As detailed by well known Erwin W. Lutzer in his book “When a Nation Forgets God,” an unidentified Christian pastor shared a story with him of someone living in Germany during the Nazi takeover. The person sharing the story was a churchgoing Christian and a member of a small church located adjacent to railroad tracks.
Every Sunday morning, according to this eyewitness, the congregation could hear the whistle of the train in the distance, the noise of the wheels over the tracks, and as the train passed, the cries coming from inside the train. The cries were those of the Jews being transported to concentration camps, a process that occurred with regularity each Sunday morning during their worship service.
According to this eyewitness, week after week the whistle would blow and the church members dreaded the sounds they heard. The screams tormented them. So, what did they do? As the train approached and in anticipation of the screams from the Jews, herded like cattle into the train cars, the Christians sang louder to drown out the screams. Soon, they heard them no more.
The eyewitness ended his account by describing the torment of hearing the train whistle in his sleep, and pleaded for forgiveness for not only himself, but for all of those who called themselves Christians but did nothing to intervene.
Regardless of your faith or station in life, chances are great that you are exactly like that eyewitness, and equally, if not more accountable for the actions of our government today. What is coming is going to be far worse than the world has ever seen, and is going to blindside many. Don’t be one of them.
World War III is looming like the train whistle in the distance
A global war of unimaginable atrocities is being planned as I write this. It has been in the works for some time, yet few will want to read what I have written. Rather, most will instead choose to “sing louder” to drown out the screams of innocents, except this time, the screams will be too loud, too frequent, and too many.
The United States of America has been overtaken from within by a group of heartless and soulless individuals with designs on reshaping the world into a state of global governance. They are members of both political parties, and part of their plans include reshaping the Middle East at any cost, including the inevitable and incalculable cost of human life. Currently at the helm is Barack Hussein Obama, although his way was paved by the majority of his predecessors and elected officials of both parties.
He was purposely selected as the man for the job to insure that the inappropriately celebrated Arab Spring that swept North Africa and the Middle East was conducted as planned. It was a staged and orchestrated event by the globalists and those in power in the U.S. and elsewhere. Using your tax dollars and in your name, the United States has been providing funding and operational support to the groups toppling governments in favor of radical Islamic control. Such control is nothing but a necessary means to an end. While many correctly decry the brutality of Islam, few realize that is a tool of the globalists. They are not thinking big enough. The lie is bigger than you have been told
CONTINUED: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56239?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=bfcd19a9a0-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-bfcd19a9a0-291132961
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Time to Chose: Government or God
Posted on Tea Party Nation by David DeGerolamo on June 28, 2013
Our country has now reached the final line in the sand. We have talked (and talked) about how our government has crossed lines in the past over specific issues. And we did nothing at each loss of our freedom to tyranny. At the success of each "nudge" by the government, it became even more emboldened to the point where we now find our president declaring that we must fund abortion regardless of our religious tenets concerning the sanctity of life.
We now have to decide if we will pay a tax to kill babies? We were never meant to be ruled by dictators and pretenders in DC (I no longer associate the good name of George Washington with our nation's capital). And make no mistake: being forced to murder babies is a heinous crime against humanity and our Judeo/Christian foundation.
We all knew that the time was coming when we would have to decide between morality and subservience to rulers. We never thought that the decision would be so clear. We must NEVER surrender our Liberty and our children's lives to men who have no honor. There is no gray area anymore. Standing up against the federal government is no longer treason to our country. Domestic enemies have usurped our freedom and it is time to stand. Period.
David DeGerolamo
Our country has now reached the final line in the sand. We have talked (and talked) about how our government has crossed lines in the past over specific issues. And we did nothing at each loss of our freedom to tyranny. At the success of each "nudge" by the government, it became even more emboldened to the point where we now find our president declaring that we must fund abortion regardless of our religious tenets concerning the sanctity of life.
We now have to decide if we will pay a tax to kill babies? We were never meant to be ruled by dictators and pretenders in DC (I no longer associate the good name of George Washington with our nation's capital). And make no mistake: being forced to murder babies is a heinous crime against humanity and our Judeo/Christian foundation.
We all knew that the time was coming when we would have to decide between morality and subservience to rulers. We never thought that the decision would be so clear. We must NEVER surrender our Liberty and our children's lives to men who have no honor. There is no gray area anymore. Standing up against the federal government is no longer treason to our country. Domestic enemies have usurped our freedom and it is time to stand. Period.
David DeGerolamo
OBAMA'S FINAL WORD: CATHOLICS MUST BUY/PROVIDE
COVERAGE FOR ABORTION DRUGS
The Department of Health and Human Services today released the final text of the final adjustments to the Obamacare regulation that requires virtually all health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
Catholics and Evangelical Christians have objected to the regulation, arguing that it violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are all intrinsically immoral. Evangelical Christians believe that abortion takes an innocent human life and is thus wrong.
More...http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-final-word-catholics-must-buyprovide-coverage-abortion-drugs
The Department of Health and Human Services today released the final text of the final adjustments to the Obamacare regulation that requires virtually all health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
Catholics and Evangelical Christians have objected to the regulation, arguing that it violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are all intrinsically immoral. Evangelical Christians believe that abortion takes an innocent human life and is thus wrong.
More...http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-final-word-catholics-must-buyprovide-coverage-abortion-drugs
Monday, May 28, 2012
Only God and Americans can save the U.S. from Obama
To Americans everywhere:
As Wes Riddle of Texas has written, “The term Republic had a significant meaning for all early Americans. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution was unique, requiring strict limitation of government power. Powers that were permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements and made America the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.”
To all who cherish our individual liberty, do not despair. Let us not give up in our effort to save our Representative Republic from the now constant attacks from president Barack Obama and his czars upon our system of Constitutional Law. We, the American people, must unite and come together now as never before in the history of this great nation. If we will stand with each other, as the American people, forgetting political party ties, we can and must save ourselves and keep this Republic from being destroyed and replaced by Barack Obama Socialism. It is our responsibility to do it. The founders of the American Republic structured the system so we could always do just that.
We, the governed, have sole consent as to whom we allow to sit in power in our Capital. Like all human beings do, per our nature, we make mistakes. A mistake was made by electing Barack Obama as president in 2008. We now must admit it to ourselves, suck it up and make a correction. Stopping Socialism is the most important issue before the American people today. The president, upon taking office, swears to defend and protect the Constitution. Barack Obama has done neither. It is a matter of public record that he has, in fact, intentionally done the exact opposite. We must be united in purpose to save our Republic from Obama and Socialism.
What is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY? Because I was born (73 years ago) and raised in the small American town of Henryetta, Oklahoma, I have never personally experienced government oppression, as have so many billions of people throughout history all over this world. So I, like most Americans, have taken it for granted and assumed it would always be thus in this country. I began a search to answer for myself the real meaning of Individual Liberty, and also Is America an exceptional country because of it? As you recall, Barack Obama said publicly he does not believe it is. In all my wildest dreams I could have never imagined an American President thinking that, much less hearing a president of the United States make that statement.
As I began, I was reminded very quickly that freedom is not something granted to us by the government. It is not something the government allows us to have, but one of our God given unalienable rights. It is one of the sacred rights of all mankind endowed upon us by God Almighty, our Creator. If we are herded and driven like cattle, dictated to by government as though they own us and we are subjects of that government, it is because we have lost our God-given right to be free, which He bestowed upon us at birth.
