I just wanted to share...

Lord, Your Love is Extravagant

2010-05-24T14:23:00.005-04:00

There's a beautiful song by Casting Crowns that goes like this:

Your love is extravagant

Your friendship, it is intimate

I feel I'm moving to the rhythm of Your grace

Your fragrance is intoxicating in a secret place

'Cause Your love is extravagant

Recently, I was led to the fact that I don't really understand what "extravagant" means. That is to say that God has revealed to me that there is a depth of understanding I don't yet have. I sing of God's extravagant love, but I don't really understand what that means. (Do any of us really understand God's love for us? I mean deep down in our hearts and our souls, do we really understand God's love for us?!!?)

Merriam-Webster Online defines "extravagant" as exceeding the limits of reason or necessity; lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint; extremely or excessively elaborate, as in an extravagant display. Let's take these one by one.

Exceeding the limits of reason or necessity. Certainly the extravagance of God's love exceeds my limits of reason. His love also exceeds necessity. He doesn't need me; He wants me.

Lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint. Moderation means to lessen the intensity or extremeness of. God's love lacks in moderation, all right. The proof that He doesn't moderate His love for me is shown on the cross. Balanced? No way! God loves me way more than I could ever love Him, no matter how much I ever love Him. Restraint? Do you see God showing restraint when you see Jesus on the cross? Neither do I.

Extremely or excessively elaborate, as in an extravagant display. How's this for an extreme display - Jesus on the cross!!

The words are great and all, and I have a better understanding of what it means when I sing of God's love, of course. But I think to truly understand the extravagance of God's love, we need to look at the image rather than the words.

If Jesus is Lord, why aren't we listening to Him for the answers to our questions?

2010-04-20T11:04:00.011-04:00

The other week, there was a question posted on Facebook, asking how Christians should handle a certain situation. (I'm purposely leaving out the details because I don't want to embarrass anyone.) Many people responded with what they understood to be the answer found in Scripture. The bad thing is, many of the responses contradicted each other. For anyone reading those comments, the answer to the question could be very confusing. (God does not bring about confusion. If we ever find ourselves confused about Scripture or our understanding of something, we (should) know that it means we need to keep seeking God for the answer.)

No one gave the most important answer to the question posed on Facebook: If we need to know how to handle a certain situation, we shouldn't ask each other, we should ask God. It's not necessarily that there is a different answer for each person, and it certainly doesn't mean that there isn't only one way to respond to the particular situation. The point is, if Jesus is Lord, why aren't we asking Him the questions directly? Why aren't we looking to God for the answers? Some might say that we are. Are we?

"'You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,'" declares the Lord." Jeremiah 29:13-14 (NASB).

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8 (NASB).

Several years ago, God showed me that I was looking in all the wrong places for answers to some questions. During that particular season in my life, I was desperately searching for answers and the direction God wanted me to go. I was always looking for others to have God's answer for me. I would even go to prayer meetings (that is, meetings for which the purpose was specifically to pray for others) hoping that someone would be waiting for me there with a special message from God just for me. In my mind, I would think I really need to know what God wants me to do about such-and-such; I'm going to prayer and hoping that my friend has a word for me so that I know what God wants me to do.

It may be confusing to some, but there is a major difference in seeking what others have to say about God rather than seeking what God has to say about Himself. I wasn't looking to Jesus directly for the answers; I was looking to people to be God's messenger to me. I was asking God the questions (sort of), but I was listening to others for His answers. (God may use other people to give me the answer, of course, but it wasn't how He was answering my questions, it was how I was looking for His answers.)

I got very frustrated that I wasn't getting any answers. In fact, God was silent. He had answered my questions before, particularly all the questions I had about Him from before I entered into a relationship with Him. Was there a particular reason I wasn't getting answers anymore?

God says, "You will find . . . when you search for Me . . . ."

When Jesus tells us to ask and receive, He is telling us to ask the Father. He is not telling us to ask others. "[H]ow much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!" Matthew 7:11 (NASB).

It can seem like a very fine line - search God for the answers, don't search other people to have God's answers.

We also need to be careful how we approach the Bible. We should not ask, "What does the Bible say about such-and-such?" Instead, we should ask the Lord the question and let Him direct us to the answer in the Bible. It may sound like I'm saying the same thing, but I'm not. Going back to the beginning of this post - many people had what they thought was the answer found in Scripture to the question being posed. The problem that stuck out the most (to me anyway) was that some of the answers contradicted each other and could lead some to confusion. The Bible does not contradict itself, so what's the problem? Were some people misunderstanding the Word? That's certainly possible, but I don't think that's it. These people looked to Scripture as if it were God; they didn't look to God Himself. The Bible is God's Word. The Bible is not God. There is a difference.

Another, entirely different question was posted on Facebook. It turned into a discussion between me and one other person (it is important to know that this woman does not have a relationship with Jesus Christ). She kept arguing with me that I didn't do enough research into all of the facts to make an informed opinion about the subject. I kept telling her that I had all of the facts from God and didn't need to look anywhere else. While she commended me for my faith in "my God," she tried to point out the flaw in my reasoning by directing me to all kinds of "sources" that question the infallicy of God's Word. I continued to suggest that she ask God directly about whether or not His Word is infallible. She couldn't believe that I didn't read "Biblical scholars" or examine their opinions. I reminded her that she was intelligent enough to read the Bible herself, and that if she had any concerns, she should simply ask God directly.

And that's the point of this post. Ask God directly; seek from God the answers. After all, if Jesus is Lord, shouldn't we listen to Him for the answers to our questions?

Earthquakes

2010-04-16T08:12:00.002-04:00

I have been startled at the number of earthquakes rattling the earth this past month or so. This morning, I came across these Scriptures.

"And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, 'YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN.' This expression, 'Yet once more,' denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:26-29 (NASB).

The devil has to crawl on his belly in my presence!!!

2009-07-28T13:13:00.004-04:00

This passage is from Victory Over the Darkness by Neal Anderson (p. 31)

"Satan had to crawl on his belly like a snake in the presence of God. He was not the god of this world at that time. He usurped the authority given to Adam and his descendants after Adam sinned and lost his relationship with God."

Our relationship to God was restored by Jesus Christ (although, we must accept this gift in order to receive restoration). Jesus also gave us authority "over all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19 NASB).

Since I have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me, which happened only after I accepted the gift of life from Jesus, God is right here with me. That means that Satan has to crawl on his belly like a snake in my presence!!

But Satan doesn't crawl on his belly in my presence (not usually). He dares to defy God and continues to usurp the authority Jesus gave to me because I let him take it. I let Satan usurp my authority in Christ when I do not resist him. James 4:7 says, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The passage does not say that Satan will leave and never come back. But I get tired of fighting him (when I even recognize that it is him), so my resistance falters. And Satan knows this so he, of course, returns, sometimes even just seconds later. Why do I get tired?

Because I do not submit myself to God (James 4:7a); I do not "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4:8); I do not "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" (James 4:10); I give the devil the opportunity where I should not (Ephesians 4:27); I do not "Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil" (Ephesians 6:11); I am not "of sober spirit" and "on the alert" for the enemy who "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

However, if I do all of these things - submit myself to God, draw near to Him, humble myself in the presence of my Lord, put on the full armor of God, not give the devil the opportunity - then I won't tire of Satan's pestering. I will be on the alert, I will resist him, and he will flee from me. Praise God!!

And when I no longer tire of the battle and can so easily resist the devil because of the strength of my Lord in me, then Satan will have to crawl on his belly like a snake in my presence!!

A wonderful message I wish all my friends would hear

2009-07-27T08:31:00.003-04:00

The other week, the pastor at the church we've been attending gave an awesome teaching about "The Joy of a Surrendered Heart." I thought this was especially timely given the changes we are experiencing in America as those currently in charge seek to swiftly turn this nation from the Republic it was destined to be into a socialist state that will ultimately fail. It can be very disheartening to watch our nation as it is destroyed from within, and fear can grip our hearts as we see, one by one, each and every one of our freedoms systematically destroyed.

Many people I know are putting their hope in the 2010 elections. They think that electing Republicans to the US House and US Senate will save this nation, provided it has not been so changed as to make the election of new representatives too little too late. They are also putting their hope in the 2012 elections, that Obama will be ousted as president of this country and we can put America back on track. In the meantime, many people I know are shouting from their rooftops, trying to let their friends and neighbors know of the changes being made in our country right now in an attempt to rally the people into action. While we lament socialists for telling people to put their hope in Big Government, many people have been putting their hope in working to keep Small Government. Hope in any government, big or small, is greatly misplaced. I am just as guilty as anyone, having been placing my hope in working to keep Small Government.

The message by Pastor Brian Biggers, "The Joy of a Surrendered Heart" snapped me out of that and helped me to put my hope where it belongs - in Jesus Christ. And it has given me the tools I need to do this, and do this every day I must. I strongly encourage all of my family and friends to listen to this message and have your hope renewed.

To listen to the message, click the link above. You will see what looks like a virtual MP3 player at the top of the page. Click "Play List" on the player to bring up the list of messages. Click "Wed July 15" and the message will automatically start. It will be posted for a limited time; however, CDs of the message are available. If you want a CD, let me know, and I will be more than happy to grab you a copy and send it to you.

God Bless!!

Why Christians Need to Stand for Traditional Marriage

2009-07-13T11:50:00.003-04:00

As Christians, we need to stand for traditional marriage in America. Yes, that means that we need to fight against homosexual marriage. The reason why is simply that we cannot tolerate sin. Being silent is a tacit acceptance of the thing about which we are being silent.

God's word clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (NASB).

"If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (NASB)

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27 (NASB).

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. (NASB).

I have heard the argument that if Jesus didn't say it, then it doesn't count. For example, some have argued that because Jesus spoke about adultery and not homosexuality, adultery is a worse sin. Besides the fact that this argument is a distraction from the real issue, that assertion is flat out wrong. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14). The Word is ALL of the Bible, not just the words in red. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not change or get rid of it (Matthew 5:17).

God does not tolerate sin, why do we? There are many examples in the Bible of God's intolerance of sin (think Sodom and Gomorrah). If God tolerated sin, Jesus would not have needed to come pay the price for our sin. Don't misconstrue God waiting to cast judgment on sin as tolerance. Even Sodom and Gomorrah were given a chance to repent before they were destroyed (if they were not given a chance, God would have destroyed them sooner).

