People on the left in the blogosphere are feeling so helpless about the Iraq War and so fearful that we will bomb Iran, that they have come up with the following proposal on a Toledo blog, www.manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.com.
Mud-rake wrote:
As I see it, only massive citizen action can awaken the sleeping masses.
Several months ago a friend and I were talking about such an action and we were struck by a very simple but highly effective method of getting the attention of the entire nation in a rather fast way. The automobile as an agent of action. Not a moving automobile but a stationary automobile. A 'stalled' automobile.
Stalled in rush hour traffic causing massive traffic jams all over America starting in Boston and New York, moving westward to Detroit, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Chicago. Then to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston. Further west to Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego.
Thousands of stalled cars, millions of people brought to a standstill in 3 hours.
Americans would demand to know what was happening. The answer is simple: citizen action to stop the madness of George Bush and Dick Cheney. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
I think Stall-out is a really dangerous idea, a terrorist act in itself --causing lots of accidents and disrupting peoples' lives the way only an enemy would want to do it. It would prevent emergency vehicles from getting to accidents and heart attack victims, and to hospitals and fires, etc. It is a blackmail tactic, "See what we can do if you don't do what we want?" driving bus drivers mad with cooped up and frightened school children. It would be like a soccer game crush in effect.
Seems to me that American Radicals typically think of "demonstrations" of some sort --instead of legitimately getting into power so they can call the shots --or legitimately having a letter-writing campaign to the Pres. on down and doing positive, informative, publicity to convey their fears and beliefs to the masses--rather than calling the pres. a liar and Cheany a mere war-monger for corporate interests, etc. They foment anger and hatred instead of good reasoned debate. Reason and genuine concern for the future would be a novel approach for the left-- as opposed to the usual smarmy-toned, attack vitriol of MoveOn.org. Who needs enemies with friends like the far left?
Interesting article in Citizen magazine about a new book by a woman journalist who says the dems aren't listening to women --many of whom went republican on the abortion issue -- nor are they hearing the black women who indignantly think gay marriage is unnecessary and literally nutty.
This author says women want the war to end --but ALSO REALLY care about the values/ moral issues. So the war is the one the Dems are focused upon to shore up their base because they want to keep their radical left social votes and agenda as well.
Victory in 08 is Dems' no. 1 concern for the sake of their social issues which trump all others--they are just as single issue as any conservative Christians are accused of being. And they literally despise the Bible-based world view and those who hold it --evidence was in the recently deleted posts by Mud-rake, accusing Christians of being mentally disabled or victims of OCD, etc.
This sort of civil war with demonization even at the Senate/Congressional level in America is counter-productive to good national debate on the issues. Of course, we do know really nasty people in life --and so it is too easy to infer that the other party's politicians are really hopelessly nasty and corrupt, too. We do need to appeal to the better natures in each of us --if possible.
The top 3 dems have, according to blog reports on recent debate? , backed down on the immediate Iraq withdrawal advocacy --saying we do have to stay around in Iraq awhile longer. (Must be polls to that effect.) Of course, they still maintain Iraq was just fine under Sadam and no threat to join forces with Osama since no WMD were found. Sadam WAS the WMD killing his opposition off en masse --and he WOULD have joined forces with al quaeda, I believe, had we not intervened, because Sadam had to love what osama achieved.
Why doesn't the Left figure out how to put the blame and the rhetoric for global mess squarely where it belongs --on radical Islamic groups --and there are a ton of 'em misinterpreting their "peace-loving Koran" --and warring with their own continually, seeking revenge against Israel (their bedrock motivation --along with a goal of global Islamic theocracy)
No, I'm not talking about all Muslims --just Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quadea, Taliban, Wahabi-style home-grown terrorists all over the globe --who, when in power, recognize few human rights of people who are not "with them" ideologically--and people who "sin" by the Koran.
American Christians DO share some faith principles with these people --but NOT the right to murder and terrorize, force a theocratic gov't --though some bloggers say social conservatives want theocracy just because we BELIEVE gov't should reflect the majority's view of what is good for society --restraints on evil --traditional definitions of right and wrong. These are not oppressive restrictions --unless you want to marry your own sex and kill your fetuses. That would be oppressive, of course, to promote heterosexual identification and normalcy in children --and cultivate a culture of life --that stressed sexual responsibility more than abortion as birth control, killing 45 million americans since 1973.
This was not vitriolic, by the way.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Campus Newspaper Should Have an Editor Who Knows When to Edit
Colorado State University defends their campus newpaper for printing in their recent headline, Taser this, -F--- Bush. "Taser" referred to the fact that a Florida student was tasered by campus police for refusing to limit his question to a politician who was speaking there. I gather the student was monopolizing the microphone. Tasering him was considered extreme and unnecessary force by anyone viewing the video.
So CSU's student paper, The Collegian --which is funded at least in part by advertisements and not student fees, decided to comment on multiple issues in one headline: treatment of students, free speech in both Florida and Colorado universities, and Bush policies.
One of the CSU students said to the TV news that she thought the editor should be replaced with someone who can edit. I agree. Or at least reprimand him and demand some kind of mea culpa. Newspapers, librarians,schools --they all edit, censor --all the time. They impose their judgment over what is printed, purchased and allowed in schools, libraries, student publications, drama productions, graduation speeches, etc. After all, they all need public support --and sometimes, they wisely choose to restrain the free speech and actions of themselves and others --for various reasons: alumni concerns and support, tax payer support, simple courtesy and decency, truth and objectivity --the last being most important.
There is a limit to speech which is funded by someone other than oneself. There is a limit to free expression, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded building when there is no fire --such as the nooses hanging from the school yard tree in Jena, LA. The school punished those students. CSU should punish this newspaper editor for his foul language in print directed at the U.S. President. They can criticize his policies all they want; free speech is not a license to libel, slander, or use vulgar, crass, lowest-common-denominator language in a public forum. There is no license to "incite to riot," either.
That being said, I don't want to see all things improper made illegal and punishable --as in forums --because I don't want to deal with the punishment angle for people who have potty mouths and call Bush a liar, etc. (However, that is libel, regarding the WMD's. The administration did not LIE; they BELIEVED something that apparently was untrue --as far as we can tell, to date.)
I do believe in freedom of expression--but people should also be free to use their purchase power and voting power to influence the nature of free speech--so that it is decent and honest in the language and images used, not damaging to public health, safety and morals. Yes, I believe all porn manufacture and distribution should be punishable by law--as kiddie porn is supposed to be. It's evil --but that's another subject for another day.
I'm not saying that there should be ANY limitation to political free speech--the Communist party is still legally operating in the US. I'm talking about the sort of speech that good parents don't want their children to learn, the sort of pictures that good parents don't want their children exposed to.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
So CSU's student paper, The Collegian --which is funded at least in part by advertisements and not student fees, decided to comment on multiple issues in one headline: treatment of students, free speech in both Florida and Colorado universities, and Bush policies.
One of the CSU students said to the TV news that she thought the editor should be replaced with someone who can edit. I agree. Or at least reprimand him and demand some kind of mea culpa. Newspapers, librarians,schools --they all edit, censor --all the time. They impose their judgment over what is printed, purchased and allowed in schools, libraries, student publications, drama productions, graduation speeches, etc. After all, they all need public support --and sometimes, they wisely choose to restrain the free speech and actions of themselves and others --for various reasons: alumni concerns and support, tax payer support, simple courtesy and decency, truth and objectivity --the last being most important.
There is a limit to speech which is funded by someone other than oneself. There is a limit to free expression, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded building when there is no fire --such as the nooses hanging from the school yard tree in Jena, LA. The school punished those students. CSU should punish this newspaper editor for his foul language in print directed at the U.S. President. They can criticize his policies all they want; free speech is not a license to libel, slander, or use vulgar, crass, lowest-common-denominator language in a public forum. There is no license to "incite to riot," either.
That being said, I don't want to see all things improper made illegal and punishable --as in forums --because I don't want to deal with the punishment angle for people who have potty mouths and call Bush a liar, etc. (However, that is libel, regarding the WMD's. The administration did not LIE; they BELIEVED something that apparently was untrue --as far as we can tell, to date.)
I do believe in freedom of expression--but people should also be free to use their purchase power and voting power to influence the nature of free speech--so that it is decent and honest in the language and images used, not damaging to public health, safety and morals. Yes, I believe all porn manufacture and distribution should be punishable by law--as kiddie porn is supposed to be. It's evil --but that's another subject for another day.
I'm not saying that there should be ANY limitation to political free speech--the Communist party is still legally operating in the US. I'm talking about the sort of speech that good parents don't want their children to learn, the sort of pictures that good parents don't want their children exposed to.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Thoughts about Jena, LA. --6 to 1
I wish the African-America/black community had chosen a better cause than the defense of the six black teens who beat a white boy until he was unconscious. Some of them were charged with attempted murder. Why would a DA think that six beating one to the point that he loses consciousness is attempted murder??? They are all lucky that the white boy recovered that day --given the obvious beatings to his head.