I learned in my search, of all the wonderful things America is about, that Individual Freedom is our most precious and greatest treasure. Individual Liberty is the absence of government restraint on our ability to think and act for ourselves. Individual Liberty is being free from government oppression and regulation, and it automatically carries with it individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. Freedom is the capacity for self-determination. It is not cast in stone to forever be, but it is a condition, and conditions can change. Individual Freedom can grow and expand, but it can also shrink and disappear. The spirit of Liberty has to be in the population. Individual Freedom will only be preserved as long as there is devotion to freedom expressed in the hearts and actions of the people. Our desire for Individual Liberty must be stronger than Obama’s desire to turn us into his subjects under a Socialist government of America or we will become slaves to him and that government. He will have accomplished his goal.
In 1775 Alexander Hamilton said, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased.” President Bush said a few years ago, “History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart.”
In his address at the Gettysburg National Cemetery, president Lincoln declared, “It is for us the living to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so nobly advanced.” That unfinished work for which so many American soldiers willingly go to the battles of war, and which so many have given the full measure of devotion, is the cause of The United States of America as an exceptional country of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. I here declare to you, that work will never be finished. It is up to each generation to continue the work and keep the American spirit of Individual Freedom alive in every heart.
Barack Obama campaigned on “fundamental change in America.” Had he given us the details of what he meant by that, I seriously doubt he would have been elected. Americans were not looking to change Individual Liberty for subjugation to an expanding Federal Socialist government with more and more regulation of almost every aspect of our lives. We have become a strong and exceptional nation through the self reliance of Individual Freedom, and the preservation of that liberty through the spilling of the blood of our fellow patriots. The more power we allow Barack Obama and the Federal Government to amass the less Individual Freedom we will have. Freedom is a birthright from God. If we become government slaves it is because we allowed it to be taken from us.
Our great nation was given birth, out of the womb of a bloody revolution for liberty, as a Representative Republic of Free Individuals, not one of Socialism and collective slaves of government. Americans everywhere, we had better get involved and take a stand against government control of our lives. Now is not the time to be silent as Barrack Obama attempts to dismantle this great country and bring it down to a lower level of the Socialist countries of Europe. Now is the time for us to be resolved to protect and defend our Individual Freedom. We hear it said Obama is not a leader, that he is incompetent. It is very true that he is not a leader for a Representative Republic of Free Individuals, for he does not believe in the system of government which our Founders established. But he is an exceptional leader in the effort to turn America into a Socialist nation.
To everyone who will listen and hear, never believe for a moment that Barack Obama is incompetent. I submit to you, he knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. He spent most of his early years studying and learning how to do it under the teachings of the Socialist Revolutionary Saul Alinsky; his Chicago neighbor Bill Ayers, and others. These men now have one of their own positioned in the White House. As Barack Obama summarized at the height of his campaign: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” He does not believe we are an exceptional nation. Be not deceived, Barack Obama sees America very differently than our Founding Fathers and how you and I see America.
I earnestly pray that Barack Obama is defeated in his bid for a second term as president. Given the manner in which he is now shredding the Constitution, if given four more years to act, knowing he doesn’t have to answer to us for his actions, the damage he can and will do in tearing down and destroying this country as a Representative Republic, is at present unimaginable.
Please feel free to pass this to whom ever you wish. You may leave my information below intact. I am not afraid.
God Bless America, Please.
SOURCE: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46941?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=b8e1ff45e8-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email
As Wes Riddle of Texas has written, “The term Republic had a significant meaning for all early Americans. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution was unique, requiring strict limitation of government power. Powers that were permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements and made America the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.”
To all who cherish our individual liberty, do not despair. Let us not give up in our effort to save our Representative Republic from the now constant attacks from president Barack Obama and his czars upon our system of Constitutional Law. We, the American people, must unite and come together now as never before in the history of this great nation. If we will stand with each other, as the American people, forgetting political party ties, we can and must save ourselves and keep this Republic from being destroyed and replaced by Barack Obama Socialism. It is our responsibility to do it. The founders of the American Republic structured the system so we could always do just that.
We, the governed, have sole consent as to whom we allow to sit in power in our Capital. Like all human beings do, per our nature, we make mistakes. A mistake was made by electing Barack Obama as president in 2008. We now must admit it to ourselves, suck it up and make a correction. Stopping Socialism is the most important issue before the American people today. The president, upon taking office, swears to defend and protect the Constitution. Barack Obama has done neither. It is a matter of public record that he has, in fact, intentionally done the exact opposite. We must be united in purpose to save our Republic from Obama and Socialism.
What is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY? Because I was born (73 years ago) and raised in the small American town of Henryetta, Oklahoma, I have never personally experienced government oppression, as have so many billions of people throughout history all over this world. So I, like most Americans, have taken it for granted and assumed it would always be thus in this country. I began a search to answer for myself the real meaning of Individual Liberty, and also Is America an exceptional country because of it? As you recall, Barack Obama said publicly he does not believe it is. In all my wildest dreams I could have never imagined an American President thinking that, much less hearing a president of the United States make that statement.
As I began, I was reminded very quickly that freedom is not something granted to us by the government. It is not something the government allows us to have, but one of our God given unalienable rights. It is one of the sacred rights of all mankind endowed upon us by God Almighty, our Creator. If we are herded and driven like cattle, dictated to by government as though they own us and we are subjects of that government, it is because we have lost our God-given right to be free, which He bestowed upon us at birth.
I learned in my search, of all the wonderful things America is about, that Individual Freedom is our most precious and greatest treasure. Individual Liberty is the absence of government restraint on our ability to think and act for ourselves. Individual Liberty is being free from government oppression and regulation, and it automatically carries with it individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. Freedom is the capacity for self-determination. It is not cast in stone to forever be, but it is a condition, and conditions can change. Individual Freedom can grow and expand, but it can also shrink and disappear. The spirit of Liberty has to be in the population. Individual Freedom will only be preserved as long as there is devotion to freedom expressed in the hearts and actions of the people. Our desire for Individual Liberty must be stronger than Obama’s desire to turn us into his subjects under a Socialist government of America or we will become slaves to him and that government. He will have accomplished his goal.
In 1775 Alexander Hamilton said, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased.” President Bush said a few years ago, “History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart.”
In his address at the Gettysburg National Cemetery, president Lincoln declared, “It is for us the living to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so nobly advanced.” That unfinished work for which so many American soldiers willingly go to the battles of war, and which so many have given the full measure of devotion, is the cause of The United States of America as an exceptional country of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. I here declare to you, that work will never be finished. It is up to each generation to continue the work and keep the American spirit of Individual Freedom alive in every heart.
Barack Obama campaigned on “fundamental change in America.” Had he given us the details of what he meant by that, I seriously doubt he would have been elected. Americans were not looking to change Individual Liberty for subjugation to an expanding Federal Socialist government with more and more regulation of almost every aspect of our lives. We have become a strong and exceptional nation through the self reliance of Individual Freedom, and the preservation of that liberty through the spilling of the blood of our fellow patriots. The more power we allow Barack Obama and the Federal Government to amass the less Individual Freedom we will have. Freedom is a birthright from God. If we become government slaves it is because we allowed it to be taken from us.
Our great nation was given birth, out of the womb of a bloody revolution for liberty, as a Representative Republic of Free Individuals, not one of Socialism and collective slaves of government. Americans everywhere, we had better get involved and take a stand against government control of our lives. Now is not the time to be silent as Barrack Obama attempts to dismantle this great country and bring it down to a lower level of the Socialist countries of Europe. Now is the time for us to be resolved to protect and defend our Individual Freedom. We hear it said Obama is not a leader, that he is incompetent. It is very true that he is not a leader for a Representative Republic of Free Individuals, for he does not believe in the system of government which our Founders established. But he is an exceptional leader in the effort to turn America into a Socialist nation.
