Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Reclaim Halloween for the Lord

Each year, I attempt to "reclaim Halloween for the Lord." I have given out tracts and Bible verses attached to the candy in the past. While browsing the CBN website, I thought it might be nice to print up and include a prayer:

Dear Visitor,

I open my door and offer you and your loved ones two "treats." The first is this BIG candy bar, and the second is a prayer in my heart. I pray that God’s blanket of protection would be over so many little children on Halloween night.

Lord, may this year on Halloween night be one that is hallowed, a holy night to lift up your name and bless your little children all over the world.

In Jesus Christ's name I pray,


Last Tuesday, a fellow Bible study member shared with our group that she is involved with creating stretchy, lettered bracelets that say HOPE in block letters. She also includes a Scripture reference to one of the many Bible verses that express our hope in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. I asked her to make a bunch for me to give out with the candy on Halloween!

Halloween has never been my favorite holiday. I'll admit that I've gone through several phases (and attitudes) throughout my life. But once I became a committed Christian, dedicated to serving and pleasing the Lord, I really started to hate Halloween and all that it stood for.

Anyone remember that commercial for Quantas airlines? It's the one where the koala bear is pictured clinging to a tree. His thoughts are voiced over and we hear, "I hate Quantas."

Well, that was me every time I'd pass a Spencer's gifts store in October. The ugly, evil masks, faces and costumes would irk me! I'd say to myself, "I hate Halloween!" I have Christian friends who feel the same way.

But, as long as my kids (when they were younger, of course) wouldn't dress up in any costume that was evil, ugly or Satanic, then we would still go trick or treating and give out candy at our home.

A few times we attended our church's Autumnfest. I liked the fact that we were celebrating with fellow Christian believers during a holiday that is often claimed for, and loved, by the anti-God, paganistic, secular culture.

Some people (including Christians) don't think of Halloween that way. Traditionally, some have viewed it as more of a time to look at what frightens us, to experience it, to laugh at it, and to come through it.


But the pagan roots of Halloween tell us a very different story. I won't bore you with the details, but perhaps when I have time later (or if any commenters want to do a search and post some links), I will locate some articles about it.

The question sometimes comes up in Christian circles, should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? If you have ever read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, you would find that he seems to think so. In that book, Lewis includes two telling quotations, the first from Martin Luther:

"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."

The second comes from Thomas More:

"The devil...the proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."

I really appreciated reading the following excerpt from Dr. Rearick who was a professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene College at the time his article was published:

The one thing Satan cannot bear is to be a source of laughter. His pride is undermined by his own knowledge that his infernal rebellion against God is in reality an absurd farce. Hating laughter, he demands to be taken seriously. Indeed, I would say that those Christians who spend the night of October 31 filled with concern over what evils might be (and sometimes are...so I don't blame them one bit!) taking place are doing the very thing Lucifer wants them to do. By giving him this respect, such believers are giving his authority credence.

Not all believers should celebrate Halloween. For those who have been redeemed from the occult, Halloween in its foolishness may contain what was for them deadly seriousness. While their souls were in deadly peril, however, what they experienced were lies and illusions.

It is understandable that they look with horror upon what once enslaved them. Such sensitivity may be appropriate for them, but it is not (necessarily) appropriate for the majority of Christians. Holding their opinions as appropriate for most believers is like having a former bulimic dictate how Christians should regard church hot-plate socials.

Christians should instead celebrate Halloween with gusto. If we follow the traditional formula of having a good time at his expense, Satan flees.

If we give up All Hallows Eve, we lose the delight of God's gift of imagination and we condemn the rest of society to a darker Halloween because our laughter will not be there to make the devil run.

Please note that I am not telling any Christian believer what they should do or how they should act on the subject of Halloween. I just wanted to share that excerpt because I thought it covered a lot of differing beliefs on how one might want to look at the "celebration" of this "holiday."

As I said before, I'd rather not "celebrate" Halloween. But since it arrives every October 31st, I choose to reclaim Halloween for Jesus Christ. The HOPE bracelets that I will give out with the candy is just one small way that I can do just that.