I've read some accounts of this story and have yet to understand why the African-American community thinks this crime is not a serious crime--just like they thought O.J. was innocent.
You've all read about the previous incident in Jena involving the white students and the nooses hanging from the school yard tree --because the black students asked school authorities if they could sit where the white students normally did--under that tree. The administration rightly said yes. The next day the nooses appeared hanging from the tree. This is a reminder of the ugly racist past --when southern lynchings of blacks by whites were far too common. The students responsible for the nooses had to serve in-school suspensions, as I understand it. I don't know for how long.
No account I've heard or read tells us what these 6 who attacked one had to do with the other story, but they are always linked by the media. One wonders if these 7 students had anything at all to do with the other story.
Some wonder if hanging the nooses wasn't a hate crime. Have they considered that the 6 on 1 beating was definitely a hate crime?
The nooses in the tree were a mean gesture, menacing and racist. The students were rightly suspended for a malicious gesture, threatening to racial harmony. (One might say that when the blacks asked to integrate or take over the tree spot, that they, too, were threatening racial harmony --but I will agree that they had a right to sit under the tree if they got there first, if there truly was room, etc. They had a right to be there, same as the whites.) But hanging nooses in the tree was not a crime, unless they used them--unless toilet papering the school trees is a crime --and fooling an opposing team's cheering block into holding up cards that say, "We suck," for which the prankster was suspended. They don't suspend for toilet papering --or for wrapping the principal's car in saran wrap, etc. But schools did suspend for the trick with the bleacher cards and the nooses hanging from the tree--and rightly so for the nooses. It was not a harmless prank in the same category as TP and saran wrap --and that is WHY they were suspended.
But beating someone until he's unconscious in a ratio of 6 to 1? That's a crime. A Hate crime. Attempted murder might be overstating the purpose of the teens --but any time 6 beat up 1 --it's not a fair fight --and it could end up in death for the one.
The nooses were a sick racist joke, and thus, deserving of school punishment. The beating was a racist hate crime. And definitely a legal issue for law enforcement.
We just read in the Blade an article on marriage statistics. The poorest groups identified by race are the least married. Blacks are the least likely to get married in their lifetime --yet they have many children out of wedlock who end up committing crime and being incarcerated. What ought we to do about this?
The black community needs all the help they can get to stop the inter-generational cycle of unwed teens parenting children. Education and entertainment media COULD help to affirm the ideals of morality and marriage --and church programs and better (abstinence-promoting) sex ed as well. And there need to be lots of supervised activities for youth.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I've read some accounts of this story and have yet to understand why the African-American community thinks this crime is not a serious crime--just like they thought O.J. was innocent.
You've all read about the previous incident in Jena involving the white students and the nooses hanging from the school yard tree --because the black students asked school authorities if they could sit where the white students normally did--under that tree. The administration rightly said yes. The next day the nooses appeared hanging from the tree. This is a reminder of the ugly racist past --when southern lynchings of blacks by whites were far too common. The students responsible for the nooses had to serve in-school suspensions, as I understand it. I don't know for how long.
No account I've heard or read tells us what these 6 who attacked one had to do with the other story, but they are always linked by the media. One wonders if these 7 students had anything at all to do with the other story.
Some wonder if hanging the nooses wasn't a hate crime. Have they considered that the 6 on 1 beating was definitely a hate crime?
The nooses in the tree were a mean gesture, menacing and racist. The students were rightly suspended for a malicious gesture, threatening to racial harmony. (One might say that when the blacks asked to integrate or take over the tree spot, that they, too, were threatening racial harmony --but I will agree that they had a right to sit under the tree if they got there first, if there truly was room, etc. They had a right to be there, same as the whites.) But hanging nooses in the tree was not a crime, unless they used them--unless toilet papering the school trees is a crime --and fooling an opposing team's cheering block into holding up cards that say, "We suck," for which the prankster was suspended. They don't suspend for toilet papering --or for wrapping the principal's car in saran wrap, etc. But schools did suspend for the trick with the bleacher cards and the nooses hanging from the tree--and rightly so for the nooses. It was not a harmless prank in the same category as TP and saran wrap --and that is WHY they were suspended.
But beating someone until he's unconscious in a ratio of 6 to 1? That's a crime. A Hate crime. Attempted murder might be overstating the purpose of the teens --but any time 6 beat up 1 --it's not a fair fight --and it could end up in death for the one.
The nooses were a sick racist joke, and thus, deserving of school punishment. The beating was a racist hate crime. And definitely a legal issue for law enforcement.
We just read in the Blade an article on marriage statistics. The poorest groups identified by race are the least married. Blacks are the least likely to get married in their lifetime --yet they have many children out of wedlock who end up committing crime and being incarcerated. What ought we to do about this?
The black community needs all the help they can get to stop the inter-generational cycle of unwed teens parenting children. Education and entertainment media COULD help to affirm the ideals of morality and marriage --and church programs and better (abstinence-promoting) sex ed as well. And there need to be lots of supervised activities for youth.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, September 17, 2007
Liberals Say U.S. Constitution was Godless
If their conclusion is true --that the founders wanted the same interp of separation as do Christians United for Separation of Church and State and the People for the American Way--then why did they allow Sunday blue laws? Why did they start public ed for the purpose of equalizing all children's reading ability so they could ALL have access to the Bible and not be misled from truth or tyrannized by a state-church? (That was a stated purpose.) Why did they do Christmas pageants, etc. in the public schools? and learn carols? Why do so many of our oldest public buildings and state constitutions acknowledge a Supreme Being? Why did Ben Franklin advocate for chaplains at the Constitutional Convention in 1787? Why does Thomas jefferson refer to a Creator bestowing us all with inalienable rights? Why do so many of G. Washington's speeches have allusions to God and faith? Why his first Thanksgiving proclamation?
Our founders didn't want a state-church or a church-state --but they were God-believers -- or at least God-respectors --and Bible respectors. The first school board of D.C. with Jefferson on it, listed as texts the Isaac Watts Hymnal, the Common Book of Prayer and the Bible.
The Northwest Ordinance included provision for the founding of public schools --so kids could be taught the Bible and religion --among other things.
Today's church-state separators have an entirely different idea. They want "the naked public square." They want NO one to be able to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ except they seek it out in a church. They have removed the Christmas creche from the courthouse lawn; next, they will work to get it off of private lawns and church lawns--because it won't be politically correct --or allowable --to promote your religion except in the church building--and later, maybe not even there.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Our founders didn't want a state-church or a church-state --but they were God-believers -- or at least God-respectors --and Bible respectors. The first school board of D.C. with Jefferson on it, listed as texts the Isaac Watts Hymnal, the Common Book of Prayer and the Bible.
The Northwest Ordinance included provision for the founding of public schools --so kids could be taught the Bible and religion --among other things.
Today's church-state separators have an entirely different idea. They want "the naked public square." They want NO one to be able to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ except they seek it out in a church. They have removed the Christmas creche from the courthouse lawn; next, they will work to get it off of private lawns and church lawns--because it won't be politically correct --or allowable --to promote your religion except in the church building--and later, maybe not even there.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, September 16, 2007
MY MIRACLE ON THE LAKE --The Lord Cares!
We went to the lake to close the cottage for the winter — the weather is getting colder so the water is, too. The men get in the water, wearing waders which they tell me are leaking, and my sons and son-in-law brought in the dock with my husband and his brother carrying the pieces to the garage for winter storage.
Then it was my turn to ride a seadoo to the marina –where it will be “winterized.” So I got on –and pressed the start button–and it went, “Chug- chug….2 feeble chugs in total and then nothing. Then just a beep with the oil light blinking (which light usually means nothing pertaining to oil) –every time I pressed the start button, the seadoo beeped. But no engine chugging– no turn-over. Seemed like a very dead battery. But we were due at the marina –so my son-in-law and grandson were going to ride the other one. He tied us together with a rope and we started across the lake. The waves from their seadoo were coming against mine with a lot of pressure –and sure enough, the old, not-too-thick rope snapped. And I was left to sit in the middle of the lake as they raced to the marina for someone to rescue my boat.
It was a gorgeous day, so I didn’t feel I was in any danger –and was not. And I wasn’t too cold, since I wore clothes over my swimsuit–but I waited and waited –and kept trying to start the engine and getting only the beep…beep…beep.