To everyone who will listen and hear, never believe for a moment that Barack Obama is incompetent. I submit to you, he knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. He spent most of his early years studying and learning how to do it under the teachings of the Socialist Revolutionary Saul Alinsky; his Chicago neighbor Bill Ayers, and others. These men now have one of their own positioned in the White House. As Barack Obama summarized at the height of his campaign: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” He does not believe we are an exceptional nation. Be not deceived, Barack Obama sees America very differently than our Founding Fathers and how you and I see America.
I earnestly pray that Barack Obama is defeated in his bid for a second term as president. Given the manner in which he is now shredding the Constitution, if given four more years to act, knowing he doesn’t have to answer to us for his actions, the damage he can and will do in tearing down and destroying this country as a Representative Republic, is at present unimaginable.
Please feel free to pass this to whom ever you wish. You may leave my information below intact. I am not afraid.
God Bless America, Please.
SOURCE: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46941?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=b8e1ff45e8-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Seek His Face and Earn His Grace
by Diane Rufino
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." --- Thomas Jefferson
What is happening in the US? Are we turning away from God, as many claim, or are we witnessing just the opposite? Are we seeing the error of our ways and turning towards Him?
Are we, as a nation, witnessing a Christian restoration or an atheist transformation?
I think the answer is that both forces are engaged in a great struggle. The progressive nature of our courts combined with the misinterpretation of our Bill of Rights, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, and combined with the enormous power of the liberal media have allowed the atheist movement to have greater force than it deserves. To counter that movement, Christians and Christian organizations must fight against incredible odds, most notably the courts, the "wall of separation," and the liberally-biased media. It comes as no surprise that our government and the "establishment" is harboring an increasing hostility towards faith. Yet the Christian resistance is growing.
We've taken God out of our schools and out of our seats of government. We've removed crosses and other Christian symbols from public squares and from national cemeteries. We've perverted the meaning of the First Amendment with a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution - the "Wall of Separation" - so that we can systematically remove important and traditional human values from society and avoid expensive lawsuits. The First Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values but rather it was written to protect those values from government and government tyranny. We've watched as a Culture of Immorality has enveloped the country starting with the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and are suffering from its natural consequences. Yet churches are growing larger. In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that women can kill their unborn under the constitutional protection of "privacy," but 39 years later, the pro-life voice grows louder and stronger.
We have a huge segment of society benefitting from the hard work, property, and taxation of others. About 50% of Americans are being used to support the other 50% in a lifestyle that the government continues to redefine and upgrade. This is institutionalized sloth and envy -- two of the Christian mortal sins. Some say it is the new form of slavery. Indeed, every person who benefits from the effort and property of another is himself a petty tyrant and a slave master. Yet as the entitlement ranks increase, the outrage against such human decay builds and people are urging a return to the policies of ethics, morality, and personal responsibility. As long as people can embrace these values, there is the hope of earned success and human dignity.
We have a president who wants ever so strongly to have government compel religious groups to provide birth control and abortion services - services that so fundamentally offend religious principles and offend our constitutionally protected Right of Religious Conscience - to further the agenda of Women's Rights. But instead, our country realized that a line had been crossed and the president was forced to retreat from his policy. The fight of gays and lesbians for the right to marry may cause many, particularly our unprincipled youth, to argue "Why Not?" but it causes countless others to re-connect with their religious values.
So, is it possible we are witnessing a Christian revival?
Those who came to America's shores did so under an apparent covenant with God. As Governor John Winthrop pledged in 1630 on board the Arbella, which set out for America's shores:
"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.
CONTINUED: http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." --- Thomas Jefferson
What is happening in the US? Are we turning away from God, as many claim, or are we witnessing just the opposite? Are we seeing the error of our ways and turning towards Him?
Are we, as a nation, witnessing a Christian restoration or an atheist transformation?
I think the answer is that both forces are engaged in a great struggle. The progressive nature of our courts combined with the misinterpretation of our Bill of Rights, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, and combined with the enormous power of the liberal media have allowed the atheist movement to have greater force than it deserves. To counter that movement, Christians and Christian organizations must fight against incredible odds, most notably the courts, the "wall of separation," and the liberally-biased media. It comes as no surprise that our government and the "establishment" is harboring an increasing hostility towards faith. Yet the Christian resistance is growing.
We've taken God out of our schools and out of our seats of government. We've removed crosses and other Christian symbols from public squares and from national cemeteries. We've perverted the meaning of the First Amendment with a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution - the "Wall of Separation" - so that we can systematically remove important and traditional human values from society and avoid expensive lawsuits. The First Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values but rather it was written to protect those values from government and government tyranny. We've watched as a Culture of Immorality has enveloped the country starting with the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and are suffering from its natural consequences. Yet churches are growing larger. In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that women can kill their unborn under the constitutional protection of "privacy," but 39 years later, the pro-life voice grows louder and stronger.
We have a huge segment of society benefitting from the hard work, property, and taxation of others. About 50% of Americans are being used to support the other 50% in a lifestyle that the government continues to redefine and upgrade. This is institutionalized sloth and envy -- two of the Christian mortal sins. Some say it is the new form of slavery. Indeed, every person who benefits from the effort and property of another is himself a petty tyrant and a slave master. Yet as the entitlement ranks increase, the outrage against such human decay builds and people are urging a return to the policies of ethics, morality, and personal responsibility. As long as people can embrace these values, there is the hope of earned success and human dignity.
We have a president who wants ever so strongly to have government compel religious groups to provide birth control and abortion services - services that so fundamentally offend religious principles and offend our constitutionally protected Right of Religious Conscience - to further the agenda of Women's Rights. But instead, our country realized that a line had been crossed and the president was forced to retreat from his policy. The fight of gays and lesbians for the right to marry may cause many, particularly our unprincipled youth, to argue "Why Not?" but it causes countless others to re-connect with their religious values.
So, is it possible we are witnessing a Christian revival?
Those who came to America's shores did so under an apparent covenant with God. As Governor John Winthrop pledged in 1630 on board the Arbella, which set out for America's shores:
"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.
CONTINUED: http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/
Monday, April 30, 2012
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
Why a Marriage Amendment?
by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012
My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.
Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."
Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.
The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.
A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.
Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012
Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.
In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."
In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "
Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.
The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.
Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.
In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.
There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]
[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].
Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.
It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”
Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:
"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.
It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.
Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.
Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."
Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."
Wilkins went on to write:
“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”
The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'
The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."
But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)
Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)
Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).
A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.
And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:
"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.
As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'
Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.
Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.
Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.
Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).
2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.
Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.
This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.
Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.
The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.
The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.
The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.
By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."
Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."
References:
Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment
Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html
W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369
"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8
Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.
Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --
Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)
Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!
Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.
Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!
The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).
When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.
A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.
<> (Wiki)
A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....
<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]
<>
In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.
North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!
This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th
by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012
My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.
Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."
Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.
The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.
A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.
Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012
Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.
In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."
In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "
Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.
The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.
Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.
In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.
There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]
[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].
Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.
It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”
Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:
"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.
It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.
Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.
Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."
Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."
Wilkins went on to write:
“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”
The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'
The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."
But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)
Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)
Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).
A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.
And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:
"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.
As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'
Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.
Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.
Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.
Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).
2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.
Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.
This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.
Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.
The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.
The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.
The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.
By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."
Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."
References:
Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment
Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html
W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369
"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8
Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.
Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --
Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)
Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!
Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.
Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!
The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).
When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.
A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.
<
A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....
