuals and societies from the perspective of varied academic disciplines: sociology, psychology, biology, history, economics, moral and political philosophy, and law. Unlike "Beyond Gay Marriage," a mere collection of assertions, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles is a heavily researched, meticulously detailed scholarly document citing the best, most recent academic findings on marriage, family structure, and spousal and child well-being.
The authors . . . demonstrate how and why the demands of "Beyond Gay Marriage" lead to the detriment of spouses, children, and civil society. After providing a concise list of principles to guide civic leaders in their thinking about marriage and public life, the book launches into the best currently-available, one-stop scholarly resource of social science and philosophical reflection on marriage. The authors first examine the well-being of children in relation to marriage, family structure, and the different contributions mothers and fathers make to the parenting enterprise. They then look to the well-being of adults in various sexual relationships. Finally, they assess the public consequences of marital breakdown, its disproportionate effects on the poor, and the overreaching, intrusive state emerging from the social disintegration.
Legislation . . . though important, is not the primary means of reform. In the words of the statement: "Creating a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic institutions--along with intellectual, moral, religious, and artistic leaders--point the way. But law and public policy will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nation's leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
BBC host, Jenni Murray, a feminist and euthanasia advocate is angry. Why? Because after fighting so hard to become liberated and independent, she’s now been “trapped” into caring for her mother who is ill with Parkinson’s disease.
Jenni is so angry, in fact, that she has entered into a suicide pact with friends just in case she should find herself incapacitated by an illness. I can’t say that I blame her. If you have ever cared for someone who is elderly or disabled 24/7 it is exhausting, confining, and less than glamorous. It doesn’t coexist very well with a lifestyle of travel, fresh acrylic nails or treatments at the spa. It produces bad backs, sleepless nights, and if it’s a loved one, worry beyond imagination. I should know. I did it for 20 years. Not for my mother, but for my daughter, Sasha, who required diapering, bathing, feeding and constant medical attention…and I WAS trapped. Weekends…evenings…and many days when she was too sick to leave the house. I was old when I was young….chronically tired and perpetually grieved.
Why is it then that I can find words to describe that experience, but cannot for the life of me find them to express to you or to Jenni, if I had the chance, the depth, the beauty, the joy, the profundity of that same experience. How can I explain to you that in dying to the rights of my youth….giving to her when I had nothing left to give…crying from the depths of my soul when I had no more tears, I found the deepest, most immovable, unshakeable relationship with my Heavenly Father…. A strength unbreakable in my abject weakness…a discovery of another self in my selflessness.
How can I describe to you the sweetness of His presence…the daily miracles of His mercy and encouragement….I can’t…I can’t.
How could I tell her or you that I would do it again? I would choose my precious Sasha and all that entails for the joy of loving her and learning more of Him.
As to Jenni’s suicide pact, I understand that too. I hate to be dependent on anyone…even for a ride or a meal. I like being independent and I don’t want anyone to have to wait on me. Dietrich Bonhoeffer sorted that one out clearly when he said, “Not only do the weak need the strong, but the strong need the weak.” The mystery here is, that even in depending on others in our weakness, we are serving them by helping mold THEIR character.
The BBC says “the law against assisted suicide is supported by a ‘religious minority’ who hold to an outdated moral view that human life is inherently valuable and that children have a legitimate obligation to care for elderly parents.”
It’s true, you know. If I didn’t know there was a God, I would be very much in favor of mercy killing the elderly and following Princeton’s Dr. Peter Singer in suggesting the extermination of unwanted disabled children. It’s just a more graphic illustration of “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.” Jenni Murray and others feel the way they do because to them this life is all there is. You only go around once...and so you gotta “go for the gusto,” if you know what I mean.
But there IS a God who gives to those of us who acknowledge and serve Him an upside down perspective of suffering that only His servants can understand. St. Francis of Assisi put it beautifully when he said,” For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born to eternal life!”
But how do you explain that to the BBC? I hope I just did.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Jenni Murray, the presenter of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, a feminist and euthanasia advocate, said that she does not want to be “trapped” into caring for her mother who is ill with Parkinson’s disease.
This is the ugly truth about the ‘Right to Die’ movement. It’s not about mercy and compassion for the suffering. It’s ultimately about cost and inconvenience for the living.
I wonder how her mother feels about her comments?
The network weighed in with in with this gem:
"Jenni is angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, women are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents."Is killing your dying mother instead of caring for her liberation? A friend once commented to me that liberation is really the freedom to do what is right. She was right. This looks like merely a different form of enslavement to me - enslavement to self.