And then it occured to me to pray –I was in a praiseful mood anyway for such a gorgeous day with blue sky and white fluffy clouds and the fall sun in the western sky, birds overhead –it was fairly calm –somewhere in the bible it says God inhabits the praises of His people. I was feeling very praiseful toward my Maker for the beauty He has given us in this big blue ball on which we live–
In my praiseful reflections, it occured to me to pray for the Seadoo–that it would start. I put my hands on the key and ignition and asked the Lord in Jesus’ name to please do this little favor –because I knew He could and it would be nothing for Him to do this. Then I pressed the button and it went “chug…chug…chug chug chug chug –and then I choked it –and it went back to it’s dead “beep…..beep…..beep.” I pressed the button a few more times and it did the same.
Meanwhile I saw my son-in-law and grandson, 7, racing back toward me and figured the marina probably sold them another rope (turned out there was no one at the marina to do a rescue, so they loaned him a rope.) It occurs to me now that my son-in-law might have to get into the cold water to tie us together –maybe not –but perhaps he would have to maneuver around on the seadoo; it could be an unstable situation with his little boy aboard, with them tipping over and not being able to get back on the seadoo in the deep water.
Before they got to me, they disappeared around the peninsula to get gas. I didn’t know where they were. The grandson had reminded his father that they were low on gas, or THEY might have been stranded WITH me.
Meanwhile, I decided to ask God once again to please, in Jesus’ name, start this boat. And I prayed for it, touching the ignition again with both hands –and then pressed the button –and it again went, “chug…chug…chug,chug,chug,chug, chugoooooo! ”
And away I went –and I went like the wind! 40 mph over the water– singing the Doxology all the way! amazed at this. The chugging only occured after the 2 times I prayed. Otherwise, only the dead beeps.
And I had power and speed and got to the marina on time.
Meanwhile, the marina salesman came out and I told him my story. He told me later that the serviceman came out with a tow rope, thinking he’d have to tow my seadoo in–and the salesman told him, “No, it’s fine now; she prayed for it and it had a healing!” Sure enough, it started right up. Turned out the salesman is a believer. I thought so from his response when I told him.
I do think it was a battery issue–that the battery needed charging. But it wasn’t going to happen out on the water –except for a little divine power boost –from a God who is personal –who is tuned in to us –who delights in occasionally showing Himself to be real in the mundane situations of a believer’s life –to fortify our faith.
I would rather get miracles for cancer and other tragic circumstances –and I believe we have seen those as well–but we don’t always get our prayers answered. My father died of colon cancer despite my faith that He could be healed — but it was several months later, after his death had sort of rocked my faith, that my former college roommate living in Texas, who knew nothing of his death, wrote me to say, “The Lord has put you on my heart. I am to remind you about the story of Job (from the Bible.)” And so she did. And I was very moved that she wrote me out of the blue like that to give me a simple message that God was with me. That I was being tested and must persevere in faith. How did she know? The Lord laid me on her heart.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Then it was my turn to ride a seadoo to the marina –where it will be “winterized.” So I got on –and pressed the start button–and it went, “Chug- chug….2 feeble chugs in total and then nothing. Then just a beep with the oil light blinking (which light usually means nothing pertaining to oil) –every time I pressed the start button, the seadoo beeped. But no engine chugging– no turn-over. Seemed like a very dead battery. But we were due at the marina –so my son-in-law and grandson were going to ride the other one. He tied us together with a rope and we started across the lake. The waves from their seadoo were coming against mine with a lot of pressure –and sure enough, the old, not-too-thick rope snapped. And I was left to sit in the middle of the lake as they raced to the marina for someone to rescue my boat.
It was a gorgeous day, so I didn’t feel I was in any danger –and was not. And I wasn’t too cold, since I wore clothes over my swimsuit–but I waited and waited –and kept trying to start the engine and getting only the beep…beep…beep.
And then it occured to me to pray –I was in a praiseful mood anyway for such a gorgeous day with blue sky and white fluffy clouds and the fall sun in the western sky, birds overhead –it was fairly calm –somewhere in the bible it says God inhabits the praises of His people. I was feeling very praiseful toward my Maker for the beauty He has given us in this big blue ball on which we live–
In my praiseful reflections, it occured to me to pray for the Seadoo–that it would start. I put my hands on the key and ignition and asked the Lord in Jesus’ name to please do this little favor –because I knew He could and it would be nothing for Him to do this. Then I pressed the button and it went “chug…chug…chug chug chug chug –and then I choked it –and it went back to it’s dead “beep…..beep…..beep.” I pressed the button a few more times and it did the same.
Meanwhile I saw my son-in-law and grandson, 7, racing back toward me and figured the marina probably sold them another rope (turned out there was no one at the marina to do a rescue, so they loaned him a rope.) It occurs to me now that my son-in-law might have to get into the cold water to tie us together –maybe not –but perhaps he would have to maneuver around on the seadoo; it could be an unstable situation with his little boy aboard, with them tipping over and not being able to get back on the seadoo in the deep water.
Before they got to me, they disappeared around the peninsula to get gas. I didn’t know where they were. The grandson had reminded his father that they were low on gas, or THEY might have been stranded WITH me.
Meanwhile, I decided to ask God once again to please, in Jesus’ name, start this boat. And I prayed for it, touching the ignition again with both hands –and then pressed the button –and it again went, “chug…chug…chug,chug,chug,chug, chugoooooo! ”
And away I went –and I went like the wind! 40 mph over the water– singing the Doxology all the way! amazed at this. The chugging only occured after the 2 times I prayed. Otherwise, only the dead beeps.
And I had power and speed and got to the marina on time.
Meanwhile, the marina salesman came out and I told him my story. He told me later that the serviceman came out with a tow rope, thinking he’d have to tow my seadoo in–and the salesman told him, “No, it’s fine now; she prayed for it and it had a healing!” Sure enough, it started right up. Turned out the salesman is a believer. I thought so from his response when I told him.
I do think it was a battery issue–that the battery needed charging. But it wasn’t going to happen out on the water –except for a little divine power boost –from a God who is personal –who is tuned in to us –who delights in occasionally showing Himself to be real in the mundane situations of a believer’s life –to fortify our faith.
I would rather get miracles for cancer and other tragic circumstances –and I believe we have seen those as well–but we don’t always get our prayers answered. My father died of colon cancer despite my faith that He could be healed — but it was several months later, after his death had sort of rocked my faith, that my former college roommate living in Texas, who knew nothing of his death, wrote me to say, “The Lord has put you on my heart. I am to remind you about the story of Job (from the Bible.)” And so she did. And I was very moved that she wrote me out of the blue like that to give me a simple message that God was with me. That I was being tested and must persevere in faith. How did she know? The Lord laid me on her heart.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Blade's Dr. Hussain Does it Again! Christians, READ!
Dr. S. Amjad Hussain is a good man with good intentions, good works, a retired surgeon, and my Muslim neighbor, though we've never met. I probably should take him some cookies.
He has a column in our local paper every other week. He once issued a New Year's mea culpa in his column because he had condoned the Taliban for imprisoning two missionary girls from Texas. But he still doesn't get it. His recent column against Christian evangelism can be read at the following link. Christians need to see this because his thinking against evangelicals who evangelize is becoming popular and the ACLU joins radical terrorists in their attitude toward Christians(another topic for another day.)
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/COLUMNIST12/709100315/-1/COLUMNIST
Dr. Hussain wrote “freedom of religion does not include freedom to convert others.” In that case, he denies constitutional freedom of religious expression and practice –because Christianity, by Jesus’ mandate, is to be preached to the world. Also, fundamentalist Muslims like the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quite willing to either convert others to Islam or kill them. They do consider Islam to be the only path to paradise. Granted, Muslims in general MAY do less proselytizing (I'm not sure of that), not because they don’t believe theirs is the only way, but perhaps because they love less and don’t care if we all make it to Allah's Paradise or not? —or maybe because Islam is too hard to sell, compared to the resurrected Christ who healed the lame, the blind and the lepers.
He is so off the mark in his mischaracterization of Christian missionaries and ministries who come with food in one hand and the Bible in the other. He sees this as sinister and thinks such missionary endeavor should be opposed, perhaps outlawed—as in Islamic nations. He says it is arrogant to believe that one’s religion is the only way to eternal salvation, though he surely knows that many Muslims believe this of Islam. He says Christians should spend their time trying to convert other Christians to their brand of the religion and leave the non-Christians alone. He doesn’t realize apparently, that Catholics DO try to persuade protestants to return to the Mother Church, and protestants try to make them see how unbiblical their church has become, but both groups often agree that the sincere on both sides have saving faith in Christ. Muslims could learn from the unity of Christians of "different brands," as he put it.