We are to reflect the image of our Father who made us. We are to become like Him who saved us. That means that we cannot tolerate the sins which God will not tolerate (which is none of them). By failing to speak out against the sin of homosexuality, we tacitly accept it as being okay. While "silence as acceptance" is generally not accepted in law, it is accepted in life. Our society believes that to fail to speak out against a thing is to accept it as true and real. Right or wrong, that is the line of thinking in this country, and we need to act in response to that philosophy. It is not enough to think that homosexuality is wrong; we must speak it.

Homosexuals are fighting for their relationships to be recognized in the context of marriage. Their fight for the right to marry is part of their fight to have their lifestyle rendered acceptable in our society. After all, why would we recognize homosexual marriage if homosexuality itself wasn't acceptable? I fight against homosexual marriage and speak out against it because the lifestyle of homosexuality is wrong, according to the Word of God. I must speak out against sin of any kind. Yes, there are other sins - murder, adultery, slander - and I speak against those sins as well. I fight for the rights of the unborn to be given life and not be murdered in the womb. I would not tolerate an adulterer as a church leader, especially someone whose lifestyle is that of an adulterer (not someone who committed the sin, then repented and committed that sin no more). I do not like to hear anyone speak ill of someone else (just ask my husband). Murderers, adulterers, and slanderers are not advocating acceptance of their choices; those caught in the sin of homosexuality are. And that is why I stand for traditional marriage.

OneNewsNow Perspectives - Stopping Communism

2009-06-29T09:16:00.000-04:00

How do we stop communism? Pray!

Marie Jon - Guest Columnist - 6/27/2009

Many clear-thinking Americans believe that Marxists are in control of our country — and that there is no reason to believe they will ever give up their power. The question at hand is: What can be done to remedy the situation we as a nation find ourselves in?

Dare to be a Daniel
The answer is clear. The strategy for survival of any society is repeated throughout the Holy Scriptures and must be applied today. We need to enlist this vital strategy to preserve America's freedom and strength. People of faith need to persuade decent, patriotic, God-fearing Americans to turn their hearts to God and live in a manner worthy of His intervention.

Christians must dare to be a Daniel.

Daniel stood firm when facing what seemed to be insurmountable challenges and circumstances. Believe in your heart that America is still reclaimable. Like Daniel, we must set a godly example, and give primary emphasis to seeking God's will in our own lives.

"We The People" must also take every opportunity to encourage others to do the same.

Because America was established by God to be a beacon of freedom, we must also promote peaceful, law-abiding citizen activism on an individual level. As our forefathers were ready to take on the responsibilities of "participatory" citizenship, so should those of us who demand nothing less than the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe God will hear the prayers and pleas of the humble and righteous who are willing to get on their knees and ask Him to spare our country.

Whole armor of God
If you are attending a church that does not have a daily Bible study guide to feed your soul, then it's your responsibility to buy one. Make sure you purchase a study plan that is age-appropriate for your family.

We can no longer be complacent and unaware of our spiritual condition. Rededicate and revive your faith. Don't become like the church of Laodicea. Listen to words of The Almighty. (See Revelation 3:14-21.) He offers you both praise and rebuke.

Many of God's people feel worn and weary because they are not wearing the whole armor of God. Every day, we see our cherished liberties disappear. They are being stolen from us as we tremble unnecessarily. We know that, eventually, our pastors and the churches will be muzzled and undermined with unjust laws. Prepare yourself. Have a prayer on your lips to offer up to heaven.

Communist policies
Public hate and disdain for people of faith have been allowed to fester since this administration swept into Washington. In fact, it is promoted by the "progressive" ideologues within our legislative halls, public institutions, and the biased liberal media.

Excerpts from "Top 7 Marxist communist policies being implemented by Obama today," by Hal Licino (found at hubpages.com) —

Throughout history, communist leaders have seized power by promoting themselves as populists, and often completely hiding their own ideology. Indeed, in a poll taken after communist Hugo Chavez' first election victory in Venezuela, only three percent of the electors believed Chavez to be a socialist, let alone a communist. Currently 32 percent of Americans believe Obama to be a socialist.

The initial stages of communization of a country invariably begin with seven basic steps:

1. Seizing control over the free flow of the nation's money
Obama has stated that he wants to convert the stock the U.S. government now owns in the nation's banks from preferred stock, which is the case currently, to common stock. This modification in type of stock may seem irrelevant at first glance, but under further analysis it is the single greatest communist policy the U.S. government has ever adopted: It means that the federal government will control all of the currently publicly traded major banks and financial institutions in the nation which are currently in the hands of individual shareholders. Not only will the current shareholders' rights be trampled, but the control of the nation's flow of money is the first keystone of communism.

2. Stripping capitalists of their assets
According to U.S. bankruptcy code, secured creditors such as the ones who have outstanding debt against Chrysler and GM have to be paid before unsecured creditors. That is the law. Obama has ignored this law, and seized the vast majority (89% in GM's case) of all "asset value" of the automakers and taken direct control or given it away for free to the unions. Karl Marx's theses were all based on the workers owning the means of production, and thus communism takes hold in America.

3. Changing the structures of government to suit
Obama has given the GOP until October to approve his health care plan, which many experts have shown would be as socialized as Cuba's. If the Republican Party does not meet his demands, the Democratic Party will simply change the very rules of the United States Senate to pass their legislation through simple majority, instead of the 60% which has been required by the Senate through history. Changing legislation to suit the leader is another common tactic of communist leaders from Chavez to Castro.

4. Taking advantage of a crisis to impose communism
Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel published a book entitled "The Plan" which would require (yes, require) young Americans regardless of their political stripe to serve in a direct copy of Hugo Chavez' red-beret local militias. "The Plan" also promotes massive taxpayer-funded programs as universally-free university tuition and health care, as well as tax reform to ensure that the middle and upper classes are crushed by the enormous new government expenditures. Obama has already admitted such a 'soak anyone making over $250,000/year' punitive tax policy. Emanuel is famous for his quote 'you never want a serious crisis to go to waste....[it's] an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,' which is the prototypical process whereby communists seize power — witness Lenin, Mao, Castro, Tito, et al.

'Thy will be done'
The man in the White House is being unfaithful to his country and to God. President Barack Hussein Obama thinks only of his own earthly ambitions and pernicious ideology — Marxism. We are admonished to pray for our leaders. Please place the president and his full Cabinet on the top of your prayer list, and pray for God's will to be done. (See Matt. 6:9-13.)

It is time for every born-again, traditional Christian to network. All churches should plan a day to bus into Washington, DC, for a full day of prayer and repentance before the Lord. Ask Him to once again set the "captives free" and "heal and restore our land":

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Unbelievable!!!

2009-06-03T09:55:00.002-04:00

This goes to show the plight of the education system in America!! In this video, only 2 people (3 if you count the "reporter") knew the definition of "suffrage." Unbelievable!

And for anyone reading this who doesn't know what suffrage means, click here and pay special attention to definition #3.

Choices

2009-05-21T12:45:00.002-04:00

I really feel the need to re-post an earlier blog I wrote called "It's not my fault!" (click the title to link to that post).

It all boils down to choices and who is responsible for making them. Each and every one of us is 100% individually responsible for each choice we make. And we always have a choice, even if the options in front of us all suck. We must take responsibility for our own actions. At some point in life, the onus is on us to make the decisions. The rest of us should recognize the appropriate boundaries of our relationships and stay out of the decisions that others make, even when we know where Bad Choice Road ends. Who knows what forks off that road will be taken that lead back to the right path.

If someone is deciding to end a life, whether it be their own or someone else's, that would be a good time to intervene and fight that person. Parents make decisions for their children, of course, but as the child gets older, they should be given more and more of the responsibility (age appropriate) in making choices. Children need to learn that their decisions have consequences, and the only way to teach consequences is to suffer them. It may pain their parents, but it is necessary if the children are to learn how to make right choices. Too much intervention makes for an enabler, and enabling children to continue to make bad choices will only lead to further destruction.

From ProLifeBlogs.com

2009-05-11T13:03:00.002-04:00

English Teenage Girls Killing Their Children in Record Numbers
By peter on May 11, 2009 1:58 AM

If only America recognized we don't have to try out the liberal policies of sex and death to get results. Other countries are already experimenting with drugs - Amsterdam, Sex education, abortion and birth control - Europe and Socialism - Europe.

England is going through a major experiment with their teenagers right now. From Mail Online:

"The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010."

So England spent $452 million dollars to cut the teenage pregnancy rate? What were their methods?

"Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education."

Wow, that sounds like a good plan. Oh yeah, we're doing that here in America, I forgot. There's some benevolent group called Planned Parenthood already doing that. Did I say benevolent? I meant to say profiteering group who is soaking Americans for over $350 million tax dollars every year for sex education, they make another $350 million by killing babies through prenatal murder, euphemistically called "abortion", and another $350 million dollars are donated to them by America hating groups and people, some guy named George comes to mind.

Whoops, sorry, my wife tells me I'm a lot like a squirrel, flitting to one branch after another. Where was I? Oh yeah, the great British experiment on sex and death.

"But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose."

Really? You mean if you encourage sex, hand out condoms and birth control like candy, more teenage girls will have sex resulting in higher pregnancy rates? What a surprise!!! The people doing this study must have college degrees. Ahm jest a dum 'ol hick & cudn't figure that 1 out if I tried.

So America, why do you think we will have different results? We've been doing the same thing, yet teenage pregnancies are the highest in the industrialized world. How can that be? We've been handing out condoms, birth control and abortion since I was a kid. When will this "experiment" end in America?

I wonder if reading the box would make a difference? Let's see, I think I'll check Planned Parenthood's web site for information on the effectiveness of condoms and birth control....dum de dum. Well what do you know, Planned Parenthood has their own brand of condoms, what a surprise. And in 2005 those condoms got the lowest rating by Consumer Reports.

I'm shocked!

Really, I'm totally amazed that their condoms perform so poorly, after all, when they fail, it looks bad on them and then our underage daughters are directed by the schools to go have an abortion. What? You say Planned Parenthood makes $350 million dollars a year on abortions? That's amazing!

What a scam. I'm going to try that one in a different way. I'm going to sell schools an ink pen that leaks. Then, when the students' clothes get covered in ink, they can come to my dry cleaner stores which I will have next to every high school. Smart thinking huh?

Yep, those Planned Parenthood folks sure are smart cookies. Oh wait, what's this? From Planned Parenthood South Central new York:

"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.

Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"

If used correctly? How do you use abstinence incorrectly? I feel my knuckles starting to drag. I must be one of those "right-wing nut-jobs" who doesn't believe in eevolootion you read so much about.