Murray goes on to point out who stands in the way of all this ‘liberation.’
"...the law against assisted suicide is supported by a “religious minority” who hold to an outdated moral view that human life is inherently valuable and that children have a legitimate obligation to care for elderly parents."
She is absolutely right. If life is not 'inherently valuable' (sacred) then we are all fair game. Behold the danger of living in a society that no longer recognizes the existence of the Christian God, Jehovah. It can no longer, logically, respect the right to life He gives to each human being made in His image. We are 'ending the suffering' of late stage terminal patients today. We will be killing them for 'parts' tomorrow.
God help us.
What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? Luke 9:25
Saturday, August 12, 2006
A couple in Brussels has been threatened with criminal neglect for schooling their children at home, and a U.S. expert on the issue told WorldNetDaily the case actually could pose a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution.
That's because if the basis for the legal arguments being made by Belgian prosecutors ever would be accepted in –- or imposed upon -- the United States, that fact would make the U.N. protocol equal to the Constitution.
What terrifies U.S. homeschool education experts is the authorities' decision to cite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a legal argument.
"Our worst fears are being realized as we see these other European countries feeling the pressure because they did sign on and enter into this treaty. . . Britain, for instance, had a report done by the (U.N.) Committee of 10 and they got chastised because they were allowing corporal punishment."
Although signed under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. Senate never has ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The Convention is an international treaty that creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child. It is monitored by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Monday, August 07, 2006
CALGARY, Alberta, July 31, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexual activists have denounced three Calgary based websites to the Alberta and Federal Human Rights Commissions, demanding that the sites which post information critical of homosexual behaviour be shut down.
The websites are run by Craig Chandler, Canadian conservative and talk show host. Chandler commented "Sometimes the truth hurts…That’s exactly our perspective on it. The gay and lesbian community, homosexual activists, they don't want anything but complete silence to any disagreement to their views on the issue."
“This is becoming the biggest battle in Canada’s history for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Freedom of the press is gone.”
“Our freedoms are being taken away very quickly. This may end up with one or another of us in jail, because I won’t pay the fine. If that’s what it takes, I’m willing to go behind bars.”
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
I was reading this blog, just catching up with a friend who is a single evangelist in another city now. He's suffered some serious disappointments and grievous wrongs and losses himself. This sad post conveys so beautifully how a believer learns to share in the burdens of others and how a believer's heart breaks for the lost sheep.
...Banning abortion deprives the mother of her rights to property and to the pursuit of happiness.Huh?
Could someone let these poor uneducated rebelliously liberal young people in on this concept: Having an inalienable constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness does not necessarily equal a government-underwritten guarantee of the attainment of happiness. If you wish to achieve actual happiness, you must make wise and responsible choices along the way. Getting pregnant by a man who doesn't love you more than he loves himself (in which case he would first be married to you) does not result in happiness. Having an abortion does not result in happiness. Especially not for the "fetus."
I find myself wondering if Mr. Krouse has mulled over that other inalienable constitutional right - uh, the inalienable right to LIFE!
During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells.Apparently, MSU is too short on funding to offer biology classes.
The point I am trying to make here is that a fetus is not a living human, and therefore, an abortion is not responsible for annihilating a human's life.Apparently, MSU is also too short on funding to provide English courses. Or an editor for this so-called newspaper. (I guess technically he's right: "An abortion" is an act. The act is not responsible for anything. The abortionist, his assistants, and the woman submitting to an abortion are responsible for annihilating a human life.)
The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human?Yes, Mr. Krouse, pets are considered property (except by your friends at PETA) - and yet if you poke scissors in the back of your cute little weiner puppy's head and suck its brains out with your vacuum attachment, your neighbors will call the police and the county prosecutor will press animal cruelty charges and you will be the most vilified human being in the nation, surpassing even Scott Peterson and the BTK killer. (If your abortionist does the same thing to your 9 mo "fetus" in the very moment she might naturally draw her first breath, you can be featured in Ms. Magazine.)
This part is progress: At least Mr Krouse acknowledges that a "fetus" suffers pain and agony when it is doused in burning saline and then has its arms or legs pulled off.
[It's okay to kill tapeworms so...]
...why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?
...25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right — aWhy stop at miscarried babies (for whom memorials or funerals are, in fact, often held, for whom countless prayers are offered, and for whom their mothers and fathers grieve for years)? Why not accuse God of murdering every person who dies, from conception until age 103? If you're going to blaspheme, why stop at miscarriages?
quarter of all "humans" conceived end up "dying."