As for missionaries with Bible in one hand and food in the other, Jesus compels Christians to offer food for the body and the soul. We are not to ignore the physical needs of the world, bringing only the Good News of eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Men dead from starvation cannot convert. Jesus fed the multitudes who came to hear him preach, by miraculously multiplying a boy’s simple lunch. According to research, western Christians are the biggest charity donors per capita and the reason is Jesus’ teachings that we MUST have compassion--that when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, etc. we are doing it unto HIM. We ALSO preach the Gospel of Christ because He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except by me.” “Except a man be born again, He will in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Compassion and Christ’s words, not arrogance, motivate ALL Christian ministry.
People who believe that Jesus was God incarnate, the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world so we may enter Heaven--these people are believing with child-like faith –not arrogance. Yes, they are SURE in what they believe; but don’t mistake surety for arrogance. Jesus said “Except you believe with the faith like a child’s, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
As Paul wrote, we "see through a glass darkly." So we humbly do not know everything there is to know about God, Creation, the universe, Jesus Himself, or even every detail of "right" doctrine –but we know that when we received Him, He changed us. We know He gives us a hunger for righteousness that motivates our charities. We know God the Father wants us to be like the Son, compassionate and forgiving. And we are also compelled to “preach the Gospel” –and Jesus said, especially preach it to the poor –probably because they are most in need of comfort and hope—and less arrogant and comfortable in their hedonism –and therefore less smug and more open to the Gospel than others.
The challenge for the first Jewish Christians was to preach to both Jews and Gentiles. Today, the mission is the same. It is to give opportunity to the world for conversion by free will after hearing the Word -- not by the sword, not by government edict, as in Islamic countries. “Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.” So someone must preach that Word to the unbelievers so they may come to faith.
Dr. Hussain mistakenly thinks interfaith meetings are about equality of religious roads to Heaven. They should be about peaceful, friendly co-existance and co-ministries to the needy. They could logically include inter-faith dialogue about what we believe IS the way to Heaven—whether or not we agree. Tolerance and mutual respect are NOT agreement but getting along as friends despite disagreement. True love demands sharing our faith views if we believe our friends lack faith for Heaven.
About another Hussain point, the armed services (through the Department of Defense) have always allowed many missions to provide care packages of all kinds to our troops. The troops do not have to take these gifts or “convert” to get them. I don’t like the idea of a video game about Christians killing their enemies (in the care packages)–but most American Evangelical Christians do support the idea of “just wars” and the necessity of stopping tyrants and terrorists by force—in order to protect all our freedoms and civil rights. Many Christians have criticized this video game, but our soldiers really do see themselves as combating terrorists, beheaders, and suicide bombers who kill civilians. We really are in a battle against evil, not against the peace-loving, peace-making Muslims –but terrorists and tyrants.
What is worse to Dr. Hussain, proselytizing about the love and resurrection of Jesus and His promise of eternal life? Or kidnapping, terrorizing, and killing missionaries? He consistently condemns the missionaries, thus justifying the terrorists who persecute them. His occasional condemnation of Muslim terrorists is comparatively weak.
I challenge Dr. Hussain –again as before –to understand Christianity in a way he never has. He thinks Muslims are being demonized. On the contrary, peaceful, generous, sacrificing missionaries are being demonized by him. Instead of decrying the kidnapping of the Korean missionaries by Muslim extremists, he said, in effect, “Served them right!” --proving once again, as before, that he does NOT believe in freedom of religious expression, the right to preach to any who will listen, which is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom.
I think he wants desperately to believe that ALL religions take people to Heaven and therefore is not tolerant of disagreement on this point. That’s not what the Christian Bible teaches. God can make exception for the compassionate and kind people of other religions if He chooses to, but the New Testament says no one is that good –and thus, we need the Passover Lamb, Jesus, to atone for our sins. If Christ in his mercy wants to extend salvation to the man who rejects Him, He can as far as I’m concerned –but that’s not the promise. We can’t count on exceptions being made; we cannot change the covenant that comes from Christ’s blood shed on the cross for the remission of sins.
In America, Dr. Hussain is free to disagree and spread another gospel if he wishes –whether it be Islam or the fallacious, secular, PC gospel that “all roads lead to Rome.” But his condemnation of evangelical Christians is part of a groundswell of prejudicial and dangerous intolerance for people who do not terrorize, but do good while telling others about Jesus Christ, his teachings, miracles, and resurrection.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
He has a column in our local paper every other week. He once issued a New Year's mea culpa in his column because he had condoned the Taliban for imprisoning two missionary girls from Texas. But he still doesn't get it. His recent column against Christian evangelism can be read at the following link. Christians need to see this because his thinking against evangelicals who evangelize is becoming popular and the ACLU joins radical terrorists in their attitude toward Christians(another topic for another day.)
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/COLUMNIST12/709100315/-1/COLUMNIST
Dr. Hussain wrote “freedom of religion does not include freedom to convert others.” In that case, he denies constitutional freedom of religious expression and practice –because Christianity, by Jesus’ mandate, is to be preached to the world. Also, fundamentalist Muslims like the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quite willing to either convert others to Islam or kill them. They do consider Islam to be the only path to paradise. Granted, Muslims in general MAY do less proselytizing (I'm not sure of that), not because they don’t believe theirs is the only way, but perhaps because they love less and don’t care if we all make it to Allah's Paradise or not? —or maybe because Islam is too hard to sell, compared to the resurrected Christ who healed the lame, the blind and the lepers.
He is so off the mark in his mischaracterization of Christian missionaries and ministries who come with food in one hand and the Bible in the other. He sees this as sinister and thinks such missionary endeavor should be opposed, perhaps outlawed—as in Islamic nations. He says it is arrogant to believe that one’s religion is the only way to eternal salvation, though he surely knows that many Muslims believe this of Islam. He says Christians should spend their time trying to convert other Christians to their brand of the religion and leave the non-Christians alone. He doesn’t realize apparently, that Catholics DO try to persuade protestants to return to the Mother Church, and protestants try to make them see how unbiblical their church has become, but both groups often agree that the sincere on both sides have saving faith in Christ. Muslims could learn from the unity of Christians of "different brands," as he put it.
As for missionaries with Bible in one hand and food in the other, Jesus compels Christians to offer food for the body and the soul. We are not to ignore the physical needs of the world, bringing only the Good News of eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Men dead from starvation cannot convert. Jesus fed the multitudes who came to hear him preach, by miraculously multiplying a boy’s simple lunch. According to research, western Christians are the biggest charity donors per capita and the reason is Jesus’ teachings that we MUST have compassion--that when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, etc. we are doing it unto HIM. We ALSO preach the Gospel of Christ because He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except by me.” “Except a man be born again, He will in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Compassion and Christ’s words, not arrogance, motivate ALL Christian ministry.
People who believe that Jesus was God incarnate, the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world so we may enter Heaven--these people are believing with child-like faith –not arrogance. Yes, they are SURE in what they believe; but don’t mistake surety for arrogance. Jesus said “Except you believe with the faith like a child’s, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
As Paul wrote, we "see through a glass darkly." So we humbly do not know everything there is to know about God, Creation, the universe, Jesus Himself, or even every detail of "right" doctrine –but we know that when we received Him, He changed us. We know He gives us a hunger for righteousness that motivates our charities. We know God the Father wants us to be like the Son, compassionate and forgiving. And we are also compelled to “preach the Gospel” –and Jesus said, especially preach it to the poor –probably because they are most in need of comfort and hope—and less arrogant and comfortable in their hedonism –and therefore less smug and more open to the Gospel than others.
The challenge for the first Jewish Christians was to preach to both Jews and Gentiles. Today, the mission is the same. It is to give opportunity to the world for conversion by free will after hearing the Word -- not by the sword, not by government edict, as in Islamic countries. “Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.” So someone must preach that Word to the unbelievers so they may come to faith.
Dr. Hussain mistakenly thinks interfaith meetings are about equality of religious roads to Heaven. They should be about peaceful, friendly co-existance and co-ministries to the needy. They could logically include inter-faith dialogue about what we believe IS the way to Heaven—whether or not we agree. Tolerance and mutual respect are NOT agreement but getting along as friends despite disagreement. True love demands sharing our faith views if we believe our friends lack faith for Heaven.
About another Hussain point, the armed services (through the Department of Defense) have always allowed many missions to provide care packages of all kinds to our troops. The troops do not have to take these gifts or “convert” to get them. I don’t like the idea of a video game about Christians killing their enemies (in the care packages)–but most American Evangelical Christians do support the idea of “just wars” and the necessity of stopping tyrants and terrorists by force—in order to protect all our freedoms and civil rights. Many Christians have criticized this video game, but our soldiers really do see themselves as combating terrorists, beheaders, and suicide bombers who kill civilians. We really are in a battle against evil, not against the peace-loving, peace-making Muslims –but terrorists and tyrants.