Let's look at some of their other stats:

Male condom 85 - 98%, Female condom 79 - 95%

Diaphragm: 84 - 94%; Cap: 71 - 86%, Shield: 85%

Spermicide: 71 - 82%

Hmm, let me contemplate this one now. by "effectiveness" they are of course referring to a statement that might read something like "resulting in a pregnancy". After all, if the condom wasn't "effective", it doesn't just mean that the girl says "aww shucks, it didn't work". It means a baby in the belly.

So, think about those stats, and imagine them in a different way. Let's say I give you a gun.

Oh no!!! He said "gun"! Call the PC police!

Now imagine I give you a bullet to put in that gun, and then I say, "spin the chamber, put it up to your head and pull the trigger". You would say "yeah right fruitcake, don't think so! Yet we're okay with Planned Parenthood giving our children "birth control" which is guaranteed to fail 3 out of 10 times" No, let me rephrase that, "guaranteed to result in the pregnancy of our daughters 3 out of 10 times?"

Remember, these are the same people who say:

"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.

Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"

Now that's like saying if I give you a gun but don't give you any bullets, you will still manage to blow your head off.

Back to the article on England. They say:

"Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998."

It took them 14 years to realize the huge mistake they have made. Countless young girls used for what I would call their 'great sex experiment', or as critics of the program over there call it the "Teenage Abortion Strategy".

What's going to be their strategy now?

"They have called for a redoubling of efforts to persuade young girls to use contraception."

They are saying to the parents of England "you people shut up about abstinence already, we're going to experiment on your daughters for another 14 years. We'll let you know how it turns out."

The nut job Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service stated:

"The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign."

She probably said that with a straight face, with other nut jobs applauding. I apologize to all the nuts out there. I really do like peanuts, so it's an insult to compare them to psychotic people like these pro-aborts.

It gets better...well, worse:

"A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception."

What was that about Abstinence again?

Oh yeah:

How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"

I wonder if they have a manual for that?

Peter

Pro-Life Unity

United we stand ~ Divided they die

Pass it on

E-mail I received from Gary DeMar, President of American Vision

2009-05-07T16:13:00.001-04:00

Greetings!

Organizers of the National Day of Prayer are upset that President Obama is not officially participating in the observation. He will pray privately, as he does every day, the president’s spokesman said. His only public acknowledgement will be to issue a White House proclamation. Well, I’m kind of glad. I’m tired of politicians who take the name of the Lord in vain. Please tell me how someone who supports abortion on demand, homosexuality, and generational theft by government edict should serve as the national spokesman for a day of prayer.

Of course, President Obama is not the first president not to acknowledge an official observance. There were no official observances during the Clinton administration. While President George W. Bush did hold a formal White House event during his tenure as president, the Bush White House also recognized the Islamic observance of Ramadan with a White House dinner.

Maybe God is telling His people something this year. Joshua expected a victory against Ai. Israel won its first encounter with Jericho without a casualty. Why should the battle with Ai be any different? The spies thought Ai was weak enough that only “two or three thousand men need go up” (Joshua 7:3). Thirty-six Israelites were killed, and the rest were pursued and assaulted by the men of Ai with the result that “the hearts of the people melted and became as water” (v. 5). Bible believing Christians have become disheartened

You know what the Israelites were thinking. “Maybe we should not have ventured to participate in this social thing. We were at least safe when we were ghettoized beyond the Jordan.” There was even fear that things would get a lot worse once the “Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land” heard about the defeat (v. 9). Joshua, voicing these concerns to God, did what today's political remorseful are recommending. “Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell on the earth on his face before the ark of the LORD until evening, both he and the elders of Israel” (v. 7). In a word, he prayed . . . hard. What did God tell him to do? “So the LORD said to Joshua, ‘Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them’” (v. 11). In effect, God told Joshua to stop praying and act on the evil that brought them the defeat!

Prayer is not a magical formula, an incantation that brings forth God like a Genie from a bottle. Prayer is an admission of weakness. It is in weakness that God can best use us (2 Cor. 12:10). But true faith and trust are not exercised if we do not act on the belief that God will work for us even in our weakness. Prayer is not the end but the beginning of the work God has called us to do. J. I. Packer says it this way:

The Spirit does what he does. His supernaturalizing of our lives enables Christians, as a matter of fact, to do much for the Lord that they wouldn't be able to do otherwise. That's the whole doctrine of gifts and ministry. It's my part to see what God calls me to do, to ask the Lord to enable me to do it, then to get up off my knees and go confidently into action, watching to see what help I shall be given, and finally to give thanks for what the Spirit did in and through me.

There is sin in the Christian camp. Entire denominations support abortion and homosexuality. Those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians maintain that abortion should be a protected right and homosexuals should have special rights protecting behavior that the Bible calls an “abomination.” The sins of Achan—“the mantle of Shinar” (humanism) and “silver and gold” (mammon)—are the sins of the church. After we fall on our face, let's be careful not to cover our ears. We might just hear God's voice saying to us, “Rise up!"

I'm inviting you to join us for a time of prayer AND action at our national conference in July. Please see the complete details below...

Gary DeMar,
President of American Vision

An article by Larry Elder

2009-05-07T14:25:00.000-04:00

Questioning terrorists - with compassion

by Larry Elder

"I am absolutely convinced [banning waterboarding] was the right thing to do," said President Obama at a recent press conference, "not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways (emphasis added), in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."

Once upon a time, critics of the Bush administration's alleged used of "torture" often argued that it simply does not work. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, once said, "Experts agree that you do not obtain reliable intelligence through using these tactics and you diminish our reputation in the world, which hurts the cooperation we need to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people."

Over the objection of his CIA director, President Obama publicly released the so-called torture memos. They described the allegedly abusive interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration. But the President's national intelligence director, Adm. Dennis Blair, recently wrote a memo to his staff. "High value information," he wrote, "came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking this country." When Blair's memo was released, that quote had been deleted.

The Blair memo also said, "I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time (emphasis added), and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given." Not exactly string 'em up, trial to follow. The document release also deleted that quote.

The CIA recently said it stands by a 2005 Justice Department memo on "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- including waterboarding -- used on al-Qaida leader and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which caused him to reveal information that allowed the government to thwart another attack. This 9/11-style attack -- called the "second wave" -- planned to crash a hijacked plane into a building in Los Angeles.

Former Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General and current Attorney General Eric Holder, in a 2002 interview, said, "One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located." The Geneva Conventions, Holder noted, place restrictions on interrogations. Holder argued that if we want our own prisoners treated well, we should treat the detainees humanely and in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions. But he pointed out, "It seems to me that given the way in which (these terrorists) have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war."

Who said the following?

"Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president -- indeed any leader of a democratic nation -- would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack." -- Alan Dershowitz, op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2007.

Who said the following?

"Every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky; we get the No. 3 guy in al-Qaida, and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and this guy knows where it is. We have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him." -- former President Bill Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006.

Obama, after conceding that the "enhanced interrogation" techniques produced valuable and perhaps lifesaving intel, says we could have gotten it in other ways. Such as....?

- Make the terrorist stand on one leg for 4-1/2 hours and sing, in Farsi, "Do the Hokey Pokey."
- Tell the terrorist that Dick Cheney just flew into Pakistan for a little bird hunting.
- Tell the terrorist that Osama bin Laden decided to pack it in, hired the William Morris Agency, and plans to host a reality show called "Dancing With the Mullahs."
- Tell him that Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, has converted to Judaism.
- Threaten to give him two front-row tickets to a Los Angeles Clippers basketball game.
- Tell him that Cat Stevens has returned to Christianity and that Flavor Flav has become a Muslim.
- Make him sit through an entire Joe Biden speech.

The campaign and election ended. Obama won. He serves as commander in chief in the real world. If a terrorist refuses to divulge information that could save hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives, what, pray tell, "other way" does the President envision?

Article by Matt Barber

2009-05-07T14:17:00.001-04:00

'Hate crimes' bill is full of swill

by Matt Barber

Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal "hate crimes" bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I'll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.

To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized "sexual orientations" (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).

Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required "equal protection of the laws;" it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government's authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution.

Here's how they're doing it:

In order for the feds to usurp the States' police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they've been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.

In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909's sponsors have made – within the bill's "Findings" section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to "interstate commerce." So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.

But since the bill's Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy "findings" immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.

First, while addressing "hate crimes" allegedly motivated by so-called "sexual orientation" bias, the bill asserts that existing law is "inadequate to address this problem." This is patently untrue.

When the legislation's 1968 "hate crimes" forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.

The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted "equal protection of the laws" regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.

Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest "hate crimes" cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged "gay-bashing" assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic "homophobia."

To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed "hate crimes" victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.

This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being "gay." Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act."

The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary "hate crimes" legislation. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably "[adequate] to address this problem."

In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser.

They won't. They can't.

But back to the interstate commerce charade:

Here, the federal government's own statistics serve to derail the "hate crimes" gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim's "sexual orientation."

Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such "hate crimes." So many, in fact, that it "poses a serious national problem." The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:

• Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
• [T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
• Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;

And, here's the kicker. Wait for it ....Wait for it:

• Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

So there you have it, folks. If it weren't so serious, it'd be comical. But let's make sure we have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it's not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed – yet wrongfully unemployed – "gays" and otherwise gender-confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they've even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.

Don't think I'll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.

Tolerance

2009-05-06T09:35:00.001-04:00

Tolerance Is Becoming Intolerable By Floyd G. Brown | Published 05/3/2009

Modern America preaches the value of tolerance. This says that you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. We can agree to disagree. While this level of tolerance for all viewpoints has never been completely achieved, those on the left certainly preach it when they are vilifying those who hold traditional values, and attempt to label them as intolerant. In recent years, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new era where you have only the right to agree with the modern liberal view, or else be ostracized as an extremist.

Upon Obama's election, he promised to usher in a new era of post-partisan politics. No more conservative and liberal--just hope. On abortion, he said he wanted to move past the tired old politics. Translation: he wants to repeal all restrictions on abortion, but expects pro-life supporters to drop their disagreements and support him. Obama said it's no longer about whether government is too big or too small, it's about how effective it is. In reality, Obama has ushered in the largest expansion of federal government in any 100-day period in United States history. This period of censorship of disagreement goes well beyond Obama to many of the liberal elites.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano joined the thought police by allowing her department to issue a report labeling any person holding a conservative political viewpoint a potential terrorist. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that said from now on, terrorism will be called man-caused disasters. Napolitano will tolerate Islamic terrorists, yet she has no tolerance for pro-life individuals. People who favor a smaller federal government are considered dangerous enemies of the state. This type of discrimination against opposing viewpoints is becoming rampant in our society.