<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]
<
In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.
North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!
This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th
Monday, April 9, 2012
NC Reneagade: Love and the Marriage Amendment
The upcoming marriage amendment in North Carolina has been twisted into an issue between homosexuality and its place in a Christian nation. The Bible clearly outlines in both the Old and the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin. Any church that preaches otherwise is not teaching the Word of God. A comment on an earlier article used a fallacious argument concerning this issue stating that Jesus said to love one another. Although this is true, this is twisting the Word of God by not understanding the definition of love in different contexts. Part of this problem is due to translation from Hebrew, Greek, Latin into English and most recently, politically correct English. There are four different types of love in the Bible. Our English translations do not differentiate between the four types of love and our churches are at fault for not teaching what may be offensive to their parishioners.
My response to the comment concerning Jesus saying to love one another is shown here:
What is the judgment for those who twist the Word of God:
Romans 1
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Which was countered back with this:
You can’t twist this. This is directly from the Son of God.
New International Version (NIV)
John 13:34-35
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Here are the four types of love in the Bible that will hopefully clarify this issue:
Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.
This Greek word and variations of it are found throughout the New Testament. Agape perfectly describes the kind of love Jesus Christ has for his Father and for his followers:
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (John 14:21, NIV)
Eros is the physical, sensual love between a husband and wife.
Although this Greek term does not appear in the Bible, eros, or erotic love, is portrayed in the Old Testament book, The Song of Solomon. God is very clear in his Word. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
God created humans male and female and instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. Within marriage, sex is used for emotional and spiritual bonding and for reproduction.
Philia means close friendship or brotherly love in Greek. It is one of the four types of love in the Bible.
Philia and other forms of this Greek noun are found throughout the New Testament. Christians are frequently exhorted to love their fellow Christians:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Romans 12:10 ESV)
Storge is family love, the bond among mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.
As with eros, this Greek term does not appear in the Bible. However, many examples of family love are found in Scripture, such as the love and mutual protection among Noah and his wife, their sons and daughters-in-law in Genesis; the love of Jacob for his sons; and the strong love the sisters Martha and Mary in the gospels had for their brother Lazarus.
The family was a vital part of ancient Jewish culture. In the Ten Commandments, God charges his people to:
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12, NIV)
If two people want to have a civil union and enjoy the same rights and benefits as provided by the government, that is between them and the government. Marriage however is a union between God, one man and one woman by definition. You do not need a marriage certificate issued by the “state” in order to be married in the eyes of our Lord, you need a marriage covenant overseen by the church. This is another example where we allow the state to control our religion. Using Eros love as a substitute for Philia love does not justify homosexuality or its application in the holy union known as marriage.
Let us be clear: this issue is not about marriage but an attack on religion. As for the argument that Jesus said to love another (in the context of Eros love), then this argument can next be expanded to allow a man to love children in the same manner.
For more information about how to be married in the God’s eyes, click here for instructions. Here is first of four videos listed on the instructions’ article.
CONTINUED: http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/love-and-the-marriage-amendment/
My response to the comment concerning Jesus saying to love one another is shown here:
What is the judgment for those who twist the Word of God:
Romans 1
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Which was countered back with this:
You can’t twist this. This is directly from the Son of God.
New International Version (NIV)
John 13:34-35
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Here are the four types of love in the Bible that will hopefully clarify this issue:
Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.
This Greek word and variations of it are found throughout the New Testament. Agape perfectly describes the kind of love Jesus Christ has for his Father and for his followers:
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (John 14:21, NIV)
Eros is the physical, sensual love between a husband and wife.
Although this Greek term does not appear in the Bible, eros, or erotic love, is portrayed in the Old Testament book, The Song of Solomon. God is very clear in his Word. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
God created humans male and female and instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. Within marriage, sex is used for emotional and spiritual bonding and for reproduction.
Philia means close friendship or brotherly love in Greek. It is one of the four types of love in the Bible.
Philia and other forms of this Greek noun are found throughout the New Testament. Christians are frequently exhorted to love their fellow Christians:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Romans 12:10 ESV)
Storge is family love, the bond among mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.
As with eros, this Greek term does not appear in the Bible. However, many examples of family love are found in Scripture, such as the love and mutual protection among Noah and his wife, their sons and daughters-in-law in Genesis; the love of Jacob for his sons; and the strong love the sisters Martha and Mary in the gospels had for their brother Lazarus.
The family was a vital part of ancient Jewish culture. In the Ten Commandments, God charges his people to:
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12, NIV)
If two people want to have a civil union and enjoy the same rights and benefits as provided by the government, that is between them and the government. Marriage however is a union between God, one man and one woman by definition. You do not need a marriage certificate issued by the “state” in order to be married in the eyes of our Lord, you need a marriage covenant overseen by the church. This is another example where we allow the state to control our religion. Using Eros love as a substitute for Philia love does not justify homosexuality or its application in the holy union known as marriage.
Let us be clear: this issue is not about marriage but an attack on religion. As for the argument that Jesus said to love another (in the context of Eros love), then this argument can next be expanded to allow a man to love children in the same manner.
For more information about how to be married in the God’s eyes, click here for instructions. Here is first of four videos listed on the instructions’ article.
CONTINUED: http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/love-and-the-marriage-amendment/
Thursday, April 5, 2012
MA School Removes ‘God’ From Lee Greenwood‘s ’God Bless the U.S.A’ During Assembly
Is God under attack in Massachusetts? This is a question that some of the state’s residents may be asking after the Stall Brook Elementary School in Bellingham removed the word “God” from Lee Greenwood’s, “God Bless the U.S.A.” The song was reportedly changed to, “We love the U.S.A.” Then, following outrage, the school pulled the song all together from a fourth-grade assembly.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ma-school-removes-god-from-lee-greenwoods-god-bless-the-u-s-a-during-assembly/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ma-school-removes-god-from-lee-greenwoods-god-bless-the-u-s-a-during-assembly/
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sun Journal New Bern, Letter to the Editor: Prayer, by CCTA Member, Tyker Gonzales
March 9, 2012
After reading this past Sunday’s paper and the letters to the editor, one struck my eye, and actually my heart. It was a rebuttal letter referring to Mrs. Dorothy Vogel’s letter about prayer, specifically the right to do so in the name of Jesus Christ. While reading the rebuttal there seemed to be anger in the writing that came forth through the words and I would like to help explain some issues that I hope will remove any anger.
First, I do believe that praying in the name of Jesus is a freedom. Until the past few years it was never questioned. It was just something that most of us (here in the Bible belt especially) are used to doing because Jesus says in the Bible, "And whatever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son," so this is why Christians pray in the name of Jesus. It’s not meant to offend anyone (although for some reason it does); it’s never been a mandate for all to participate, in fact to the contrary. Just as God gives each one of us a choice in whether or not to believe in Him, His Son and the Holy Spirit, He never would force us to love Him let alone force us to pray to Him. By giving us this choice, He shows His love for us. If you don’t believe, that is absolutely up to you, but according to the Christian belief, a lack of thereof will not land you in a positive place after death. Again let me stress, this is not mandated; all are choices. That is true freedom. Christians are supposed to be Christ-like, therefore they also give others their freedom in whether or not to participate in prayer or sharing in the faith.
Let me explain it this way: I have children. I love them both with every part of my being and I want them to love me in the same manner, but I can’t make them love me. Even if I could it wouldn’t be the same; they would be more like robots. I want them to love me because THEY WANT TO. To a Christian, what is love? "Love is patient, love is kind, love does not envy, love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek it’s own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the Truth, ... Love never fails … now abide in faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love." This is how I want to be loved, this is how God wants to be loved, this is how, if we truly love, are supposed to be, loving others as ourselves, again all by choice, one that we are supposed to be free to make.