What is worse to Dr. Hussain, proselytizing about the love and resurrection of Jesus and His promise of eternal life? Or kidnapping, terrorizing, and killing missionaries? He consistently condemns the missionaries, thus justifying the terrorists who persecute them. His occasional condemnation of Muslim terrorists is comparatively weak.
I challenge Dr. Hussain –again as before –to understand Christianity in a way he never has. He thinks Muslims are being demonized. On the contrary, peaceful, generous, sacrificing missionaries are being demonized by him. Instead of decrying the kidnapping of the Korean missionaries by Muslim extremists, he said, in effect, “Served them right!” --proving once again, as before, that he does NOT believe in freedom of religious expression, the right to preach to any who will listen, which is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom.
I think he wants desperately to believe that ALL religions take people to Heaven and therefore is not tolerant of disagreement on this point. That’s not what the Christian Bible teaches. God can make exception for the compassionate and kind people of other religions if He chooses to, but the New Testament says no one is that good –and thus, we need the Passover Lamb, Jesus, to atone for our sins. If Christ in his mercy wants to extend salvation to the man who rejects Him, He can as far as I’m concerned –but that’s not the promise. We can’t count on exceptions being made; we cannot change the covenant that comes from Christ’s blood shed on the cross for the remission of sins.
In America, Dr. Hussain is free to disagree and spread another gospel if he wishes –whether it be Islam or the fallacious, secular, PC gospel that “all roads lead to Rome.” But his condemnation of evangelical Christians is part of a groundswell of prejudicial and dangerous intolerance for people who do not terrorize, but do good while telling others about Jesus Christ, his teachings, miracles, and resurrection.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Saudi Texts Still in Need of Reform
From an 8th grade Saudi text used in Wahabi schools around the globe. (Reportedly, Barack Obama attended such schools a couple of years, when he was younger.)
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
The web address to the whole Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html
I don't know how to make a link -sorry. So just cut and paste the above into your web browser and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I don't mind their texts that say your religion is the one true religion. Because I believe my religion is the one true religion. And we can still discuss these things and be friendly. Tolerance is NOT agreement --it is getting along with one another in spite of our disagreements.
What is more serious to me are the passages of text books that say Muslims cannot be friends of non-Muslims.
Christianity says we are to love God, neighbor as much as self, brother (family) and enemy. We are not to "fellowship" with those walking in darkness --but this teaching means that we can't (in our youth especially) choose bad friends if it means we will get into trouble with them. It doesn't mean that we can't be friendly to and kind to and even loving to people who are in darkness. In fact, Jesus Himself, at one point, was accused of hanging out with wine-bibbers and harlots. He was light to them --rather than them pulling Him down --which is the purpose of the warning about fellowshipping with those in darkness.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
The web address to the whole Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html
I don't know how to make a link -sorry. So just cut and paste the above into your web browser and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I don't mind their texts that say your religion is the one true religion. Because I believe my religion is the one true religion. And we can still discuss these things and be friendly. Tolerance is NOT agreement --it is getting along with one another in spite of our disagreements.
What is more serious to me are the passages of text books that say Muslims cannot be friends of non-Muslims.
Christianity says we are to love God, neighbor as much as self, brother (family) and enemy. We are not to "fellowship" with those walking in darkness --but this teaching means that we can't (in our youth especially) choose bad friends if it means we will get into trouble with them. It doesn't mean that we can't be friendly to and kind to and even loving to people who are in darkness. In fact, Jesus Himself, at one point, was accused of hanging out with wine-bibbers and harlots. He was light to them --rather than them pulling Him down --which is the purpose of the warning about fellowshipping with those in darkness.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, September 10, 2007
My Letter to Muslim Law Student , 19, in Egypt
Hello, Mohamed,
[My blog response on Mohamed's website --link to it is on the right side of my blog page.]
I am a lowly woman, a grandmother and a Christian, in America.
I believe the Bible is an accurate historical account of God's involvement with man, his highest creation.
I believe that Jesus Christ was sent from God to save us from our sins. Our deeds need not be weighed on the scales of good and evil. We can know we are saved for eternal life with God because of what Christ did on the cross.
He is the Passover Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His life outweighs our sins on the scales. When Abraham went to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God, God provided a lamb in place of the child for the sacrifice.
In Jesus Christ, God provided the lamb for the world --all our sins. We are no longer under the curse of death and the burden of our sins. We are not going to be weighed and found wanting--as to whether our deeds were good or bad. Instead, Jesus paid the debt for our sins--and we choose to be as good as we can out of love and obedience to Him. We agree with Him and His Word about the definition of right vs. wrong.
You said you believed the Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran--but the Koran changes the story of Jesus --and says Jesus did not die for our sins and rise from the dead. Yet the whole New Testament is very convincing. The first Christians believed this very thing --and were willing to die for this truth--because many of them had witnessed His miracles, His death and His resurrection. They knew Jesus was more than a prophet.
Then Mohammad (blessed be His name, you would say) says HE, himself, is the greatest prophet --that HIS written version of Jesus' life and ministry should be believed --even though he was not there and he himself did not rise from the dead.
Why should you believe Mohammad instead of those who wrote as eye witnesses about Jesus, the true Prince of Peace --who never told anyone to "kill the infidel." Who never referred to Christians as swine and Jews as apes --which references were recently found in new Saudi textbooks for Muslim school children.
I heard the fellows on your blog [see my blog list links at the right] challenge you to denounce the 9/11 tragedy and Osama. Did you do that? I don't think you did.
[Today, Mohamed, did criticize murder of civilians on his blog.]
You just continued to defend Islam and denounce bad Muslims generally.
I think you would rightly fear reprisal from other Muslims if you name Osama as a bad man and denounce the events of 9/11. Am I right about this? I suspect there is much to fear in your own mosques --from fellow Muslims.
Did you deny that many Muslims DO oppress women according to Koranic teaching? that women do not have drivers' licenses in Saudi Arabia, is that true? that Iran is doing more than defending itself --but oppressing its young people and women terribly. (see this week's Newsweek? magazine--an article by an Iranian woman reporter.)
Iran would use the bomb to annhilate Israel; their leader threatened Israel in a speech. He denies their right to exist. So does Palestine.
I don't think Iran is just interested in self-defense --I think they are dangerous to the world if they have nuclear energy.
We, on the other hand, are not. Granted we shot off the first A bombs and ended war with Japan--whose military leader wanted to keep fighting --but after the bombs, the emperor surrendered. They did attack us first. They were not going to quit. It was against their sense of honor to surrender. They were very cruel to our prisoners of war, forcing them to march to their deaths. It took those A bombs to stop them.
I think america would be very reluctant to use such bombs again --but some are so weary of the middle east and their hatreds --they say to make the whole area into a parking lot. I don't say that. It's not right to say that. It's not CHRISTIAN to say that. But the whole world is getting weary of Islamic terrorism and wishes the rest of the peace-loving Muslims would have peace with each other and take care of their own criminals.
Nice to meet you. I wish you well in your studies --and hope you will open your mind to discuss these issues I raise.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
[My blog response on Mohamed's website --link to it is on the right side of my blog page.]
I am a lowly woman, a grandmother and a Christian, in America.
I believe the Bible is an accurate historical account of God's involvement with man, his highest creation.
I believe that Jesus Christ was sent from God to save us from our sins. Our deeds need not be weighed on the scales of good and evil. We can know we are saved for eternal life with God because of what Christ did on the cross.
He is the Passover Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His life outweighs our sins on the scales. When Abraham went to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God, God provided a lamb in place of the child for the sacrifice.
In Jesus Christ, God provided the lamb for the world --all our sins. We are no longer under the curse of death and the burden of our sins. We are not going to be weighed and found wanting--as to whether our deeds were good or bad. Instead, Jesus paid the debt for our sins--and we choose to be as good as we can out of love and obedience to Him. We agree with Him and His Word about the definition of right vs. wrong.
You said you believed the Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran--but the Koran changes the story of Jesus --and says Jesus did not die for our sins and rise from the dead. Yet the whole New Testament is very convincing. The first Christians believed this very thing --and were willing to die for this truth--because many of them had witnessed His miracles, His death and His resurrection. They knew Jesus was more than a prophet.
Then Mohammad (blessed be His name, you would say) says HE, himself, is the greatest prophet --that HIS written version of Jesus' life and ministry should be believed --even though he was not there and he himself did not rise from the dead.
Why should you believe Mohammad instead of those who wrote as eye witnesses about Jesus, the true Prince of Peace --who never told anyone to "kill the infidel." Who never referred to Christians as swine and Jews as apes --which references were recently found in new Saudi textbooks for Muslim school children.
I heard the fellows on your blog [see my blog list links at the right] challenge you to denounce the 9/11 tragedy and Osama. Did you do that? I don't think you did.
[Today, Mohamed, did criticize murder of civilians on his blog.]