American "enemies of the state" took to the streets to show their support for fiscal responsibility by attending tea parties. Because this view was not approved by the liberal elites, these protesters were mocked incessantly on CNN, NBC, and CBS. The worst case of disdain for tea party participants came from Janeane Garofalo. Speaking on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," she said, "Let's be very honest about what this is about. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that." Garofalo proceeded to claim that conservatives suffer from a mental disorder. None of this was refuted in any way by host Keith Olbermann. Evidently, hate speech is only allowed when it is against Christians or conservatives. There are allegations that the FBI was spying on these very peaceful demonstrations.

Another example of this suppression of traditional thought occurred at the Miss USA pageant. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a famous gay blogger, asked Miss California if she supported gay marriage. She very politely and graciously said that is up to the different states but she personally opposes it. The Miss USA contest strongly disagreed with Miss California's position, and after the show Perez Hilton launched a diatribe calling the young lady a "dumb B" and later called her the C-word. These hateful attacks would certainly be repudiated if it were a conservative saying them. However, Perez Hilton and his far-left cohorts are free to say whatever they want as long as they are attacking conservatives.

This same principle applies as the left pushes the fairness doctrine and attempts to pass hate-speech laws that will silence Bible-believing Christians. If you disagree with them, then you have no right to speak your beliefs.

America is founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. These rights and protections are what separate our free society from authoritarian governments that have no constraints on government power. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville warned about coercion of thought in his classic book, "Democracy of America." He cautions us, saying that democracies can become even more oppressive than other forms of government when conformity is pushed in the culture.

This conformity is being shoved on our society at an alarming rate. Christians and people who hold conservative viewpoints are demonized and mocked in schools, in the media, and now by the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Those who hold traditional viewpoints had better speak out; otherwise, in the near future they may be forced to keep their lips zipped.

Note: The writer's wife, Mary Beth Brown, was co-author of this article.

OneNewsNow.Com Posting

2009-05-05T13:12:00.002-04:00

'Empathy' vs. Law by Thomas Sowel

Justice David Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court presents President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to appoint someone to the high court. People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group "representation" is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words "rule of law." And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law "to relieve the distress of the German people and nation"? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law "to relieve the distress of the German people."

When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.

In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.

Justice John Paul Stevens virtually destroyed the Constitution's restrictions on government officials' ability to confiscate private property in his 2005 decision in the case of Kelo v. New London -- 30 years after President Ford appointed him.

The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues -- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law -- what has been called "a government of laws and not of men."

Under the American system of government, this cannot be done overnight or perhaps even during the terms in office of one president -- but it can be done. And it can be done over time by the appointees of just one president, if he gets enough appointees.

Some people say that who Barack Obama appoints to replace Justice Souter doesn't really matter, because Souter is a liberal who will probably be replaced by another liberal. But, if no one sounds the alarm now, we can end up with a series of appointees with "empathy" -- which is to say, with justices who think their job is to "relieve the distress" of particular groups, rather than to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

'Remaking' America?
There is a reason why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold. There are things that courts are not supposed to see or recognize when making their decisions -- the race you belong to, whether you are rich or poor, and other personal things that could bias decisions by judges and juries.

It is an ideal that a society strives for, even if particular judges or juries fall short of that ideal. Now, however, President Obama has repudiated that ideal itself by saying that he wants to appoint judges with "empathy" for particular groups.

This was not an isolated slip of the tongue. Barack Obama said the same thing during last year's election campaign. Moreover, it is completely consistent with his behavior and associations over a period of years -- and inconsistent with fundamental principles of American government and society.

Nor is this President Obama's only attempt to remake American society. Barack Obama's vision of America is one in which a President of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell banks how to bank, control the medical system, and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor other politicians have any expertise or experience.

The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.

Appointing judges to the federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.

If all this can be washed down with pious talk about "empathy," so much the better for those who want to remake America. Now that the Obama administration has a congressional majority that is virtually unstoppable, and a media that is wholly uncritical, the chances of preventing the president from putting someone on the Supreme Court who shares his desire to turn America into a different country are slim or none.

The only thing on the side of those who understand this, and who oppose it, is time. Reshaping the Supreme Court cannot be done overnight, the way Congress passed a vast spending bill in two days.

Replacing Supreme Court justices is something that can only be done one at a time and at unpredictable intervals. What this means is that senators who do not have enough votes to stop an Obama nominee for the high court from being confirmed nevertheless have an opportunity -- and a duty-- to alert the public to the dangers of what is being done.

This does not mean turning confirmation hearings into a circus or a kangaroo court with mud-slinging at judicial nominees, the way Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were smeared. But it also does not mean taking the path of least resistance by quietly voting for people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, who treat the Constitution as a grant of arbitrary power to themselves, rather than a restriction of power on the government as a whole.

It is all too easy to say "a president has a right to appoint the kind of people he wants on the Supreme Court." He does. But that does not mean that those who don't have the votes to stop dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to stand mute.

Since Justice David Souter is likely to be replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal. But with all the indications already as to how the Obama administration is trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public to the dangers is now.

Given the age and health of other Supreme Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama's time in the White House. Time is an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the composition of the Senate that confirms judicial nominees.

But time by itself does nothing. It is what we do with time that matters.

Article by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. of the High Impact Leadership Coalition

2009-04-29T10:56:00.002-04:00

Refuse to Be Bullied
by Bishop Harry R. Jackson

Last week’s public relations “Victim of the Week” award should go to Carrie Prejean. Her ordeal has gone both viral and global. Made to feel like a twelve-year-old during the Miss California competition, she has now been vilified or immortalized by the press and cable news industry. Whether you believe she should have won the pageant or not, the caustic remarks of Hilton Perez about Prejean on his video blog were obviously uncalled for. Hilton’s statements mark the beginning of a new era of gay marriage activist boldness. To add insult to injury Keith Lewis, co-director of the Miss California USA and who runs the Miss California competition, attempted to moralize about the “right to marry.” I found it ironic that a man who runs a competition that parades women around in scanty clothing could attempt to speak out about gender prejudice and stereotypes.

Both Perez and Lewis believe that their opinions would not be challenged. They were wrong. In fact, they overplayed their hands this time. Their remarks were just like the intimidation I faced as a child from bullies in the schoolyard. In my experience, the only way to make bullies be quiet is to stand up to them. Just one brave person on the playground can stand down the school bully and break free from their tyranny. In our adult world, however, we need the strength of numbers. When one person stands alone, he can feel overwhelmed. In contrast, when thousands of people stand up for what they believe, they become a force to be reckoned with.

Gay marriage is not an inevitability in our nation. It can still be halted and turned around. The institution of marriage can be protected, but we need the collective voice. Let me remind you that marriage is worth fighting for. Those of us in the biblical marriage movement are not fighting because we dislike gays. We are fighting for marriage because we realize that whoever’s values shape this law will shape the practices of the next few generations.

The institution of marriage is unique in our society. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family that serves incredibly important societal purposes. There is little doubt that the best environment for raising children – something that is essential for the very continuation of society – is to be raised by a loving mother and father who are married to each other. The marriage commitment goes beyond the two adults involved, and affects the children, and society as a whole, deeply. The marriage is also a commitment to society that these two adults will take responsibility for raising their children conscientiously so that they become productive citizens. Children thrive in households where their parents are married to each other. Even the Iowa Supreme Court, which legalized same-sex marriage in that state, acknowledged the scientific data pointing to traditional marriage as the ideal relationship for raising children.

Advocates of same-sex marriage want people to think that it can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. The claim is that allowing gays to marry will have no impact on traditional marriage. But it will have profound impacts. It will create a conflict between people of faith who fervently believe in traditional marriage and the law, which says marriage includes those of the same sex variety. Those conflicts will always be resolved in favor of same-sex marriage because there can be no “conscientious objectors” to the law.

What are some of those conflicts?

You can teach your children at home that marriage is between a man and a woman, but your child’s school will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples. Both are equal marriages under the law.

You can teach your kids that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe in traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. But your kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery.

You can believe in traditional marriage, but if you are in a regulated profession – like a counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with your beliefs you can lose your professional license and your livelihood.

You can be against same-sex marriage, but if you provide services to the wedding industry, you can be sued or fined for refusing to be part of a same-sex wedding.

You can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling your mission by serving your community, such as providing adoption services, but if you refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, you have the choice of abandoning your beliefs or ending your mission.

You can be a church that teaches the faithful in your fold that same-sex marriage is not appropriate, but if you are too active you’ll have people demanding that your tax exemption be revoked.

The conflicts that legalizing gay marriage will create for all of society are not hypothetical. They have already happened and will become increasingly frequent as gay activists continue to push their marriage agenda forward. The message to people of faith is that the teachings we have come to hold dear and thousands of years of history must take a back seat to political correctness and the influence of gay activists.

Preserving marriage as we have known it is a battle worth fighting, and we intend to do just that.

This blog is so awesome, I don't have a title for it!

2009-04-27T09:11:00.005-04:00

Love Until It Hurts, by Deanna Falchook

This is a beautiful blog written by a beautiful woman. Please click on the link (Love Until It Hurts) to read it.

"The stem cell debate is dead"

2009-04-09T09:34:00.001-04:00

Check out this video:

Another OneNewsNow.Com Post

2009-04-08T13:08:00.001-04:00

Who are the homophobes?

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 4/8/2009

Demonstrating the commitment the far left has to elevating the level of civil discourse in our society, belligerent homosexual Congressman Barney Frank recently resorted to name-calling in an interview with the website 365gay.com. Answering a question about the Supreme Court potentially overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank dismissed that possibility saying, "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court." How classy.

In Frank's warped worldview, anyone who opposes the spread of homosexuality in our culture is a homophobe. This offensive misuse of the term is more than irresponsible. It is ignorant and slanderous.

Homophobia is defined as a fear or hatred of homosexuals. To pejoratively label anyone who has moral objections to the practice of homosexuality a homophobe is such a blatant overreach that it effectively strips the term of any real meaning. There are homophobes in America today. But who they are just might surprise you.