Why would anyone think that because a prayer is offered in Jesus’ name, that all in attendance are being forced/mandated to pray? All prayer is, is showing love, love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and love for the people. Why does that offended people? What a sad place this world is in when love becomes offensive.
Now, America was formed on the basis of freedom. Separation of church and state was placed to keep the government from mandating religion on its people. Offering a prayer before meetings, school gatherings or any other function is again, not a mandate of participation and I am unaware of any such event with the disclaimer that "all must pray." If there are those who wish not to, they can just remain silent for a few moments. It is however a freedom that those who are leading whatever said event can chose to do as individual people of this great free nation. If the leaders of such events were Muslim, Buddhists, Jewish or any other religion, I would expect their prayers to be offered, but it certainly doesn’t mean I would be forced to pray with them either. If the ones leading are refused the right to pray in whatever name they chose as members of this nation, isn’t that in itself a violation of their freedom?
Did the people themselves not vote these representatives of the people into office? If the people didn’t want "Christians" in office then one would assume they wouldn’t vote for one. However in this country, the majority of voters choose who will represent them and we happen to have (I’m proud to say) seven Christian men who represent Craven County as commissioners. They all pray, they all have the right to pray, as they believe in or out of office. If the majority of the voters of this county wanted otherwise, they would have voted for others who were non-believers. But the amazing fact is, most folks who have run for these offices are also Christian. If and when our country reaches a point of a majority of atheists or any given religion other then Christianity, I suppose we will have to follow the will of the people then, but we are not there now.
I watched an interview with one of the Rowan County commissioners. The Rowan commissioners are continuing to pray with no changes even in light of the recent courts decision. The reporter asked a question as to this particular commissioner’s position with upholding the Constitution (referring to the separation of church and state). His response was beautiful … he stated that his hand was on the BIBLE as he took the oath, what about his personal rights of freedom of religion and speech?
I am not angry, but again am hurt that so many who claim the title of Christian would rather keep silent then to exercise their freedom of religion and speech. Jesus said, "You will be persecuted for my name’s sake." If we don’t speak His name no one will have to worry about persecution. There are hundreds of examples throughout the Scriptures where silence was not an option. If the disciples had been silent, Christianity would have been over 2,000 years ago. If the Jewish descendants had been silent, their faith and populations would have become extinct.
I had a friend tell me to turn the other cheek, but this is not my cheek to turn. I will gladly let anyone criticize me, dislike me, reprimand me, and give them additional opportunities to do so and still love them while praying for them. But I cannot be silent while the main faith that this nation was founded upon is continually denied the freedom of being represented.
I will love ALL willingly, I will keep my faith and I will pray in Jesus’ name always especially for those who persecute the faith in whatever form.
Tyker Gonzales, Cove City, NC
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/sunday-104955-letter-past.html
After reading this past Sunday’s paper and the letters to the editor, one struck my eye, and actually my heart. It was a rebuttal letter referring to Mrs. Dorothy Vogel’s letter about prayer, specifically the right to do so in the name of Jesus Christ. While reading the rebuttal there seemed to be anger in the writing that came forth through the words and I would like to help explain some issues that I hope will remove any anger.
First, I do believe that praying in the name of Jesus is a freedom. Until the past few years it was never questioned. It was just something that most of us (here in the Bible belt especially) are used to doing because Jesus says in the Bible, "And whatever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son," so this is why Christians pray in the name of Jesus. It’s not meant to offend anyone (although for some reason it does); it’s never been a mandate for all to participate, in fact to the contrary. Just as God gives each one of us a choice in whether or not to believe in Him, His Son and the Holy Spirit, He never would force us to love Him let alone force us to pray to Him. By giving us this choice, He shows His love for us. If you don’t believe, that is absolutely up to you, but according to the Christian belief, a lack of thereof will not land you in a positive place after death. Again let me stress, this is not mandated; all are choices. That is true freedom. Christians are supposed to be Christ-like, therefore they also give others their freedom in whether or not to participate in prayer or sharing in the faith.
Let me explain it this way: I have children. I love them both with every part of my being and I want them to love me in the same manner, but I can’t make them love me. Even if I could it wouldn’t be the same; they would be more like robots. I want them to love me because THEY WANT TO. To a Christian, what is love? "Love is patient, love is kind, love does not envy, love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek it’s own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the Truth, ... Love never fails … now abide in faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love." This is how I want to be loved, this is how God wants to be loved, this is how, if we truly love, are supposed to be, loving others as ourselves, again all by choice, one that we are supposed to be free to make.
Why would anyone think that because a prayer is offered in Jesus’ name, that all in attendance are being forced/mandated to pray? All prayer is, is showing love, love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and love for the people. Why does that offended people? What a sad place this world is in when love becomes offensive.
Now, America was formed on the basis of freedom. Separation of church and state was placed to keep the government from mandating religion on its people. Offering a prayer before meetings, school gatherings or any other function is again, not a mandate of participation and I am unaware of any such event with the disclaimer that "all must pray." If there are those who wish not to, they can just remain silent for a few moments. It is however a freedom that those who are leading whatever said event can chose to do as individual people of this great free nation. If the leaders of such events were Muslim, Buddhists, Jewish or any other religion, I would expect their prayers to be offered, but it certainly doesn’t mean I would be forced to pray with them either. If the ones leading are refused the right to pray in whatever name they chose as members of this nation, isn’t that in itself a violation of their freedom?
Did the people themselves not vote these representatives of the people into office? If the people didn’t want "Christians" in office then one would assume they wouldn’t vote for one. However in this country, the majority of voters choose who will represent them and we happen to have (I’m proud to say) seven Christian men who represent Craven County as commissioners. They all pray, they all have the right to pray, as they believe in or out of office. If the majority of the voters of this county wanted otherwise, they would have voted for others who were non-believers. But the amazing fact is, most folks who have run for these offices are also Christian. If and when our country reaches a point of a majority of atheists or any given religion other then Christianity, I suppose we will have to follow the will of the people then, but we are not there now.
I watched an interview with one of the Rowan County commissioners. The Rowan commissioners are continuing to pray with no changes even in light of the recent courts decision. The reporter asked a question as to this particular commissioner’s position with upholding the Constitution (referring to the separation of church and state). His response was beautiful … he stated that his hand was on the BIBLE as he took the oath, what about his personal rights of freedom of religion and speech?
I am not angry, but again am hurt that so many who claim the title of Christian would rather keep silent then to exercise their freedom of religion and speech. Jesus said, "You will be persecuted for my name’s sake." If we don’t speak His name no one will have to worry about persecution. There are hundreds of examples throughout the Scriptures where silence was not an option. If the disciples had been silent, Christianity would have been over 2,000 years ago. If the Jewish descendants had been silent, their faith and populations would have become extinct.
I had a friend tell me to turn the other cheek, but this is not my cheek to turn. I will gladly let anyone criticize me, dislike me, reprimand me, and give them additional opportunities to do so and still love them while praying for them. But I cannot be silent while the main faith that this nation was founded upon is continually denied the freedom of being represented.
I will love ALL willingly, I will keep my faith and I will pray in Jesus’ name always especially for those who persecute the faith in whatever form.
Tyker Gonzales, Cove City, NC
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/sunday-104955-letter-past.html
Friday, March 9, 2012
What Happened To “We The People”?
‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’* (Preamble to the Constitution of United States).
‘We the People,’ by God’s providence, formed the Constitution of the United States of America. It was a ‘Model of Liberty.’ Its laws favored no people and insured peace and protection for its citizens. It promoted prosperity and every liberty imaginable to a free nation. America became the greatest nation on earth. ‘We the People’ were united by freedom’s cause. There were no bounds of opportunity in our free society. ‘We the People’ dreamed big dreams – and Yankee ingenuity yielded abundant fulfillment. ‘We the People’ could speak freely, worship freely, and teach our children the benefits of living in a republic, where all were represented equally. ‘We the People’ could afford to generously help other nations. America enjoyed the ‘Blessings of Liberty.’
CONTINUED:http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-happened-to-we-the-people/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=0f3f660d7e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
‘We the People,’ by God’s providence, formed the Constitution of the United States of America. It was a ‘Model of Liberty.’ Its laws favored no people and insured peace and protection for its citizens. It promoted prosperity and every liberty imaginable to a free nation. America became the greatest nation on earth. ‘We the People’ were united by freedom’s cause. There were no bounds of opportunity in our free society. ‘We the People’ dreamed big dreams – and Yankee ingenuity yielded abundant fulfillment. ‘We the People’ could speak freely, worship freely, and teach our children the benefits of living in a republic, where all were represented equally. ‘We the People’ could afford to generously help other nations. America enjoyed the ‘Blessings of Liberty.’
CONTINUED:http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-happened-to-we-the-people/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=0f3f660d7e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor by CCTA Chairman, Nancy Murdoch
If something is said as truth enough times, many will assume that it is true.
However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.
The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?
Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?
Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.
How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.
Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes
However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.
The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?
Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?
Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.
How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.
Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Also Recommended by the CCTA BOARD!
BIBLIOGRAPHY RE SURVIVAL – “God, Gold & Government”*
Browne, Harry, HOW YOU CAN PROFIT FROM THE COMING DEVALUATION. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Browne, Harry, NEW PROFITS FROM THE MONETARY CRISIS. New York: A Warner Communications Co., 1978.
Burstein, Daniel, YEN! Japan’s New Financial Empire and Its Threat to America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Casey, Douglas R., CRISIS INVESTING. (Stansberry mentions “Doug Casey” in his letter! I happen to have a paperback copy on my shelf.) New York: Gulf & Western Corp., 1979,
Davis, Nord, Jr., Pardon Me, but… (Newsletters on file)
• #41 Wood, Hay, and Stubble!
• #45 The International Symbol of the Christian Anticommunist
• #49 ‘Peace’
• #53 NOTICE! I AM OFFERING TO BUY YOUR MONEY
• #55 What’s Next
• #70 What’s Next
Egan, MD, Merritt H. HOME STORAGE, Advice Prepared & Compiled by…
Greaves, Jr., Percy L., UNDERSTANDING THE DOLLAR CRISIS. Boston: Western Islands, 1973.
Hazlitt, Henry, WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INFLATION. New York: Conservative Book Club, Omnibus Vol. 2, 1963.
Hayek, F. A., DENATIONALISATION OF MONEY, The Argument Refined. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978.
*Kershner, Howard E., GOD, GOLD AND GOVERNMENT: The Interrelationship Of Christianity, Freedom, Self-Government And Economic Well Being. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957.
McManus, John F., FINANCIAL TERRORISM, Hijacking America Under the Threat of Bankruptcy. Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 1993.
Merton, Frederic, THE ROTHCHILDS, A FAMILY PORTRAIT. New York: Fawcett World Library (Crest Book) 1961.
Peters, Harvey W., AMERICA’S COMING BANKRUPTCY (How the Government is Wrecking Your Dollar. New York: Arlington House, 1975.
Popp, Dr. Edward E., MONEY ***BONA FIDE OR NON-BONA FIDE. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Education Fund, 1970.
Preston, Robert L., HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE COMING CRASH. Utah: Hawkes Publications, 1972.
Rickenbacker, William F., DEATH OF THE DOLLAR. New York: Arlington House, 1968.
Robison A.M., John, PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY 1798. Boston: Western Islands, 1967.
Rogers, Donald I., HOW TO BEAT INFLATION BY USING IT. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Ruff, Howard J., HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS (A Crash Course in Personal and Financial Survival). New York: The New York Times Book Co., Inc. 1979.
Skousen, Mark, COMPLETE GUIDE TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY. Virginia: Alexandria House, 1980.
Shultz, Harry D., WHAT THE PRUDENT INVESTOR SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SWITZERLAND. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Tobias, Andrew, THE FUNNY MONEY GAME. Great Britain: Tonbridge Printers Ltd., 1972.
Turner, Dennis, WHEN YOUR BANK FAILS (An In-depth Analysis and Survival Workbook). New Jersey: Amwell Publishing, Inc., 1983.
Walker, Major General Edwin A. Walker, CENSORSHIP AND SURVIVAL. New York: The Bookmailer, Inc., 1961.
Webster, Nesta H., WORLD REVOLUTION(The Plot Against Civilization). London: Constable and Company, Ltd. 1921.
Webster, Nesta H., THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (A Study in Democracy). London: Constable and Company, Ltd. 1919, reprinted 1969.
Browne, Harry, HOW YOU CAN PROFIT FROM THE COMING DEVALUATION. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Browne, Harry, NEW PROFITS FROM THE MONETARY CRISIS. New York: A Warner Communications Co., 1978.
Burstein, Daniel, YEN! Japan’s New Financial Empire and Its Threat to America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Casey, Douglas R., CRISIS INVESTING. (Stansberry mentions “Doug Casey” in his letter! I happen to have a paperback copy on my shelf.) New York: Gulf & Western Corp., 1979,
Davis, Nord, Jr., Pardon Me, but… (Newsletters on file)
• #41 Wood, Hay, and Stubble!
• #45 The International Symbol of the Christian Anticommunist
• #49 ‘Peace’
• #53 NOTICE! I AM OFFERING TO BUY YOUR MONEY
• #55 What’s Next
• #70 What’s Next
Egan, MD, Merritt H. HOME STORAGE, Advice Prepared & Compiled by…
Greaves, Jr., Percy L., UNDERSTANDING THE DOLLAR CRISIS. Boston: Western Islands, 1973.
Hazlitt, Henry, WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INFLATION. New York: Conservative Book Club, Omnibus Vol. 2, 1963.
Hayek, F. A., DENATIONALISATION OF MONEY, The Argument Refined. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978.
*Kershner, Howard E., GOD, GOLD AND GOVERNMENT: The Interrelationship Of Christianity, Freedom, Self-Government And Economic Well Being. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957.
McManus, John F., FINANCIAL TERRORISM, Hijacking America Under the Threat of Bankruptcy. Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 1993.
Merton, Frederic, THE ROTHCHILDS, A FAMILY PORTRAIT. New York: Fawcett World Library (Crest Book) 1961.
Peters, Harvey W., AMERICA’S COMING BANKRUPTCY (How the Government is Wrecking Your Dollar. New York: Arlington House, 1975.
Popp, Dr. Edward E., MONEY ***BONA FIDE OR NON-BONA FIDE. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Education Fund, 1970.
Preston, Robert L., HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE COMING CRASH. Utah: Hawkes Publications, 1972.
Rickenbacker, William F., DEATH OF THE DOLLAR. New York: Arlington House, 1968.
Robison A.M., John, PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY 1798. Boston: Western Islands, 1967.