You just continued to defend Islam and denounce bad Muslims generally.
I think you would rightly fear reprisal from other Muslims if you name Osama as a bad man and denounce the events of 9/11. Am I right about this? I suspect there is much to fear in your own mosques --from fellow Muslims.
Did you deny that many Muslims DO oppress women according to Koranic teaching? that women do not have drivers' licenses in Saudi Arabia, is that true? that Iran is doing more than defending itself --but oppressing its young people and women terribly. (see this week's Newsweek? magazine--an article by an Iranian woman reporter.)
Iran would use the bomb to annhilate Israel; their leader threatened Israel in a speech. He denies their right to exist. So does Palestine.
I don't think Iran is just interested in self-defense --I think they are dangerous to the world if they have nuclear energy.
We, on the other hand, are not. Granted we shot off the first A bombs and ended war with Japan--whose military leader wanted to keep fighting --but after the bombs, the emperor surrendered. They did attack us first. They were not going to quit. It was against their sense of honor to surrender. They were very cruel to our prisoners of war, forcing them to march to their deaths. It took those A bombs to stop them.
I think america would be very reluctant to use such bombs again --but some are so weary of the middle east and their hatreds --they say to make the whole area into a parking lot. I don't say that. It's not right to say that. It's not CHRISTIAN to say that. But the whole world is getting weary of Islamic terrorism and wishes the rest of the peace-loving Muslims would have peace with each other and take care of their own criminals.
Nice to meet you. I wish you well in your studies --and hope you will open your mind to discuss these issues I raise.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, September 9, 2007
COLSON on God & Government: e.g. Terri Schiavo's Death
Charles Colson, former Nixon White House aide, founder of Prison Fellowship after his own years in prison for the Watergate coverup, has a book titled God & Government . It's an update of his former book, Kingdoms in Conflict.
Colson was not a Christian until after the Watergate problem. Many Christians in D.C., however, were his friends and witnessed to him of their faith. He read C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity, and came to believe --and he had a spiritual experience that assured him that the Gospel of Christ was true.
He then wrote his own book, Born Again, which I would recommend as much as C.S. Lewis's book for the God-seeker. It's about his own journey to faith in God and Christ.
In his newly released book (above,) Colson observes that Christians today are under fire and labeled as "theocrats, fascists, and bigoted demagogues."
His book advises Christians on how to more winsomely represent God's truth in the public square and attempts to equip us to think "Christianly" on the issues of the day--and communicate that thought in an effective manner.
Colson gives an example about a prominent congressman who was invited to a medical school in his state to discuss the Terri Schiavo case. What follows is from Colson's article about this in Jubilee, the publication of Prison Fellowship.
He let the angry med students complain about governmental interference in this case. And let them vent and ask their questions first.
Then he said, "let me explain. Terri...was not on life support. What was done was to remove a feeding tube. Whatever state she was in, she was simply being fed." Did anyone question that, he asked? No one did. Then he drew from lecture series speakers Princeton Prof. Robert George and U. of Texas Prof, J. Budziszewski, both Christians.
He reminded the students that there was a nursing home nearby where some patients had to be fed for various reasons. He asked if they would object if the nursing home decided to stop feeding the patients, [to starve them,] and if the government should step in and force it to continue to feed its patients? Absolute silence.
Much of the opposition to his position was thus diffused."
Colson continued in his essay to report that Christa Lilly, a woman in Colorado, just awakened from a 6 year coma. Lately, we have been hearing more and more about the brain's ability to re-route itself --and procedures to help people with Parkinson's. Yet, the pressure is on regarding the high costs of caring for patients who seem to be no more than "vegetables." So we are not done yet with the problem of euthanasia for those who are in comas or seem to be brain dead --but are nevertheless living.
Request Colson's new book at 1-877-478-0100
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Colson was not a Christian until after the Watergate problem. Many Christians in D.C., however, were his friends and witnessed to him of their faith. He read C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity, and came to believe --and he had a spiritual experience that assured him that the Gospel of Christ was true.
He then wrote his own book, Born Again, which I would recommend as much as C.S. Lewis's book for the God-seeker. It's about his own journey to faith in God and Christ.
In his newly released book (above,) Colson observes that Christians today are under fire and labeled as "theocrats, fascists, and bigoted demagogues."
His book advises Christians on how to more winsomely represent God's truth in the public square and attempts to equip us to think "Christianly" on the issues of the day--and communicate that thought in an effective manner.
Colson gives an example about a prominent congressman who was invited to a medical school in his state to discuss the Terri Schiavo case. What follows is from Colson's article about this in Jubilee, the publication of Prison Fellowship.
He let the angry med students complain about governmental interference in this case. And let them vent and ask their questions first.
Then he said, "let me explain. Terri...was not on life support. What was done was to remove a feeding tube. Whatever state she was in, she was simply being fed." Did anyone question that, he asked? No one did. Then he drew from lecture series speakers Princeton Prof. Robert George and U. of Texas Prof, J. Budziszewski, both Christians.
He reminded the students that there was a nursing home nearby where some patients had to be fed for various reasons. He asked if they would object if the nursing home decided to stop feeding the patients, [to starve them,] and if the government should step in and force it to continue to feed its patients? Absolute silence.
Much of the opposition to his position was thus diffused."
Colson continued in his essay to report that Christa Lilly, a woman in Colorado, just awakened from a 6 year coma. Lately, we have been hearing more and more about the brain's ability to re-route itself --and procedures to help people with Parkinson's. Yet, the pressure is on regarding the high costs of caring for patients who seem to be no more than "vegetables." So we are not done yet with the problem of euthanasia for those who are in comas or seem to be brain dead --but are nevertheless living.
Request Colson's new book at 1-877-478-0100
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, September 7, 2007
Good bye, America???
I got this in email -- no author indicated. Immigration is not my greatest fear. I hope Governor Lam and Victor H. Davis are mistaken.
Subject: Goodbye America??
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ AND LEARN FROM A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.
Please take the time to read this. It should frighten you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall! and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.
Here is how they do it, Lamm said:
First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, invent multiculturalism and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, We could make the United States an Hispanic Quebec without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony.
Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.
Lamm said, I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
My sixth plan for Americas downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.
People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum
From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the pluribus instead of the Unum, we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would find a word similar to heretic in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking.
Words like racist or xenophobe halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of Victimology, I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.
Finally he said,
Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate diversity. American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book,1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:
"War is peace,
Freedom is slavery, and
Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream....
Those who cannot learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subject: Goodbye America??
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ AND LEARN FROM A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.
Please take the time to read this. It should frighten you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall! and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.
Here is how they do it, Lamm said:
First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, invent multiculturalism and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, We could make the United States an Hispanic Quebec without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony.
Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.
Lamm said, I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
My sixth plan for Americas downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.
People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum
From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the pluribus instead of the Unum, we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would find a word similar to heretic in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking.
Words like racist or xenophobe halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of Victimology, I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.
Finally he said,
Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate diversity. American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book,1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:
"War is peace,
Freedom is slavery, and
Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream....
Those who cannot learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Yes, I'm Back! Light-bearer, not Muck-dweller!
Here is an example of liberal-speak against Christians:
Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.
A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.
He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."
As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.
We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.
As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.
For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.
I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?
Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."
This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.
If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."
The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible
Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.
A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.
He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."
As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.
We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.
As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.
For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.
I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?
Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."
This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.
If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."
The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Major Annoyance or Oxymoron--Christian Democrats
My church magazine has an article this month suggesting ever so subltly, without naming the parties, that the Democratic party is more Christian in its views/agenda than the Republicans --whose main agenda of importance to conservative Christians, the article says, is family values, i.e. abortion and homosexuality. I deny that charge.
The writer reminds us, unnecessarily, that the Bible champions charity, compassion, social justice, and care for the poor, etc. implying that the Democratic party is the party of THESE virtues and the other party is not. Care for the environment and belief in global warming was emphasized in another article --without mention of the also credible opposition to the global warming ideologues and their theories and remedies.
Listen, it's Bill Clinton who tax-deducted a dollar for every pair of used underwear he gave to charity --before he was president. I suppose he can deduct a much higher value now, especially if they're unwashed. It was Al Gore whose taxes revealed he'd given a pittance to charity as vice-president, as I recall. It was George Bush who saw the value of faith-based institutions (including schools, prisons, re-hab and homeless programs) and their work among the disenfranchised, disadvantaged, etc. and said they should be as elegible for government aid as secularistic/atheistic (a-religious) groups whose track records tend to be less effective --or even destructive like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
As for the super rich democrats, like celebrities, if they give away 50% or more of their fortunes in taxes they won't miss it --so they think the modestly, moderately well- off entrepreneurs and job-creators should be taxed to their eyeteeth, too --for the sake of the poor and Big Government redistribution of wealth. When you own an energy-guzzling house like Al Gore's or John Edwards', you can (apparently) afford to tell everyone else to tighten their belts, pay higher taxes to give raises to gov't employees and to support those who goofed off in school, made multiple babies with people to whom they weren't married, got addicted to meth, nicotine and alcohol, and now are suffering the consequences.