To illustrate this, let me first begin by asking a question. When someone you care about picks up a loaded revolver to play a game of Russian Roulette, what is the loving response? To pat them on the back and say, "Well, this wouldn't be my cup of tea, but go for it...it's who you are!"? Or would it be to rip the gun out of their hand and tell them how dangerous, irresponsible, and deadly their behavior is? If you're struggling to answer this question, please stop reading and seek counseling.

Physically, the consequences of homosexuality are devastatingly apparent. According to the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death for homosexual men is between 40 and 43. The median age of death for heterosexuals is between 74 and 80. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control noted that homosexuals accounted for nearly 65 percent of all new HIV cases (keeping in mind that they make up only 2-3 percent of the entire population), and that cases of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and B, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and virtually every other sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affected the homosexual community.

Psychologically, the effects of homosexuality on an individual are just as deplorable. According to the well-respected Archives of General Psychiatry in 1999, "homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicid(e), major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence." Further, Dr. N.E. Whitehead from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals stated, "Studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse." And contrary to the misconceptions advanced by the homosexual lobby, these psychological problems are rarely associated with a stigma they endure from society.

Spiritually, an unrepentant practicing homosexual is engaging in an activity that is explicitly and unquestionably condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, and is completely irreconcilable with any biblical understanding of Godly living.

In light of these realities, could someone explain to me how knowing these crippling physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences of the homosexual lifestyle -- and then encouraging a person to embrace it -- is loving? Urging another human being to engage in a risky behavior that will leave them dead at nearly half the age of the general population is an odd definition of love in my book.

The truth is that the people who love homosexuals are the ones who have the courage to face the bigotry and slander from hate-peddlers like Barney Frank and stand up for moral truth. They are the ones who face the mockery and derision of fools in an effort to take the Russian Roulette pistol from the hand of the homosexual.

So who is the homophobe, Barney? The gay rights lobby in this country works unceasingly to advertise and glamorize a deadly lifestyle. They celebrate behavior that tears families apart, wrecks homes, and sentences people to lifetimes of loneliness, confusion, disease, and heartache. And politicians like Barney Frank use their positions to make it easier for them to ensnare and attract hurting, confused people in need of love and help. Quite frankly, I can't think of anything more homophobic than that.

An Article by Chuck Norris from OneNewsNow.Com

2009-04-06T13:03:00.002-04:00

What is Washington smoking now?

Chuck Norris - Syndicated Columnist - 4/4/2009

Smoke screening is an effective military maneuver used to mask the locations or movements of units, such as infantry, aircraft, tanks and ships. But those who have mastered that art of deception are not only those on the battlefield but also those in the halls of Washington.

Back on Nov. 9, 2008, just five days after the election, Rahm Emanuel, who is now the White House chief of staff, explained the future Obama administration's philosophy for governing, i.e., for smoke screening: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Here's how they and Congress are living out those words today.

The present smoke hovering over the capital's landscape is the American International Group, which has been bailed out four times by the government since last September -- to the tune of roughly $170 billion. And while our eyes have been on the AIG associates who pilfered $165 million through bonuses and the congressional participants who have condoned such abuses, the federal government is running a quarterback sneak in areas ranging from funding European economies to unhinging America's conservative underpinnings.

First, while people blow a cork over AIG corruptions, far larger amounts of money are being funneled to European financial groups without a peep of protest. AIG employee bonuses are chump change in comparison.

Where is the roughly $170 billion AIG received from taxpayers going? Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailouts are European financial affiliates of AIG.

While AIG's bailout money was distributed to American companies Goldman Sachs ($13 billion), Merrill Lynch ($7 billion) and Bank of America ($5 billion), European partners were making out like bandits, too. The banks include Societe Generale of France ($12 billion), the Deutsche Bank of Germany ($12 billion), Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion) and UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion). Can you believe it?

And it also should be noted that while AIG associates in America are considering giving back their bonuses, AIG executives in Europe say they have no such intentions. (By the way, about $85 million of the $165 million in AIG bonus money was given outside the U.S.)

Of course, financial institutions are not the only ones "benefiting" from Washington's smoke screens. So are pet projects and liberal philosophical platforms across the country. Here are just a few other arenas in which Congress and the president have made political headway while we were sleeping under AIG corruptions and other alleged economic recovery incentives:

- Let's not forget that Congress and the president passed the $410 billion omnibus "stimulus" bill, with its 9,000 earmarks (despite the fact that during his campaign, Obama said he would be against earmarks).

- More politicians with tax-evasion problems have been appointed to the Obama Cabinet than were appointed to any previous president's Cabinet (despite the fact that he said his administration would perform the "most sweeping ethics reform in history").

- Obama appointed (and Congress confirmed) David Ogden, a defender of child pornography, to the No. 2 position in the Justice Department.

- Obama's newly appointed secretary of education, Arne Duncan, isn't likely to win the hearts of parents committed to private or home schooling. As he explained in a radio interview, "I'm a big believer in choice and competition, but I think we can do that within the public-school framework." (Mr. Duncan, great to hear you can articulate what you think, but will you represent "we the people" in your decisions? I hear you're a good man, so please don't abandon those of us who choose options other than public schools.)

- Obama's new budget would reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts and severely cripple nonprofits, which already are hurting because of America's recession.

- If Congress passes Obama's new budget, increased taxes will fall upon a larger number of small-business owners than once projected, which ultimately will discourage economic growth and penalize productivity. As Yale University professor Michael Graetz noted, "We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically by relying as heavily as we do on income taxes when the rest of the world relies on consumption taxes."

- Despite its history of fraud, ACORN -- that alleged political bastion of election neutrality -- will participate in the 2010 census.

- An executive order was signed for Gitmo to be closed, and the war on terror was reassigned as an "overseas contingency operation."

- And Obama announced just this past week that he's sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan and possibly 30,000 more troops next year (despite the fact that during his campaign, he promised to reduce the number of our troops in the Middle East).

- Pro-choice platforms and practices have been pushed in ways that America hasn't seen since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Obama overturned the "Mexico City policy," thus allowing federal funds to support international family planning groups that provide abortions. Restrictions for federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research have been lifted. And if the public doesn't fight immediately, the conscience clause will be rescinded. Parental rights are about to be handed over to the United Nations. And the Freedom of Choice Act is closing fast on the horizon.

In two-thirds of his first 100 days, Obama has spent more money than any president to date (and most combined), grown big government larger than any administration, raised the debt ceiling and national budget higher than any government in the world, made more liberal changes than Planned Parenthood could plan, and gotten away with breaking any campaign promise he chooses. And he's done all of that with virtually no contests or rebuttals and a continued 65-percent approval rating.

One thing is certain: There's nothing that Obama can't get away with at this point. He is the orchestra leader of a new political blitzkrieg, which makes the Clinton machine look like Tinkertoys.

And you thought AIG was the problem!

America, please wake up and let your voice be heard by your legislators that "we are TEA'D!" Go to TeaPartyDay.com.

"If Only Bonuses Were the Problem" - a blog I had to share with you

2009-03-23T12:02:00.001-04:00

If Only Bonuses Were the Problem
by W. Michael Kilgore

f only the millions of dollars worth of bonuses being handed out to AIG executives were the problem. The Obama Administration is successfully stirring the American pot of economic anger not against itself, where it rightly should be, but against AIG and its disbursement of bonuses. The only problem is that the bonuses are not the problem and Obama knows it.

Our Treasury savior, Timothy Geithner, who only settled his debt with the American people when it became politically advantageous to do so, was in the room last fall when the bailout contracts were written. At that time, no one, including savior Geithner, had the bright idea of including a provision in TARP that would revoke the allocation and disbursement of bonuses to AIG executives. The effect of this minor slip-up was that AIG received its governmental handout without agreeing to withhold executive bonuses.

Now that the bonuses have gone public, and the American people are furious, Obama is stirring the pot by talking about how atrocious it is that these executives receive their paycheck! They are the ones that got us in this mess to begin with! How atrocious! Uhm, let’s try – “How idiotic!” Perhaps Mr. Wonderboy-Cant-Figure-Out-How-to-Use-TurboTax-Geithner should have thought of that last fall when he was setting his golden fingers to paper in helping create the handout to AIG in the first place. A minor detail for an administration who simply wants public anger deflected to any target but itself.

What would the ramifications be for rescinding the bonuses? The danger is twofold: The rule of law for the sanctity of the contract would be greatly damaged, and the Obama Administration will come after your paycheck next.

First, to contracts. The government had its chance to limit the payout of bonuses last fall when the paperwork was written. But Mr. Brilliant Timothy forgot to insert “no bonuses” into the legislation, and thus, here we are. The AIG executives, should their bonuses be taken back, should sue for breach of contract. For the government to win in such a case, would be to seriously undermine the power of the contract. The rule of law would suffer greatly.

Second, YOU DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT SAYING, “They are making too much money...how dare they!” Even IF the AIG executives receiving bonuses are partially at fault for our economic downturn, they are entitled to these bonuses as a matter of contract. For Obama to now say, “That’s not fair, that’s too much money for a poor job” treads on two pieces of economic sod that will seriously harm our country. First, it is not the power of the Executive Branch to pass judgment on who makes too much money. This is the essence of wealth redistribution and socialism. Obama wants to take money from the rich and claim to give it to the poor. Funny how the check never reaches those infamous “poor and disadvantaged.” Second, it is not the power of the Executive Branch to decide “what is and is not a good job, deserving of reward.”

Obama is kindling the righteous anger of the American people toward AIG executives, when that anger should be directed at him. Do not be fooled. The anger that Obama is directing to the private sector is the essence of socialism. It will result in the government stepping into the private sector anytime (a) someone receives too much money, according to Obama and (b) someone seems to be doing an unsatisfactory job, according to Obama. A capitalist society does not want such discretion in the hands of the government. Next time you feel the need to get angry at the AIG executives receiving their bonuses, ask yourself whether you would like Obama to come after your check next.

Obama in prime time: 7 questions left on cutting room floor

2009-02-12T13:39:00.001-05:00

Obama in prime time: 7 questions left on cutting room floor
Larry Elder - Syndicated Columnist - 2/12/2009

President Barack Obama this week conducted his first prime-time press conference. After blaming the "failed theories of the last eight years" for today's economic crisis, he pushed for massive, unprecedented government spending.

Lefty radio talk show host Ed Schultz -- who once called Republican presidential candidate John McCain a "warmonger" -- sat in the front row, appropriately next to "reporter" Helen Thomas. Thomas used to attack then-President Bush with her statements masquerading as questions. In her question to Obama, she referred to our Islamofascist enemies as "so-called terrorists" -- which failed to elicit even a raised eyebrow from the President.