It would appear that the "loving" God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined.
Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.Yeah, most newborn babies I know are perfectly self-sufficient and independent. They get part-time jobs, heat their own formula, and stuff their own diapers into the genie.
Do these last few statements seem absolutely asinine?Yes, but no more so that all the others preceeding them.
Conclusion of this matter: Think about this brilliant apology for abortion the next time you watch MSNBC or read an article in the Northwest Herald - it will help you understand what you're consuming. Then turn off the TV, put down the paper, and pick up something that offers wisdom and hope: your Bible.
This was written tongue-in-cheek, but in all soberness, please pray that a solid Christian comes alongside this young man and is able to show to him just how valuable his own life is to Jehovah God. When he knows who he is before God, he will write a new column.
The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States.That sentence was not written by a Christian organization, trying to impose their right-wing views. No, it is the first sentence of the executive summary of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships.
...We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families.
What this really means: If the homosexual activists continue to press for same-sex marriage, they recognize they will lose. But if they deceive you with sympathy for old broken-down grandma raising those poor grandchildren, if they get you feeling guilty about the welfare mothers and those pitiful old spinster sisters up the street, then maybe you'll forget that they are trying to sanctify anal sex.
The first prong of their strategy is really the key: Their goal is to render marriage of no more honor or value than serial cohabitation, than a threesome (or foursome or a 24 hr orgy house), than a platonic roommate. Their aim is to completely dishonor the first institution God created, the prime human relationship that mirrors the relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride, the church.
They toss out a bold lie as though it's a well known fact: "household diversity is the demographic norm. " Stop and think. If you are not homosexual (if you're part of the 98-99% of the normal population), aren't most of the kids you know living with at least one, if not both, of their biological or adopted parents? Aren't most of the old people you know either living with their lifetime spouse, or with a son or daughter, or in an assisted care home (which they don't view as their "family") ? Aren't most of your older single friends living alone and not like the Golden Girls? Or is the world just full of utter chaos?
These people think you're narrow because you don't quite cotton to a woman, her natural son, his tattooed and pierced girlfriend, her baby by her last boyfriend, the woman's much younger boyfriend, his bisexual lover, their live-in in-vitro surrogate mother, and her three children by three different fathers. Gee whiz, you must be a narrow minded bigoted homophobe. After all, it's just an "authentic" "loving" relationship.
They do admit that the progressive GLBT movement "invented" alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary.
Need an interpretation? That means: "We made it up. Just like we're going to fabricate the notion of 'same-sex' marriage."
Recommended Action: Call the White House comment line immediately at 1-202-456-1111 to say "No Plan B!"
Or e-mail: email@example.com.
The following message is from Paul Caprio, President of Family PAC, regarding the imminent decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on whether to allow over-the-counter sales of the abortifacient "Plan B" ("morning after") pill:
The FDA on Monday sent a letter to Barr Laboratories asking them to submit a plan to distribute PLAN B over the counter.
1) Plan B is a dangerous abortifacient which has a double dose of progesterone which is used in routine contraceptives which are required to be prescribed by physicians.
2) Over the counter sale of Plan B will increase purchase by men attempting to coerce women into unprotected sex. Even sexual pedophiles would be able to purchase the drug.
3) Over the counter sales of Plan B have led to epidemic level increases in sexually transmitted diseases in Great Britain.
4) Medical experts tell us that it would be impossible to properly label the drug because there are so many conditions under which women should not take it.
To stop this healthcare train wreck from happening it is imperative that the White House receive many calls from you and your members saying, "No Plan B over the counter!"
...One of his major legislative accomplishments was spearheading the drive to have an amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act adding sexual orientation to the laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing passed in the House.I am very sad to hear of Mr McKeon's fate, but it is no surprise given his lifestyle. Disease is robbing him of 10-20-30 years of life. Very sad indeed.
The human body is not designed for anal sex. Anal sex results in disease.
Why would anyone promote such a fate for our young people? Wake up, people! This is the end result of steering a little boy to the Gay-Straight Alliance, of telling him that God approves of homosexual sex.
This video might clarify a few things. (Takes about 45 minutes to watch, but you should see it.)
(courtesy of BK)
...Particularly some younger evangelicals are suggesting that we stay away from divisive issues like abortion and homosexuality altogether and just go back and be like the first-century Church—stay out of politics, tend to our spiritual knitting.