The social conservatives give more per capita to charity and religious institutions (which are always charitable) than any other group in the nation. They work with countless people who are the poor for reasons described above. They see transformation of lives harmed by drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. They have ministries to everyone's children, youth and the poor. And we DO believe in government help to the needy. We just don't like this class warfare exacerbated by Democratic Party rhetoric --this sense of entitlement.
A friend of ours was seeing a young lady with great financial needs. He gave her a large sum of money specifically to help her pay her bills and get on her feet--and she went out and bought a fancy TV with it--though she already had a decent, working TV. He asked her why she used the money that way and she said, "I felt I deserved it --I deserve nice things." He's not seeing her any more--i.e. not to date her.
Lack of compassion is not the reason why conservatives advocate social policies which encourage responsibility and initiative. Many of the welfare-dependents acquired self-respect with jobs and education because of welfare reform led by social conservatives in the early 90's. Social conservatives did lead the abolition movement in England and U.S. Social conservatives are the ones wanting the church to be the agency that helps the poor --instead of the gov't --because the church deals with the root problems of so much poverty in America. Most poverty in our country IS rooted in our family life/sex life --and the lack of effort in education for many --the lack of family support, encouragement, structure, discipline, good priorities for money, etc.
It was Bush that advocated mega-bucks for AIDS meds and abstinence education in Africa. He's the one wanting to be lenient (merciful) to the illegal immigrants who have been here contributing to the economy, whose descendents are legally here by birth. I've been interested in this debate and don't think full citizenship with voting rights SHOULD be granted to the illegals--but the workers' permits might be a good idea. We shouldn't completely exonerate illegal immigrants letting them vote and determine the social policy in this nation. It's enough that we've been educating their kids and treating them in our hospitals. Bush is a realist, however, in visualizing how it would look for millions of Hispanic residents to be forced to evacuate the country. The majority may clamor for that now, but when it started to happen the media would highlight the sadness of families having to send Grandpa back to Mexico for his crime of illegal entry.
No more time to rant today.
The nation on this 3rd of July needs to remember the Lord and petition to bring our hearts into conformity with His. That includes a recognition that social justice (compassion, equal opportunity and hand-ups for the needy--REAL help) and family values are both important. And I think the conservatives realize this --whereas the democrats still believe gay and abortion wrongs are right.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." "God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." --the Bible
The writer reminds us, unnecessarily, that the Bible champions charity, compassion, social justice, and care for the poor, etc. implying that the Democratic party is the party of THESE virtues and the other party is not. Care for the environment and belief in global warming was emphasized in another article --without mention of the also credible opposition to the global warming ideologues and their theories and remedies.
Listen, it's Bill Clinton who tax-deducted a dollar for every pair of used underwear he gave to charity --before he was president. I suppose he can deduct a much higher value now, especially if they're unwashed. It was Al Gore whose taxes revealed he'd given a pittance to charity as vice-president, as I recall. It was George Bush who saw the value of faith-based institutions (including schools, prisons, re-hab and homeless programs) and their work among the disenfranchised, disadvantaged, etc. and said they should be as elegible for government aid as secularistic/atheistic (a-religious) groups whose track records tend to be less effective --or even destructive like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
As for the super rich democrats, like celebrities, if they give away 50% or more of their fortunes in taxes they won't miss it --so they think the modestly, moderately well- off entrepreneurs and job-creators should be taxed to their eyeteeth, too --for the sake of the poor and Big Government redistribution of wealth. When you own an energy-guzzling house like Al Gore's or John Edwards', you can (apparently) afford to tell everyone else to tighten their belts, pay higher taxes to give raises to gov't employees and to support those who goofed off in school, made multiple babies with people to whom they weren't married, got addicted to meth, nicotine and alcohol, and now are suffering the consequences.
The social conservatives give more per capita to charity and religious institutions (which are always charitable) than any other group in the nation. They work with countless people who are the poor for reasons described above. They see transformation of lives harmed by drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. They have ministries to everyone's children, youth and the poor. And we DO believe in government help to the needy. We just don't like this class warfare exacerbated by Democratic Party rhetoric --this sense of entitlement.
A friend of ours was seeing a young lady with great financial needs. He gave her a large sum of money specifically to help her pay her bills and get on her feet--and she went out and bought a fancy TV with it--though she already had a decent, working TV. He asked her why she used the money that way and she said, "I felt I deserved it --I deserve nice things." He's not seeing her any more--i.e. not to date her.
Lack of compassion is not the reason why conservatives advocate social policies which encourage responsibility and initiative. Many of the welfare-dependents acquired self-respect with jobs and education because of welfare reform led by social conservatives in the early 90's. Social conservatives did lead the abolition movement in England and U.S. Social conservatives are the ones wanting the church to be the agency that helps the poor --instead of the gov't --because the church deals with the root problems of so much poverty in America. Most poverty in our country IS rooted in our family life/sex life --and the lack of effort in education for many --the lack of family support, encouragement, structure, discipline, good priorities for money, etc.
It was Bush that advocated mega-bucks for AIDS meds and abstinence education in Africa. He's the one wanting to be lenient (merciful) to the illegal immigrants who have been here contributing to the economy, whose descendents are legally here by birth. I've been interested in this debate and don't think full citizenship with voting rights SHOULD be granted to the illegals--but the workers' permits might be a good idea. We shouldn't completely exonerate illegal immigrants letting them vote and determine the social policy in this nation. It's enough that we've been educating their kids and treating them in our hospitals. Bush is a realist, however, in visualizing how it would look for millions of Hispanic residents to be forced to evacuate the country. The majority may clamor for that now, but when it started to happen the media would highlight the sadness of families having to send Grandpa back to Mexico for his crime of illegal entry.
No more time to rant today.
The nation on this 3rd of July needs to remember the Lord and petition to bring our hearts into conformity with His. That includes a recognition that social justice (compassion, equal opportunity and hand-ups for the needy--REAL help) and family values are both important. And I think the conservatives realize this --whereas the democrats still believe gay and abortion wrongs are right.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." "God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." --the Bible
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
MY MEMORABLE QUOTE -- with Mea Culpa --by humble Barb
I saw that a couple of you were wondering if anything you ever said or wrote would be "quotable" for history. Here's my attempt:
"The ACLU and those who agree with them want a state that favors their world view and behaves publically as though God does not exist and need not be heeded, thanked, or reverenced --and cannot be called upon by our leaders in times of national crisis."
Mea Culpa:
Go here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
This is ACLU's page to say, "Yes, we really do defend Christians also!" I'm not sure the info here really nullifies my quote, however.
I was surprised at their defense of street preaching, in particular --and defending students who pass out lit at school in non-instructional time. I'm thinking the ACLU has sometimes been on the other side of such cases.
I can't help but think that these are exceptional cases, depending on the lawyers involved --that the ACLU also has evidence of ridiculous oppression of Christians in public places.
Would they have defended the valedictorian's right to free speech, when the plug was pulled on her mic because she wanted to tell about the relationship of her faith to her success as a scholar? The school made a lousy point in this instance and disrupted what should have been a dignified occasion recognizing a scholar's right to innocuous free speech. Had she wanted to be vulgar and cuss like a sailor, I'd say she was out of order and should have her plug pulled. But religious speech should be protected. Yes, a Jewish or Muslim student should be able to quote some good tenets of their belief in a speech, too. I wouldn't advise an atheist to say "There is no God" in such a speech --but that's what he'll do when he's a professor at the tax-supported U's. He can still state his creed of self-sufficiency and "I can do anything I set my mind to" and promote a secular philosophy of life.
The ACLU has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to the evidence of Christian heritage of American government at all levels, tampering with town seals, mottos, memorials, etc. --preparing long before necessary for the time when other religions will make up larger portions of our population than they did when crosses were erected at ARlington Cemetary for all our nation's war-dead. Without meaning to "establish religion," our Christian and Deist founders nevertheless did favor the good influence of the Bible, Jesus, and religion in general upon the citizenry. They studied the Bible in public school. They celebrated the Christian holidays in the schools. They believed in reverencing the God of Creation and Nature, the God of the Bible in their public ceremonies and courts. As one forefather said, (and I don't have the citation or exact quote in front of me and don't know where to find it): "The Constitution was written for a religious people and won't work for any other." Because those people were taught to be moral and have self-control --and had a consensus about right and wrong to which they could appeal in their decision making.