What, no Rush Limbaugh?

Obama even took a question from a "reporter" for the hyper-liberal website The Huffington Post. And, unlike Bush, the Obama administration preselected the reporters to be called upon and notified them in advance. Why did the others even bother showing up? If Bush pulled something like this, they'd call it "the discredited doctrine of pre-emption."

We offer seven questions left on the cutting room floor:

(1) Mr. President, tonight you criticized those who argue that FDR's policies failed. I'd like to read a passage from the diary of Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" Please comment.

(2) Mr. President, this is a two-part question. In your opening statement, you called today's economic situation "the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression" and later "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." But in the 1981-82 recession, unemployment reached 10.8 percent in 1982 versus 7.6 today. Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of 13.5 percent, while you, sir, came in with a 0.1 percent inflation rate. Prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent at the end of 1980, compared with 3.25 percent at the end of 2008. Reagan did not ask for a "rescue" or "bailout" package. He cut taxes and slowed the rate of domestic spending. Unemployment, inflation and interest rates went down. The Treasury collected more revenue than ever. First, how then -- at least so far -- is this the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? And second, given Reagan's success, why not cut taxes, reduce domestic spending, and leave taxpayers and consumers with more money to save, spend and invest?

(3) Mr. President, you say your administration will not torture. You've directed our military to apply the Army Field Manual, which relies on 19 psychological methods of interrogation and excludes waterboarding. Yet you are setting up an interagency panel to decide whether to use interrogation methods not included in the Army Field Manual. Aren't you having it both ways -- saying you won't torture or use enhanced interrogation techniques, while retaining the option to do so?

(4) As a candidate, you called raising taxes a matter of "neighborliness." Your Vice President called paying taxes a matter of "patriotism." Yet your secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, who oversees the IRS, failed to pay some taxes. The International Monetary Fund, where he worked, informed him in writing of his obligation to pay payroll taxes and increased his compensation to offset the payment. He accepted the compensation but failed to pay taxes. Can the head of the department that runs the IRS credibly expect others to pay their taxes, when he failed to pay his own?

(5) In one of your first acts as President, you signed an executive order that many call the toughest-ever ethical guidelines. It bans former lobbyists joining your administration from being involved with any matters or agencies that might be related to their former lobbying efforts. It also prohibits anyone from working in an agency he or she lobbied during the past two years. Given that, please comment on why you have granted a dozen personnel waivers to your own ethical guidelines.

(6) The respected nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office studies the effects of the various proposed stimulus plans. The Washington Times said, "CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing." Your comment?

(7) Tonight you blamed the economic crisis on the "failed theories of the last eight years," yet tonight you also criticized homeowners who put little or nothing down and purchase homes without the ability to pay their mortgages if "something goes wrong." Sir, which is it?

No charge to use these.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=418424

Amazing Video!!

2009-02-10T09:57:00.003-05:00

Please take 5 minutes to watch this wonderful speech by a young 12 year old girl. Her passion for the unborn is amazing!!

An Open Letter to Senate Conservatives

2009-01-30T13:12:00.003-05:00

Dear Sirs/Ladies,

So little is done in Washington, DC, mostly because of the political games that are played. It seems that if a Republican comes up with a plan, the Democrats dismiss it simply because it was the idea of a Republican, never really even giving it a chance or even discussing the basics. I'm sure the game has been played the other way around as well. For those of us who can only watch and vote every two to six years, it is annoying, it is frustrating, it is ridiculous.

There are times, however, when dismissing the idea of a liberal because it came from the mind of a liberal is necessary. We are now living in such times.

Bad law is about to be passed. With Barack Obama as our president, I fear that in order to preserve this nation, partisan politics must continue with more vigor than ever before. The threats to our children and our future cannot be understated during this extremely liberal, and quite frankly frightening, administration. It frightens me to think that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) could be repealed. It frightens me to think that the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) could be passed. So many innocent lives are at stake! The very foundation of the United States of America is at stake!

We've all heard the talk about the need to "reach across the aisle" and stop the political bickering. Those calls have been especially loud in the recent lobbying for the largest spending plan ever designed (erroneously touted as an "economic stimulus" plan). Political bickering for the sake of partisanship is insane; however, we cannot allow bad law to be passed in the name of bipartisanship. That kind of thinking goes beyond insanity.

I strongly urge each and every Republican senator, there not being a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, to block voting on any bill that would repeal DOMA, to block voting on FOCA, to block the passage of President Obama's spending plan (a/k/a "economic stimulus plan"), or any other measure that would erode the very foundation of these United States. The future of this nation, the future of the most innocent lives yet to come, depends upon you to prevent the disaster that is the passing of such legislation. Many of us who voted for you to be our representatives did so for such a time as this - to protect us from those who would do us harm, even those of our own who would do us harm. FOCA especially would destroy countless generations before they could even live. What kind of future do we have when we destroy it before it even arrives?

Many of us share the same values and issues. The fight to preserve our values and this nation will be long and difficult, but we cannot grow weary. I support anyone who takes this fight head-on, and I encourage each of you to remain strong in the face of the danger and opposition posed by the current administration.

Sincerely,
Joanne Ayscue
North Carolina

Fighting FOCA

2009-01-30T13:01:00.002-05:00

Following is a story from OneNewsNow.com that I had to share. I wrote a "thank you" note to Senator Vitter. His website accepts email from non-constituents.

Fighting FOCA with all he's got
Senator David Vitter is vowing to do everything within his power to block the Freedom of Choice Act from moving forward in the Senate.

Barack Obama made this promise to Planned Parenthood supporters at a campaign event in 2007: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," he said. "That's the first thing that I'd do."

The Freedom of Choice Act, which was authored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) in the 110th Congress, would eliminate all state and federal restrictions on abortion. Although the legislation has not yet been introduced in the current Congress, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) tells OneNewsNow he intends to aggressively oppose the bill, which he calls a "huge threat."

"In one fell swoop it would wipe away so much of the progress we've made in the last decades -- so many legitimate, proper restrictions that are in place now on abortion. It would threaten conscience provisions. It would usher in unprecedented federal taxpayer funding of abortions," he notes. "So, it would be horrible, and that's why I'm going to do everything possible to fight the bill, to filibuster it, to use every procedural tool available in the Senate to block that bill when it's introduced."

Vitter says the Freedom of Choice Act is not likely to come up for a vote in President Obama's first 100 days, but Democrats will be working to include provisions from that measure in appropriations bills. For example, he expects an attempt soon to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortions.

A poll conducted earlier this week by OneNewsNow asked readers if they thought conservatives in Congress will be able to block the Freedom of Choice Act so it does not make it to the president's desk. The poll question drew more than 25,000 responses. The results appear below. (See poll-related article)

Is God Really in Control?

2009-01-27T13:54:00.013-05:00

I have been very troubled since the night of November 4, 2008 and the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States. This last week has only served to reinforce those troubles. As my friend Beth put it - President Obama is sowing seeds of death and destruction. How far will this Nation go backwards before we go forward again? Or worse, will this Nation even be standing in the end?

I keep hearing people say, "God is in control" in response to our concerns about the current president and in other times of trouble. That "God is in control" is supposed to comfort me, but it doesn't. Things happen all the time that are not pleasing to God (I cannot say, even knowing the Scriptures, that God is pleased Obama was elected). People sin all the time, and we know from the Word that sin does not please God. If God is in control, why do people still make bad choices (whether in ignorance or in knowledge)?

"Free will, of course," one answers.

Well, if we have free will, then how is God in control? He is not controlling my thoughts, my feelings, or my actions. He doesn't make me do anything or be anything. If he is not in control of me, how could He be in control of anyone else?

Maybe, just maybe, God isn't in control. God is sovereign, but not in control.

As I often do when I'm trying to figure something out, I go to the dictionary first. After all, for me to declare that anything is something, I better know what that something really means.

"Sovereign" is an adjective meaning (1)(a) superlative in quality (excellent); (b) of the most exalted kind (supreme); (c) having generalized curative powers; (d) of an unqualified nature (unmitigated); (e) having undisputed ascendancy (paramount); (2)(a) possessed of supreme power, as in a sovereign ruler; (b) unlimited in extent (absolute); (c) enjoying autonomy (independent, as in sovereign states).

According to the dictionary, when we say that God is sovereign, we say that He is excellent, He is supreme, He has the power to heal, He is of an unqualified (or complete) nature, He is unlimited. No where does the definition of "sovereign" imply that God is in control.

To be in control means to exercise restraining or directing influence over (regulate) or to have power over (rule). Hmmm........maybe God is in control. He has influence (just because we break the law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist or wasn't written by Him), and He is the Ruler of all.

Well, now I've done it!! I've really confused myself this time. I should have tried to reconcile in my mind how God is 3-in-1 (it might have been easier!). All of this God-is-in-control-yet-I-have-free-will-and-people-do-things-that-if-God-controlled-them-they-wouldn't-really-do has got my head swarming.

I did a Google search "sovereignty of God" and found this e-book, "The Sovereignty of God" (**). According to the Forward, the book was originally written in 1918 and there have been several editions since, the last being 1949. I've only read portions of it (I only just found it this afternoon), but what I read so far is interesting, including the chapter entitled "Difficulties and Objections." In that chapter, the author writes, "[t]hat God is sovereign is explicitly declared in Scripture: that man is a responsible creature is also expressly affirmed in Holy Writ. To define the relationship of these two truths, to fix the dividing line betwixt them, to show exactly where they meet, to exhibit the perfect consistency of the one with the other, is the weightiest task of all." I think I'll read more of this book later; it might help me. At least I know that I'm not the only one to ever pose the question.

I said earlier that the phrase "God is in control" is of no comfort to me, which is why I asked the question "is God really in control?" in the first place. I feel a sense of comfort in knowing that God is in control that I didn't have just a little while ago. Maybe it's because too many people say "don't worry, God is in control" when they don't have an answer to the question they think they've been asked (or worse, just don't want to bother and they use that pat answer to shut us up). Just because we express our concerns and apprehensions to someone doesn't mean we are looking for them to have an answer to alleviate those concerns. I ask if God is really in control, but I'm not looking for my friends or other readers of this blog to answer my question (can you even?). God, the ultimate Teacher, will answer me. One way He does that is by leading me to write about them. For everyone else who struggles with this question as I do, I hope maybe this is one way God will lead you to His answer.

**Since first publishing this blog, I have searched for print editions of this book. There is one out there that has edited out portions of the book (I believe it's the one published by Banner of Truth). Please be careful if you are looking to purchase this book.