Rogers, Donald I., HOW TO BEAT INFLATION BY USING IT. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Ruff, Howard J., HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS (A Crash Course in Personal and Financial Survival). New York: The New York Times Book Co., Inc. 1979.
Skousen, Mark, COMPLETE GUIDE TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY. Virginia: Alexandria House, 1980.
Shultz, Harry D., WHAT THE PRUDENT INVESTOR SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SWITZERLAND. New York: Arlington House, 1970.
Tobias, Andrew, THE FUNNY MONEY GAME. Great Britain: Tonbridge Printers Ltd., 1972.
Turner, Dennis, WHEN YOUR BANK FAILS (An In-depth Analysis and Survival Workbook). New Jersey: Amwell Publishing, Inc., 1983.
Walker, Major General Edwin A. Walker, CENSORSHIP AND SURVIVAL. New York: The Bookmailer, Inc., 1961.
Webster, Nesta H., WORLD REVOLUTION(The Plot Against Civilization). London: Constable and Company, Ltd. 1921.
Webster, Nesta H., THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (A Study in Democracy). London: Constable and Company, Ltd. 1919, reprinted 1969.
Monday, December 26, 2011
MORNING BELL: Faith in America—Matt Spalding, December 26, 2011
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time," Thomas Jefferson once wrote. "The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Among the American Founders, there was a profound sense that faith and freedom were deeply intertwined.
Nowadays, we are often told that religion is divisive and ought to kept away from politics for the sake of liberty. Religion somehow is opposed to liberty, and so liberty requires a diminution of religion in the public square.
The view long consistent with our historical practice, though, is that of America's Founders, who advanced religious liberty so as to strengthen religious faith and its influence on American self-government. All had a natural right to worship God as they chose, according to the dictates of their consciences. At the same time, the Founders upheld religion and morality--to paraphrase Washington's Farewell Address--as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness.
Religious liberty neither settles nor dismisses the claims of reason and revelation to teach the most important things for human beings to know. But it does create a practical solution--after thousands of years of failed attempts--at the level of politics and political morality. It established a form of government that is sanctioned by human nature and open to moral reasoning, the legitimacy of which does not depend on the truth of any particular religious denomination.
This solution is possible because the American Founders recognized general moral precepts that are understandable by human reason and no less agreeable to faith in the form of a general revelation of creation. This morality common to both natural reason and divine revelation, usually termed natural law, is the philosophical ground of the American Founding.
We can see this agreement of reason and revelation in the Declaration of Independence. The liberties recognized in it are deduced from a higher law to which all human laws are answerable and by which they are limited. This higher law can be understood by man's practical reason--the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"--but also by the revealed word of God. There are four references to God in the document: to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"; to all men being "created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others--God as creator, as judge, and as providence--are more biblical, and add (and were assuredly intended to add) a theological context to the document.
From the perspective of religious faith, the basic principles of the Founding, at the level of political principles, were understood to be in essential agreement with the core precepts of the Bible. That this is the case can be seen throughout the many church sermons published from the founding era. While we have never been and should not try to become a nation defined by a particular or official religious denomination, we must never forget that, as the Supreme Court said in 1952 (and reiterated in 1963, and again in 1984), "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/morning-bell-faith-in-america/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Nowadays, we are often told that religion is divisive and ought to kept away from politics for the sake of liberty. Religion somehow is opposed to liberty, and so liberty requires a diminution of religion in the public square.
The view long consistent with our historical practice, though, is that of America's Founders, who advanced religious liberty so as to strengthen religious faith and its influence on American self-government. All had a natural right to worship God as they chose, according to the dictates of their consciences. At the same time, the Founders upheld religion and morality--to paraphrase Washington's Farewell Address--as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness.
Religious liberty neither settles nor dismisses the claims of reason and revelation to teach the most important things for human beings to know. But it does create a practical solution--after thousands of years of failed attempts--at the level of politics and political morality. It established a form of government that is sanctioned by human nature and open to moral reasoning, the legitimacy of which does not depend on the truth of any particular religious denomination.
This solution is possible because the American Founders recognized general moral precepts that are understandable by human reason and no less agreeable to faith in the form of a general revelation of creation. This morality common to both natural reason and divine revelation, usually termed natural law, is the philosophical ground of the American Founding.
We can see this agreement of reason and revelation in the Declaration of Independence. The liberties recognized in it are deduced from a higher law to which all human laws are answerable and by which they are limited. This higher law can be understood by man's practical reason--the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"--but also by the revealed word of God. There are four references to God in the document: to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"; to all men being "created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others--God as creator, as judge, and as providence--are more biblical, and add (and were assuredly intended to add) a theological context to the document.
From the perspective of religious faith, the basic principles of the Founding, at the level of political principles, were understood to be in essential agreement with the core precepts of the Bible. That this is the case can be seen throughout the many church sermons published from the founding era. While we have never been and should not try to become a nation defined by a particular or official religious denomination, we must never forget that, as the Supreme Court said in 1952 (and reiterated in 1963, and again in 1984), "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/morning-bell-faith-in-america/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Chuck Norris: Feds' War on Religion (Part 1 of 2)
December 20, 2011
By Chuck Norris
Anyone who knows me knows that for my whole life, I've been a huge supporter of our U.S. military personnel, whom I congratulate about their victory in Iraq. But when our president and officials in the U.S. Department of Defense exchange a war abroad for a religious war at home, can't we see that something else is seriously awry in this administration?
It's one thing to watch "merry Christmas" be omitted from signs in your favorite department store but quite another to see Bibles withheld from wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. It's true! On Dec. 2, the Family Research Council reported that it had discovered a memo released in September at the esteemed military hospital, in which Navy officials announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."
Thank God for those in the FRC, as well as Rep. Randy Forbes and other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who demanded to meet with officials at Walter Reed and in the Navy about the matter. Just a few days ago, Vice Adm. John Mateczun confessed that the memo had not been properly evaluated and was being rescinded, and Walter Reed posted a public apology on its website.
But imagine if the FRC had not found this memo. Imagine how many others like it aren't found and are circulated around the federal government.
If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.
--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.
--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."
--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.
--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."
--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.
--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."
--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.
--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.
--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.
--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.
--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.
--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.
What is going on in the U.S. military? Why is it so difficult for the feds to understand the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which says they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
And how many of these restrictions of our religious liberties are direct results of President Obama's being in office? And if these occurred in just the past six months, imagine what would happen in another four years if Obama were to be re-elected. Our service members, as well as our devoted military Christian chaplains, deserve better.
MORE:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2
By Chuck Norris
Anyone who knows me knows that for my whole life, I've been a huge supporter of our U.S. military personnel, whom I congratulate about their victory in Iraq. But when our president and officials in the U.S. Department of Defense exchange a war abroad for a religious war at home, can't we see that something else is seriously awry in this administration?
It's one thing to watch "merry Christmas" be omitted from signs in your favorite department store but quite another to see Bibles withheld from wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. It's true! On Dec. 2, the Family Research Council reported that it had discovered a memo released in September at the esteemed military hospital, in which Navy officials announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."
Thank God for those in the FRC, as well as Rep. Randy Forbes and other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who demanded to meet with officials at Walter Reed and in the Navy about the matter. Just a few days ago, Vice Adm. John Mateczun confessed that the memo had not been properly evaluated and was being rescinded, and Walter Reed posted a public apology on its website.
But imagine if the FRC had not found this memo. Imagine how many others like it aren't found and are circulated around the federal government.
If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.
--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.
--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."
--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.
--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."
--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.
--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."
--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.
--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.
--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.
--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.
--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.
--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.