I wonder what early Church they are talking about. Take just the issue of abortion. The early Church was outspokenly pro-life right from the beginning just as the Jews had been. In the second chapter of the Didache, one of the first discipleship books for young Christians written in the first century, was this stern
injunction: “Thou shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Justin Martyr wrote about this in his first apology. And in the second century, Athenagoras wrote a plea to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “We say that women that use drugs to bring abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion.”
...Life issues, you see, go to the very heart of the Gospel, which is why the
first-century Church cared so passionately. And we can do no less today. The Church does not just have the right to speak about it; it has the duty to do so.
Yesterday, Barr Laboratories' stock price rose about 2% upon this news:
The FDA confirmed that it sent a letter to Duramed "to proceed working with the sponsor in order to move Plan B [the "morning-after" abortifacient] from prescription only to over-the-counter status for women ages 18 and older."The company expects Plan B to start at $35 MILLION and grow to $200 MILLION annually. (How many babies does that dollar figure represent?)
Equally despicable: politicking at the expense of innocent lives.
How do these people sleep at night?
The FDA's decision to move forward on Plan B talks could result in the permanent appointment Tuesday of Andrew von Eschenbach, acting commissioner of the FDA. Two senators have said they will block the nomination if the FDA continues to drag its feet on Plan B.
"In order for Eschenbach to get approval, this needs to get out of the way," said Forman.
...Cheyenne Corbett gave birth to a girl in the shower of her parents' home on Sunday. Police discovered the infant's body wrapped in a towel in her bedroom. An autopsy determined the baby died of asphyxiation.
Corbett's adoptive father had taken her to a physician in Phoenix in July, but she signed a form requesting that no information be given to her parents under the privacy provisions...commonly known as HIPAA...
Erett said Corbett's parents did not know she had delivered a baby until after her mother took her to the hospital for heavy bleeding.
...She will be charged as an adult with first-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death.
This girl had loving parents who tried to get her help. They were shut out and she was left to her own foolish immaturity. Now a precious baby is dead and a 17 yr old girl is facing prison. But the lesbian feminist movement doesn't care about her...they care only about demanding the "right" to murder babies at will.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
First, it is difficult to accept the moral seriousness of a person who will characterize abortion as a mere "sexual issue." The issue in abortion is not sex, but death, and I can think of few entities better suited than the church to address issues of life and death. Moreover, most serious people recognize that "homosexuality" is also not a mere "sexual issue"...
...Acting with the best of intentions, campus evangelicals have focused tremendous efforts on racial reconciliation and service to the poor. They have rejected any focus on the so-called "sexual issues" to the extent that it is difficult to find any Christian fellowship of any size on any campus that is directly involved in pro-life advocacy or even talks much about same-sex "marriage" or homosexuality. At some schools, campus evangelicals will even march in "gay rights" parades and join homosexual activists on various political projects.
Has this effort caused a new evangelical golden age on campus? Far from it. In fact, campus Christians are battling for survival. As the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute found (see page 3), student faith practices dramatically decline during the college years, with 52% attending church regularly at the start of their freshman year, and only 29% attending by the end of their junior year. Even as fewer kids attend services, universities are dramatically ramping up their efforts to eject the Christian presence from campus. Dozens of colleges have banned or attempted to ban Christian student organizations from campus unless those organizations pledge to open themselves up to non-Christian members or leaders. Some of the banned groups had marched with homosexuals at "gay rights" events. But no matter; if they wanted to maintain a distinctively Christian leadership, they were "discriminatory" and had to go.
Our college campuses show what the world would be like if the left had absolute control of the agenda and of policy, and it is a world where dialogues run one way, fundamental rights no longer exist, and even the most accommodationist Christians are shoved to the sidelines unless they abandon all of their principles. Pastor Boyd should take note.
Laura Alejandra Figeroa, 39, was diagnosed with breast cancer last March. Rather than risk the life of her unborn baby, she made the decision to postpone chemotherapy treatment until after his birth. Her son Pedro was born July 12th at 27 weeks gestation...Please pray fervently for this courageous woman and for her family!
Figeroa’s cancer has now spread to her brain and is considered irreversible, the Argentinian Catholic weekly Cristo Hoy reported last week.
Figeroa told Cristo Hoy she hoped her decision would help the work of defending the life of the unborn, in an interview several months ago.
“Today, more than ever, there are people who are against life, who want to legalize abortion, which I consider an abominable crime, and therefore I ask that this testimony encourage those who read it to defend the unborn.
“I would like all women who are pregnant to remember that no situation, no matter how difficult, justifies taking the life of the baby in their omb. Not even in cases of rape or life of the mother.”