Perspectives: Rejecting abortion using Obama's argument

2009-01-27T13:23:00.001-05:00

Rejecting abortion using Obama's argument, by Rev. Mark Creech

It's unfortunate, but America now has the most pro-abortion president in the nation's history. He has pledged to protect abortion rights and has wasted no time in advancing its cause. On Friday, January 23, Barack Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy -- and with that action forced American taxpayers to fund the innocent slaughter of children all over the world.

But that's not all; in his campaign he promised to do more. He wants to pursue and sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act -- legislation that would essentially remove all state-level restrictions on abortion. And he wants to lift the ban on state-supported embryonic stem-cell research.

Interestingly, when presidential candidate Obama gave his famous "Call to Renewal" speech, he said: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." Incidentally, this same principle is reiterated under "Faith" on the White House website.

Although all morality is essentially based in religion and certainly not devoid of reason, suppose God or religion were left out of the picture. Suppose a completely secular approach to abortion was made only "amenable to reason" -- an approach that seeks to show that abortion "violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all," just as the president insists. Would the argument against abortion be sufficiently strong?

The answer to that question is an unequivocal, "yes!"

In his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, Randy Alcorn notes a number of completely secular arguments for why abortion should be prohibited by law.

First, he says, medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians' testimonies to Congress have asserted this scientific fact.

One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?

"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy -- to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"

What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive -- even if it's me?

Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical -- it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime.

Discrimination is another matter considered deplorable by today's standards. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn rightly contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence.

"One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."

Such principle, which is clearly accepted by the masses, is certainly not "religion specific." One might even argue that it has nothing to do with religion. Thus abortion is, at the least, an egregious act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.

What's more, where is it generally agreed upon by people of every background that an individual's right to choose trumps the protection of innocent life?

Alcorn writes: "When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body -- and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"

Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason" or even slightly agreed upon by any. Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position. Whether godless or a person of faith, by the president's own standard alone the practice of abortion should be summarily rejected and opposed -- not supported and advanced.

Original post: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=398806

"Change we never imagined" by Matthew Barber

2009-01-23T14:14:00.001-05:00

Well, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America's new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political "messiah," it's fast becoming evident that, instead, we've stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of "change we can believe in" is, in fact, "change we never imagined." (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)

The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he's planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he's promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night.

But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama's been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected. (See related article) Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of "The Agenda: Civil Rights" – to detail his wholesale "support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community." His stated plans include the following:

Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by "gay marriage" activists.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called "same-sex marriages" from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop moral.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding "gay adoption."

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the chute, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.

The radical homosexual agenda and religious/free-speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It's a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted exclusive rights based on the aforementioned deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors – to the detriment of everyone else – that's called tyranny of the minority.

Obama recently said, "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America." Well, Mr. President, remember that whole actions versus words cliché? Your words ring hollow and your actions speak volumes. Every policy you promise to implement does exactly what you've denounced. Both your actions and your words very much pit Red America against Blue America.

For all the talk of "hope," "change," and "coming together," it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and in-your-face revisions he's made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of broader policy, from his administration.

Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).

So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.

People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=395872

Awesome, Powerful Pro-Life Video

2009-01-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

"Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage"

2008-12-09T08:30:00.002-05:00

Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.

Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.

She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."

Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.

As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.

But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.

As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.

The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.

Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.

Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.

Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.

She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."

"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism," she asserts. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."
All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.

Even as she attempts to make her "religious case" for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that "very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal." Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change. But -- and this is a crucial point -- if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn't have to make it. It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage -- it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.

Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek's responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: "No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism," Meacham writes. "Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."

Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us. He insists that "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt." No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches -- and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.

The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.

Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question. It chose another path -- and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.

Original post: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881

Second Chances

2008-12-02T12:39:00.012-05:00

What is a second chance? First, let's look at what the phrase "second chance" means. Among their several meanings, the word "second" means other (additional) or another (different or distinct from the one first considered) and the word "chance" means opportunity. Put together, second chance means "another opportunity."

In what circumstances might someone or something be given a second chance? Dogs and cats are given second chances at many no-kill animal shelters (often called "Second Chance"). A restaurant that gave you particularly bad service might be given a second chance (after all, maybe that waiter/waitress who was so bad doesn't work there anymore). There are ministries giving a second chance to people who lost a job, been in prison, suffer addictions, and so on.

I've been given a second chance. Jesus gave me a second chance (a second life really) when I accepted His gift of salvation. And every time I've sinned since, Jesus is right there to give me another second chance. I am so grateful!! I need all the second chances I can get - at least until I finally get it right. And every time I get another second chance from Jesus, He works in me, helping me until I do get it right.

You know what is so awesome about the second chances that Jesus gives me (besides the help)? All the time He is helping me, He's not reminding me of what I did wrong in the first place. Nope, never says a word. Never speaks anything like "now remember what happened last time you did that." Never says, "don't screw it up this time." In fact, it's like Jesus forgets all about what I ever did before I got this latest second chance.

"As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us." Psalm 103:12 (Amp).

"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Isaiah 43:25 (NIV).

If Jesus is willing to forget our past transgressions, why do we not afford others the same? Why is it that Jesus forgets what we've done? Forgiveness. We are forgiven of our sins, so they cannot be held against us anymore. That is the way God made it, and that it the way it is. Nothing more needs to be said. We are forgiven because we have repented (turned away from sin). Forgiveness through Jesus is absolute. And we are to forgive others as we have ourselves been forgiven by our Father in Heaven.

When someone has wronged us, we are to forgive them no matter what, no matter when. And when we forgive, we are to move past the wrong and let it go. Sometimes, it includes giving the person a second chance. We should not remind them of what they did wrong. If we constantly remind others of the wrongs they have committed against us, can you honestly say that we have forgiven? Forgiving someone means moving past the wrong, letting it go, not hanging onto it ever again.

Many times people mess up so badly, we lose our trust in them. Trust is earned, not given. Even God requires us to earn His trust (notice I said nothing of earning His forgiveness). Trust cannot be earned until the person in whom we want to trust has acted in such a way as to earn our trust. For instance, I trust my husband with my life. I know he will not hurt me, and I know that he will protect me. I didn't just give him that trust when I met him. I had to get to know him first. I gave him my trust when I gave him my love. If he does something to damage that trust, he will have to earn it back. Earning it back is more difficult than gaining trust in the first place, and it takes time. Sometimes, when we try to regain trust lost, we make even more mistakes.

When someone loses our trust, we cannot see inside their heart to know for sure that they have repented of the wrong and are genuinely trying to regain our trust. We can tell by their actions and their words, but we cannot see inside their heart. We have to give it time, and we have to be patient (especially when mistakes are made). It's not about us telling the other person "do this, this, and that, and all will be well." That's not how trust is (re)earned. Also, it's a two-way street. We cannot earn the trust of another if that person is not willing to give us the chance - or second chance - to earn their trust.

Giving someone a second chance (even if it is the millionth second chance) means giving them another opportunity to do right. Be fair - don't constantly remind them of what they did wrong before.

"It's not my fault!"

2008-12-01T14:36:00.004-05:00

"It's not my fault!" often translates to "I wouldn't have had to do that if it wasn't for what the other person did first."

"But Officer, it's not my fault I'm speeding, I'm late for work because my children wouldn't cooperate this morning!" cries the 35 year old woman on the side of the freeway.

"I know I'm not supposed to hit girls, but she shoved me first," cries the 6 year old boy from the school playground.

"[Adam] said, 'The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'" Genesis 3:12.

Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden (among other punishments) for their disobedience. Adam tried to get out of it, saying "it's not my fault!" God didn't let Adam get away with it. God made Adam take responsibility for what Adam had done.

Yet, whenever we do something wrong, we often cry "it's not my fault!" So many people refuse to take personal responsibility for the choices they make. And sadly, many of us try to help those people get out of that responsibility.

Adam tried to pin his choice to be disobedient on Eve. "After all," Adam said, "she gave me the fruit."

Eve tried to pin her disobedience on the serpent. "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (Genesis 3:13).

Both of them are correct. The serpent did, in fact, lie to Eve (as he lies to all of us). Eve gave the fruit to Adam to eat. I can honestly say that whenever I've given any food to my husband to eat, the only thing he asks is "what is this?" He never asks me where or how I got it. I have believed countless lies of the serpent, making some bad choices because I believed those lies. Does that absolve me of my personal responsibility for those choices? Absolutely not!

Jesus didn't make excuses for me to get me out of my punishment. He bore the punishment in my place. If it weren't for Jesus, I would have to bear the punishment for my choices, including the choices I made because I believed a lie of the devil. I absolutely must take personal responsibility for everything I've ever done. Jesus isn't helping me to avoid the punishment so I don't have to be responsible. He is taking the punishment in my place because He loves me and wants me to be with Him, which wouldn't happen if I took my own punishment. I was born expelled from the Garden of Eden, suffering all the punishments for the choices Adam and Eve made. There is nothing I can do to change that, and in fact, I make my own sin that would otherwise expel me from the Garden. Jesus came along and bore my sins and took my punishment so that I would be allowed back in the Garden of Eden. Because of Jesus, I am forgiven, not excused.

Jesus makes no excuses for anyone, but He did come to save everyone, to give everyone the chance to get back into Eden. When we accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord, we must repent for the sins we committed, regardless of the reason (excuse). Part of the repentance for our sins means that we take responsibility for them. When we do that, Jesus covers us, protecting us from the punishment that we so much deserve. He does not sit there and say "it's not your fault."

Another article to share re: same-sex "marriage"

2008-11-18T12:30:00.003-05:00

"Why same-sex 'marriage' matter," Marcia Segelstein.

Despite the fact that Americans just elected one of the most liberal presidents in history, they also voted to uphold traditional marriage in every state where it was on the ballot.

Gay activists (and a few Episcopal bishops) would have you believe that votes against gay "marriage" are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism. After all, they argue, what's wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it? Doesn't the world need more committed love, not less?

S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already "marry" in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations. Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others "either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex 'marriages' or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies." No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches. But if and when same-sex "marriage" becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals. Right now, individuals and corporations may choose to treat same-sex unions the same way they treat traditional marriage, or not. As Karnick writes so succinctly: "This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position." What's at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex "marriage" is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals' or institutions' religious beliefs. Government intrusion on religion is what's at stake. Despite what proponents of gay "marriage" argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental. Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage. And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children? Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay "marriage" is okay? Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a "harassment-free school." Parents protested. But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law? "Equality" laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business. Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex "marriage" is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes. Why? Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David's Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father. As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used. The government, because of innocuous-sounding "equality" laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory. That is frightening. Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?