What is going on in the U.S. military? Why is it so difficult for the feds to understand the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which says they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
And how many of these restrictions of our religious liberties are direct results of President Obama's being in office? And if these occurred in just the past six months, imagine what would happen in another four years if Obama were to be re-elected. Our service members, as well as our devoted military Christian chaplains, deserve better.
MORE:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2
Monday, December 19, 2011
‘Homosexuality Is a Sin’: Rick Perry Tells Bisexual Teen Why He Opposes Gays in the Military
A 14 year old girl should not be 'sexual' yet--let alone bi or otherwise! No matter what the liberal left and the PC police say homosexuality IS a sin and you can't change that fact. Of course that doesn't mean we should not treat those sinners without compassion and prayer. ~ Lynn
THE BLAZE
December 19, 2011
Texas Gov. Rick Perry got put in the hot seat by a 14-year-old, allegedly bi-sexual young woman at a stop in Decorah, Iowa, last night. The girl challenged Perry on his stance on gays in the the military.
She interjected into an otherwise jovial exchange after the campaign event, and with cameras rolling, asked Perry:
”Im just wondering why you are so opposed to gays openly serving in the military and wondering why you want to deny them that freedom when they’re fighting and dying for your rights.”
Perry handled the loaded question with poise, though his answer did meander a bit. Below is the gist of of what he said:
“This is about my faith…there are a whole host of sins, homosexuality being one of them, I‘m a sinner and so I’m not gonna be the first one to throw a stone, it’s just like the Boy Scouts…that again is one of those issues that I don’t agree with… i don’t agree that openly gays should serve in the military…Don‘t ask don’t tell was working… I hate the sin but i love the sinner”
MORE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/homosexuality-is-a-sin-rick-perry-tells-bisexual-teen-why-he-opposes-gays-in-military/
THE BLAZE
December 19, 2011
Texas Gov. Rick Perry got put in the hot seat by a 14-year-old, allegedly bi-sexual young woman at a stop in Decorah, Iowa, last night. The girl challenged Perry on his stance on gays in the the military.
She interjected into an otherwise jovial exchange after the campaign event, and with cameras rolling, asked Perry:
”Im just wondering why you are so opposed to gays openly serving in the military and wondering why you want to deny them that freedom when they’re fighting and dying for your rights.”
Perry handled the loaded question with poise, though his answer did meander a bit. Below is the gist of of what he said:
“This is about my faith…there are a whole host of sins, homosexuality being one of them, I‘m a sinner and so I’m not gonna be the first one to throw a stone, it’s just like the Boy Scouts…that again is one of those issues that I don’t agree with… i don’t agree that openly gays should serve in the military…Don‘t ask don’t tell was working… I hate the sin but i love the sinner”
MORE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/homosexuality-is-a-sin-rick-perry-tells-bisexual-teen-why-he-opposes-gays-in-military/
Sunday, November 27, 2011
OUR FAITHLESS LEADER
From my dear friend and patriot, Diane Rufino,
Lynn
I wanted to share a message I submitted to the "Opinion" section of my local paper, the Daily Reflector. I was limited to 300 words.
Diane
OUR FAITHLESS LEADER President Obama offered a few remarks for Thanksgiving, noting the many ways that Americans have come together. He highlighted the community mindset of those who volunteer in soup kitchens and praised our men and women in military uniform. In fact, his weekly address was titled: "On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country.” He also commented that he and his family are "reflecting on how truly lucky we are." Yes, the first family IS lucky, very lucky indeed. But not once did our President make any mention of God, the very reason our nation was founded in the first place.
Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in rightful thanks and praise to God.
Yet he didn't offer thanks to those bravest of settlers who risked it all, including harsh stormy seas, unknown new lands and hostile inhabitants, all in order to establish a colony where they could worship and honor God as they believed they had the natural right to. At many times in our early years, disease and famine were so severe that every single family lost a loved one. How many of us would contemplate making a change in our lifestyles knowing that it could possibly cost us a child or a spouse? And yet our founding settlers took that risk. - for the glory of God. So that America could be that "shining city on a hill" - a nation so blessed by God because of its stalwart citizens that it would be a beacon and an example to the world. We celebrate the blessings we inherited from these early settlers on Thanksgiving. How naive Obama is. How reckless he is with his selective attention to our nation's history. So with respect to this Thanksgiving Day 2011, we'll think back and remember who the real turkey was.
Diane Rufino, Greenville, NC
Lynn
I wanted to share a message I submitted to the "Opinion" section of my local paper, the Daily Reflector. I was limited to 300 words.
Diane
OUR FAITHLESS LEADER President Obama offered a few remarks for Thanksgiving, noting the many ways that Americans have come together. He highlighted the community mindset of those who volunteer in soup kitchens and praised our men and women in military uniform. In fact, his weekly address was titled: "On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country.” He also commented that he and his family are "reflecting on how truly lucky we are." Yes, the first family IS lucky, very lucky indeed. But not once did our President make any mention of God, the very reason our nation was founded in the first place.
Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in rightful thanks and praise to God.
Yet he didn't offer thanks to those bravest of settlers who risked it all, including harsh stormy seas, unknown new lands and hostile inhabitants, all in order to establish a colony where they could worship and honor God as they believed they had the natural right to. At many times in our early years, disease and famine were so severe that every single family lost a loved one. How many of us would contemplate making a change in our lifestyles knowing that it could possibly cost us a child or a spouse? And yet our founding settlers took that risk. - for the glory of God. So that America could be that "shining city on a hill" - a nation so blessed by God because of its stalwart citizens that it would be a beacon and an example to the world. We celebrate the blessings we inherited from these early settlers on Thanksgiving. How naive Obama is. How reckless he is with his selective attention to our nation's history. So with respect to this Thanksgiving Day 2011, we'll think back and remember who the real turkey was.
Diane Rufino, Greenville, NC
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Advantages for the Minority Left
November 1, 2011
By Sher Zieve
Leftists have a distinct advantage over we who believe in the God-given rights (as identified in the US Constitution) of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leftists are not constrained by the “outdated notions” of morality, any consideration that those who oppose them have any rights and—most specifically—those on the Left are not subject to nor expected to exhibit either logic or its attendant reasoned and common sense behaviors.
In fact, the US—if not the world—media applaud and support all forms of leftist riots, murders, uprisings, seizure of more moderate governments and other chaos and mayhem reaped upon the “we-just-want-to-work-and-support-our-families” majority population. The Left delights in—and gets away with—working toward the destruction of all “traditional” aspects of society in favor of replacing them with its own perverse distorted mirror image. In fact, the Left in the USA can bring down multiple-millions of people and decimate an entire class (that’s currently the middle-class) with only praise from a doting and supportive media.
CONTINUED: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41932
By Sher Zieve
Leftists have a distinct advantage over we who believe in the God-given rights (as identified in the US Constitution) of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leftists are not constrained by the “outdated notions” of morality, any consideration that those who oppose them have any rights and—most specifically—those on the Left are not subject to nor expected to exhibit either logic or its attendant reasoned and common sense behaviors.
In fact, the US—if not the world—media applaud and support all forms of leftist riots, murders, uprisings, seizure of more moderate governments and other chaos and mayhem reaped upon the “we-just-want-to-work-and-support-our-families” majority population. The Left delights in—and gets away with—working toward the destruction of all “traditional” aspects of society in favor of replacing them with its own perverse distorted mirror image. In fact, the Left in the USA can bring down multiple-millions of people and decimate an entire class (that’s currently the middle-class) with only praise from a doting and supportive media.
CONTINUED: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41932
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