Of course, the man who made the statement was talking about the main religion of the Colonials --Christianity --because that religion teaches The Golden Rule (Treat others as you'd want to be treated) and the Ten C's (Don't kill, murder, covet, lie and adulterate, in particular.) Christ taught love and forgiveness and generosity, the equality of all before the cross, the necessity of humility (we have all sinned) and compassion with non-judgmental attitude, in "Let He who is sinless cast the first stone."
The Bible does not tell us to refrain from defining and preaching the difference between good and evil --which is now viewed as being "judgmental." No, we are still to teach our children and other people's children the difference between good and evil --and government has a role to "restrain evil."
Gov't becomes horribly confused when it no longer recognizes immorality itself --and starts to pay for gay marriage, permit gay adoptions, makes legitimate and pays for transgendering (as in San Francisco gov't.), sanctions prostitution, strip bars and unrestrained porn. Legitimizing drugs would be another example. All of these things contribute to the decline of our families --and families need to be strong and healthy and "decent" in order to be the safety net for all its members --for those who can't get work, become disabled and ill, need comforting in times of emotional stress. Family businesses employed their own. Strong families are the bedrock of strong nations --and nations need to encourage families by restraining the influences that tear at the fabric of family life. Sexual sin always does that. Raising kids without good fathers tends to do that. Redefining family as we are doing now is an offense to the creator who designed us for heterosexual reproduction in marriage and no other sexual relationships.
Our tv culture has changed American culture, and not for the better. All of a sudden our young adults think they are characters on "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and think they can sleep around and shack up --with only a giggle of mild regret about the disappointments and depressions, jealousies and angers, diseases and abortions that actually result from such circumstances. TV suggests we can easily and often sleep around, divorce, re-marry and abort without deeply affecting ourselves and our children for life.
My generation was the Hippie Generation. Tim Leary said drugs were mind-expanding; the "make love, not war" creed of the Haight-Ashbury flower children has produced the moral relativism of today--with big support from the intellectual elites of universities.
We do well to examine American cultural roots and value the religion and book which were most influential on the best strengths of American Society.
As 19C. French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville wrote: "America is great because she is good. The secret of her goodness lies in her churches with pulpits aflame with righteousness. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
Have we ceased to be great? Are we on our way to the Fall of Rome? Sodom and Gomorrah?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"The ACLU and those who agree with them want a state that favors their world view and behaves publically as though God does not exist and need not be heeded, thanked, or reverenced --and cannot be called upon by our leaders in times of national crisis."
Mea Culpa:
Go here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
This is ACLU's page to say, "Yes, we really do defend Christians also!" I'm not sure the info here really nullifies my quote, however.
I was surprised at their defense of street preaching, in particular --and defending students who pass out lit at school in non-instructional time. I'm thinking the ACLU has sometimes been on the other side of such cases.
I can't help but think that these are exceptional cases, depending on the lawyers involved --that the ACLU also has evidence of ridiculous oppression of Christians in public places.
Would they have defended the valedictorian's right to free speech, when the plug was pulled on her mic because she wanted to tell about the relationship of her faith to her success as a scholar? The school made a lousy point in this instance and disrupted what should have been a dignified occasion recognizing a scholar's right to innocuous free speech. Had she wanted to be vulgar and cuss like a sailor, I'd say she was out of order and should have her plug pulled. But religious speech should be protected. Yes, a Jewish or Muslim student should be able to quote some good tenets of their belief in a speech, too. I wouldn't advise an atheist to say "There is no God" in such a speech --but that's what he'll do when he's a professor at the tax-supported U's. He can still state his creed of self-sufficiency and "I can do anything I set my mind to" and promote a secular philosophy of life.
The ACLU has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to the evidence of Christian heritage of American government at all levels, tampering with town seals, mottos, memorials, etc. --preparing long before necessary for the time when other religions will make up larger portions of our population than they did when crosses were erected at ARlington Cemetary for all our nation's war-dead. Without meaning to "establish religion," our Christian and Deist founders nevertheless did favor the good influence of the Bible, Jesus, and religion in general upon the citizenry. They studied the Bible in public school. They celebrated the Christian holidays in the schools. They believed in reverencing the God of Creation and Nature, the God of the Bible in their public ceremonies and courts. As one forefather said, (and I don't have the citation or exact quote in front of me and don't know where to find it): "The Constitution was written for a religious people and won't work for any other." Because those people were taught to be moral and have self-control --and had a consensus about right and wrong to which they could appeal in their decision making.
Of course, the man who made the statement was talking about the main religion of the Colonials --Christianity --because that religion teaches The Golden Rule (Treat others as you'd want to be treated) and the Ten C's (Don't kill, murder, covet, lie and adulterate, in particular.) Christ taught love and forgiveness and generosity, the equality of all before the cross, the necessity of humility (we have all sinned) and compassion with non-judgmental attitude, in "Let He who is sinless cast the first stone."
The Bible does not tell us to refrain from defining and preaching the difference between good and evil --which is now viewed as being "judgmental." No, we are still to teach our children and other people's children the difference between good and evil --and government has a role to "restrain evil."
Gov't becomes horribly confused when it no longer recognizes immorality itself --and starts to pay for gay marriage, permit gay adoptions, makes legitimate and pays for transgendering (as in San Francisco gov't.), sanctions prostitution, strip bars and unrestrained porn. Legitimizing drugs would be another example. All of these things contribute to the decline of our families --and families need to be strong and healthy and "decent" in order to be the safety net for all its members --for those who can't get work, become disabled and ill, need comforting in times of emotional stress. Family businesses employed their own. Strong families are the bedrock of strong nations --and nations need to encourage families by restraining the influences that tear at the fabric of family life. Sexual sin always does that. Raising kids without good fathers tends to do that. Redefining family as we are doing now is an offense to the creator who designed us for heterosexual reproduction in marriage and no other sexual relationships.
Our tv culture has changed American culture, and not for the better. All of a sudden our young adults think they are characters on "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and think they can sleep around and shack up --with only a giggle of mild regret about the disappointments and depressions, jealousies and angers, diseases and abortions that actually result from such circumstances. TV suggests we can easily and often sleep around, divorce, re-marry and abort without deeply affecting ourselves and our children for life.
My generation was the Hippie Generation. Tim Leary said drugs were mind-expanding; the "make love, not war" creed of the Haight-Ashbury flower children has produced the moral relativism of today--with big support from the intellectual elites of universities.
We do well to examine American cultural roots and value the religion and book which were most influential on the best strengths of American Society.
As 19C. French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville wrote: "America is great because she is good. The secret of her goodness lies in her churches with pulpits aflame with righteousness. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
Have we ceased to be great? Are we on our way to the Fall of Rome? Sodom and Gomorrah?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, May 27, 2007
MORE ABOUT THE POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~~ by Barb
Parents who oppose voluntary prayer of sports teams because their little atheists might feel uncomfortable being silent for a moment while the others prayed, who object to ceremonial prayers to begin school banquets, as in the southern schools which pray before band festival banquets and before school games, asking the Creator to protect the students and remind them of fair play, etc.--people who oppose graduation prayers asking for blessing and guidance for the students --people who want the daily school day and government observances to favor secularists, humanists and atheists --as though those weren't distinct philosophies (world views with religious implications) --people who oppose military chaplains preaching the importance of believing in Christ at Christian military funerals, people who oppose Arlington Cemetary's and Mt. Soledad's memorial crosses--and people who oppose our tradition of mottos on money and in the pledge and state mottos like Ohio's, "With God all things are Possible" --
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, May 25, 2007
POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~ hostility toward the Christian faith-- by Barb
Another gem from Prof. Friedman's Religion Clause
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
NEW LOW AT SO. PARK --New Zealand Catholic Bishops, you go!
from Howard Friedman at Religion Clause (see my link list)
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR COMMON SENSE: Catholic School Board can't insist its members be Catholic!
posted by Posted by Howard Friedman --PermaLink: 6:02 AM
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Welcome, Sister Jeanette!
Jeanette has an artsy blog --pretty in pink --and you sit down and sip the tea with her on her couch --so to speak! We have our faith, marriage, age, kids and grandkids in common. We're both concerned here about the "culture wars" and our lost world, believing we share a "saving faith." She is Baptist and I am Free Methodist --both Bible believers and "just Christians."
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, May 24, 2007
COLO. COURT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHRISTIAN COLLEGES
News from www.Religion Clause.blogspot.com (Links to items in this article are availale on this website. I don't know how to do all that links transfer business if it doesn't copy and paste over here.)
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SEX CLUBS --HOORAY --Strickland is going to make a step in the right direction? Will wonders never cease?
Strip joints really serve no good purpose and should be shut down altogether. They just tempt men out of their homes and take food off the table --and cause spousal alienation and ultimately divorce --and that contributes to poverty.
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