She made the decision in order to show her love “to this child that is coming in the same way that I have shown it to the other children I have. I want my child to know that I love him and that I will always love him, that I will give my life for him if necessary.”
(Reminds me of the song: Amazing Love! O what sacrifice! The Son of God, given for me. My debt He paid, and my death He died...that I might live.)
AOL was kind enough to post this feature story on the Creation Museum (check out the photos at that link) currently under construction in Kentucky, just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati. (This is in the same general vicinity as Newport Aquarium, which is only about 5 years old and very nice - I can personally recommend it, along with the Kentucky Horse Park, Berea, Cumberland Falls, and Mammoth Cave. There you go - voila - your whole vacation planned! I've taken my nephews on several vacations and this was their all-time favorite - mine, too.) Australian Ken Hamm is the founder of Answers in Genesis and the museum is his brainchild.
Naturally, though, (pardon the pun!) AOL had to emphasize the lunacy of believing in Creation:
Write this down: Genesis is NOT contradicted by science. The one thing definitively contradicted by science is evolution.
Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the Earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve. That, of course, is contradicted by science, but that's the point of the $25 million Creation Museum rising fast in rural Kentucky...
Scientists say fossils and sophisticated nuclear dating technology show that the Earth s more than 4 billion years old, the first dinosaurs appeared around 200 million years ago, and they died out well before the first human ancestors arose a few million years ago.
"Genesis is not science," said Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were."
(courtesy of DonnaL)
Gays believe (and the administration agrees) that they have a constitutional right to be free from discomfort. This right trumps the religious rights of any student who opposes any aspect of the gay agenda...
Our civil rights struggle to engage in protest against the excesses of the gay “civil rights” movement is...about our deeply held religious conviction that expressing opposition to homosexuality is love speech, not “hate speech.” The Word of God to Ezekiel (33:8,9) is illustrative:
If I announce that some wicked people are sure to die and you fail to tell them to change their ways, then they will die in their sins, and I will hold you responsible for their deaths. But if you warn them to repent and they don’t repent, they will die in their sins, but you will have saved yourself.
So, as one can clearly see - if one simply opens his eyes and his heart – the true Christian views the phrase “it’s OK to be gay” to be a form of hate speech. In the view of those who are true followers of Christ, it is a refrain no more hostile than the suggestion that the homosexual simply “go to hell.”
In addition to blocking the Child Custody Protection Act, Senator Durbin voted "no" on the bill,(so did Senator Obama) while many of his Democratic colleagues supported the common-sense measure to avoid adults from circumventing state laws by bringing minor girls across state lines for an abortion.
He also reportedly said that he had not received a single letter on this issue, yet Fran Eaton and I personally lobbied his office on it in April, and others have called or written. Although many heard him, his office denies that he said that, and offered that he meant he was not hearing about this as a pressing issue in Illinois.
Since Illinois has no enforceable parental notification law, girls are being brought into our state for abortions from surrounding states. That is why Illinois has been referred to as the abortion dumping ground of the Midwest.
If you have contacted Senator Durbin in the past on this issue, please let me know.
I also encourage everyone to call or write again - and keep a record of it.
Concerned Women for America of Illinois
GLBT activist groups issued a major statement called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships.
"Our strategies must be visionary, creative and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a 'wedge' issue that pits one group against another," the statement claims. "The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families."The groups advocate:
- Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families — regardless of kinship or conjugal status.
- Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including, but not limited to, health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster-recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.
Glenn T. Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said it's now very clear that most gay activists never really sought same-sex marriage. What they really want is "anything goes."
"This statement fails to take account of the fact that the government recognizes, or sees, certain relationships as legal, because those relationships are essential and necessary to society," Stanton said. "That is, the society needs these relationships in order to be productive, healthy and prosperous."
The gay activists and their supporters called for "separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families."
Stanton said, however, we don't find marriage just in Christian or religious cultures.
"Marriage, as a relationship between a man and a woman, is present in all human societies. It's a human thing. So, if they're going to 'set themselves free,' they are going to have to do it by the separation of humanity and state — rather than the separation of religion and state. Religion is not what drives marriage; humanity is what drives marriage."
For Gary Bauer, president of American Values, the gay-activist message to America is clear.
"Translated, it means they want to change the subject," Bauer said. "I don't blame them, after a series of humiliating defeats at the ballot box, and, at least in recent weeks, a series of debates in what has been their stronghold — which is the judiciary of the country. So clearly, they are going back to the drawing board to try to come up with a different strategy."