Will it someday be considered hate speech to publicly state what researchers have already determined: that children fare best when raised by their biological father and mother? By sheer common sense, most people realize that basic fact. We've seen the damage inflicted on children by divorce, for example, in study after study. The vital role that fathers play in their children's lives has been well documented, and we know that in households without fathers children statistically don't fare nearly as well. Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, has written extensively about this issue. "Marriage as a universal human idea," she says, "has deep roots in three enduring truths about human beings everywhere: Sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother." Same-sex couples who have children (by adoption or other means) are automatically removing either a father or a mother from their children's lives. Of course children from traditional marriages often end up in less than ideal situations because of divorce or the death of a parent. But that doesn't mean we should impose on a child from the outset a less-than-ideal scenario. Shouldn't we be aiming for what's best for children? Shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right, and that sexual orientation is a protected class, it also ruled that a Christian doctor who refused to inseminate a lesbian couple should face legal consequences. My Roman Catholic obstetrician does not perform abortions, presumably for religious reasons. The state cannot force him to do so. It is his choice. But soon, given the fact that same-sex "marriage" has just been made legal in my home state of Connecticut, he may be forced to act against his religious beliefs when it comes to same-sex couples, or face legal consequences like the doctor in California. What's at risk in this fight is not the civil rights of homosexuals. What's at risk is religious freedom for every American. That and the not-so-small problem of undermining what has been for centuries the very foundation of society.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=323704

The Marriage Debate

2008-11-12T12:57:00.009-05:00

I support traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman only.

Gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. That argument is an affront to those who have had their civil rights denied as well as those who fought for those rights. For instance, gay persons are counted as one whole person, not 3/5 of a person. Gay persons have never been denied the right to vote, as blacks and women once were. Gay persons have never been told to use a different bathroom, drink from a different fountain, eat at a different table, or sit at the back of a bus. Gay persons have never been denied a promotion or paid less. Gay persons have never been enslaved.

It is true that gay persons have been prohibited from holding positions of authority when their homosexuality is in conflict with the teachings of that authority. An example would be the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts agree with the biblical teaching that homosexuality is a sin; therefore, it would be wrong to allow an openly homosexual to hold any position of authority in the Boy Scouts organization. It would undermine the authority of the Boy Scouts. By the same token, churches should not allow any openly homosexual to serve in any leadership position. Doing so undermines the authority of the Word of God, the Bible. Yes, that means that I believe that some churches have undermined the authority of the Bible by allowing gay clergy and by sanctioning gay marriage.

Gay people CAN marry. They are not discriminated against or denied a right. The argument is that gay people cannot marry persons of the same sex. How is that discrimination? Is it discrimination to prevent an adult from marrying an 11 year old girl? A man from marrying a dog? Certainly not!

Besides the truth that homosexuality is a sin, as plainly stated many times in the Bible, a gay society simply cannot exist. Gay couples cannot procreate, medical advances notwithstanding. In addition, it is not emotionally or spiritually healthy for children to be raised in a homosexual home. Oddly enough, the proof of that fact was argued in the 1980s and 1990s when so-called "deadbeat dads" made headlines across the country.

We cannot underestimate the importance of a father in a child's life. There are "things" (intangibles) that are inherent to a father's relationship with his son or daughter that can only come from the father/child relationship. For instance, it is from fathers that girls learn about love. How a father loves his daughter and the relationship that he has with her directly affects how she relates to others in relationships, particularly with her husband. No matter how a woman might think, regardless of whether a woman "feels" like she is really a man, a woman cannot be a father. (I'm not talking about father-figures, such as a grandpa or uncle, because father-figures are not fathers and do not take the place of a "missing" father. A father is not defined as the man who impregnated the woman. A father is defined by a man's role in the raising of a child. Adoptive fathers are just as "real" as birth fathers who raise their own children, and step-fathers are included when they have, in fact, taken the role of father in a child's life. Step-fathers who have simply married the child's mother and have authority as an adult in the household are not fathers, regardless of the relationship the child and birth father have.)

A mother's role is just as important, albeit different, and a mother's role can only be filled by a woman. No matter what, a man cannot make up for a "missing" mother. No man can take the place of a mother no matter how much of a woman he thinks he is.

I do not believe that gays are "born that way." I do not condemn gays (they are already condemned by their sin, just as I am already condemned by my sin, for which I am thankful to have been saved by Jesus Christ). Gays simply believe a lie about themselves, and it is a very powerful lie. Gay people are no different than me except the lie that they believe, so I cannot judge them (and I do not want to). But, I have to speak out when something is wrong, and homosexuality is wrong. God says so clearly in His Word.

Marriage is an issue of values. This is why God is so important. His values never change, so we always know where things stand with Him. When we make up our own values as we go along, right and wrong are clouded. Our judgment is not sound; we are not capable of differentiating right from wrong on our own.

I also want to share this article that I found on Answers in Genesis. http://answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/how-respond-to-gay-marriage#fnMark_1_5_1

Athiest Ad in Washington, DC

2008-11-12T10:31:00.002-05:00

An add on a city bus reads, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." I feel I need to respond.

"Why believe in a god?" Hope!

Without God, there is no hope. Without God, we are all here as the result of Dumb Luck. We just happened to be put together in the right pieces (an amazing thing, the human body, and without God, it just happened). We just happen to be on a planet that can sustain life. We just happen. When we die, we just disappear.

With God, we have hope. With God, we know where we came from. With God, we know that we were put together just right. With God, our lives will be sustained. With God, we know that we won't just disappear. With God, our future is bright!

"Just be good for goodness' sake." Where do you think "goodness" came from? You can say that you know "goodness" because your parents taught you, and their parents taught them, and their parents taught them, and so on, all the way down the path of human history. Somewhere, though, goodness had to have a beginning. It had to start somewhere. Honestly, did some human being just wake up one day and say, "hey, goodness is ______________" and they just happened to be right? With that philosophy, no wonder goodness keeps changing, that what was once wrong is now right. How is there hope when "goodness" is ever-changing?!!?

Why believe in a god? Every society needs a foundation. Even if it is the wrong foundation (i.e., the Roman Empire), a society cannot survive without some kind of foundation upon which to build. Believe in a god so that you have a foundation, for your life, for your children, for your society. Believe so that you have hope!

A footnote to this blog - eventually, a society built on the wrong foundation will still crumble (it will last much longer than a society with no foundation whatsoever). The foundation that will never crack and never crumble is the foundation of the One True God - the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. In Him is the truest hope!

Seeing Hope After the Elections

2008-11-06T09:15:00.003-05:00

I was so upset at the results of Tuesday's elections that I cried. I felt like God abandoned this Nation. I really did. Yesterday was a difficult day as I continued to mourn for America. I felt so isolated, so alone. There are many people that I see every day who are so happy that Barack Obama was elected president. They don't understand why he is not a good choice (or worse, they don't care). The people that I see every day who are not Obama supporters didn't seem to care what happened. They were all smiles, along with his supporters, as if it was a great day. I thought those people understood! Why was I the only one in mourning?!??!?!?!?

I really wasn't alone, but it felt like it, until I got home and could talk with someone who is mourning as I am (my wonderful husband). I had not been home 10 minutes before I started feeling better. While I am still mourning, I am starting to feel a renewed sense of hope.

And there is hope!!!

It was small comfort, but the liberals have not gained enough seats in the US Senate to override a filibuster, so there is hope that any outlandish laws, such as the Freedom of Choice Act, can be stopped before they ever reach Obama's desk. I do not believe that to be divisive. I believe that to be standing firm on moral ground.

I started feeling better as I read the news that traditional marriage was protected in two more states, Florida and Arizona. Arkansas voters protected children by banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents (yes, the main purpose was to prevent gays and lesbians from adopting or fostering children, but we all know the importance of a mother and a father so there are additional benefits to children). And of course, the big one - despite all the money poured into the state, despite the State Supreme Court's insistence that it is "smarter" than the people, California voted yet again to uphold traditional marriage. It only took hours for the small minority to begin seeking the court's intrusion, so California needs our prayers still.

I've been reminded since early Wednesday morning that God wants us to pray for those in leadership, regardless of how we feel about those people. And while we cannot change the hearts and minds of those people, God can. We have to pray and we have to believe that God will make things right again in America. Otherwise, we'll just give up, and Satan will win.

I know that God has a plan for this Nation. I do not think He has abandoned us yet, although it is hard for me when God SEEMS to ignore the prayers of His children. There is so much that I don't understand, no matter how hard I try. But I said last night to my husband, that God might have to turn us in what seems like the wrong direction so that He can right the ship once again. That is where my hope and my trust must lie - with our God and the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Today, I am still mourning. But today, I am seeing hope.

Get out and vote!!!

2008-10-31T10:37:00.002-04:00

Don't be discouraged. Get out and vote.

If you listen to the media, you would think that Barack Obama has already won this election. Let me assure you, he has not!!

Those of us who do not wear blinders know that the mainstream news media is in love with Barack Obama and is doing everything it can to see he is elected. The pollsters are doing the same. I can't help but think the polls that tell us how far "ahead" Barack Obama is over John McCain are skewed (not necessarily a blatant falsehood) to appear in favor of Obama. One easy example of this skewing of the results is the pollsters who reach undecided voters. They ask the undecided voter, "if you were to decide right now, who would you vote for?" They use the response to that question as a vote for whichever candidate's name was said. It does NOT mean that person will vote that way.

I honestly think this love-fest over Obama has reached the point where the news media is hoping that all of us McCain supporters decide, "what's the point? The polls show Obama too far ahead for McCain to win." Then, McCain supporters won't bother to vote, leaving Obama as our next president. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! McCain supporters need to go out and vote. You're vote WILL count! It WILL make a difference in this election!

Think about all the polls and pundits that we saw in the last days and weeks of the Democratic primary. We all heard it - "Hillary Clinton has an insurmountable hill to climb to win the nomination." Now we are hearing these same pollsters and pundits - "John McCain has an insurmountable hill to climb to win the presidency." It makes me wonder - had Hillary supporters not been discouraged by the news media, would she be the nominee instead of Obama?

Please, go out and vote on Tuesday if you have not already participated in early voting. John McCain still has a chance to win this election, but he can't do it if we do not vote for him.

Thank you!