Monday, October 30, 2006

The Tragic, Inhumane, Ugliness of Abortion

If this article doesn't demonstrate the tragic, inhumane, ugliness of abortion, I don't know what article ever could. I recently received an email that had a video of the latest type of sonogram available. The image of the baby could be seen so clearly. It was simply amazing! A window into the womb of the mother!

The beauty of a child being conceived, formed in the womb, and birthed into the world is life and wonderful goodness.

By contrast, the conception of a child forming in the womb, then swept away through an abortionists' tools is death and a horrible evil.

What ever happened to a physician's adage and pledge to "first, do no harm?"

There are certain topics that are difficult to discuss. This is one of them. There is always a firestorm of attacks that follow my posts on abortion. Well....I say good! It should rile up and anger people!

There are websites galore of pro-lifers, such as Youth For Life which share both tragic articles about abortion, as well as an extremely uplifting story about Baby Samuel's in utero operation which corrected his problem with spina bifida.

Go here for a photo that, at the time it was taken was outrightly rejected by many T.V. news programs. Why did they refuse to air this picture and tell this story about such a miraculous, life-saving operation in the womb?

You tell me.

(While at that photo link, scroll down to see updated photos of Baby Samuel.)

At this site called facts about abortion you can read many articles that show us how few abortions are done "for the health and/or life & death reasons" for the mother. If you scroll down, you can see some of the amazing photos of LIVING BABIES IN THE WOMB.

Finally, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust has a video explaining why they are rising up against this heinous evil for the purpose of rescuing the next generation.

From their website:

Survivors is a Christian, pro-life activism organization dedicated to educating and activating high school and college age individuals.

If you were born after 1972, we challenge you to consider yourself a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

The Survivors are taking an active stand on behalf of those who have already been lost, and for those who are scheduled to die through abortion. We are empowered by the truth, enabled by extensive training, and unafraid of condemning the death of innocents.

At the top of the page, they have a running count of how many babie have been killed since January died in America since January 22, 1973. In just the time it took to type this reference to Survivors, the running count added 12 more dead babies! The count at this point (Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:14 a.m. Pacific Time) is at


What will the count be up to when you visit that website today?

Isa 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Psa 139:13
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother's womb.

Psa 139:14
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.

(It's 7:45 a.m. - Forty-Nine million, Six Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Two babies have been killed....)

Friday, October 27, 2006

Webb's Writings Disturbing!!

The blogs are abuzz with the news about Jim Webb's Weird World. Drudge has the disgusting details...if you really want to read them.

This is a man who would be a U.S. senator from Virginia? I think he needs counseling...and quick!!

Here's a copy of Senator Allen's press release:

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below (go to Drudge site, I don't even want to post them here!! But be warned...you will find them to be sickening...) shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land!

Webb's Writings Inappropriate for Radio News Show.

Sister Toldjah asks: What's with the pro-Webb bias of the Washington Post?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Defeating "Gay" Marriage is Crucial

Regular readers here are probably sick and tired of this subject. If I may be so bold as to say it, I am too!! However, with every court decision, legislative decision, and state constitutional ballot initiative, this subject keeps rearing its ugly head.

The Drudge Report, as usual, was one of the first websites to link to several articles about the New Jersey ruling which came down just minutes ago regarding same-sex marriage in that state.

Then, I got several emails from several traditional marriage advocacy groups.

Alliance for Marriage had this to say:

Decision Taking Marriage Out of the Hands of the People of New Jersey Will Propel Marriage Amendment In Congress

Marriage Protection Amendment Drafted by AFM Is Essential to Protect Views of the Majority of Americans From Ongoing Activist Lawsuits

WASHINGTON, DC - The Alliance for Marriage called upon Congress today to pass AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment in the aftermath of today's state Supreme Court decision taking the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey.

"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”

"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.

The Alliance for Marriage filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey case decided today arguing that the legislature of New Jersey was fully entitled to protect marriage as an institution that seeks to ensure that more children will be raised in a home with a mother and a father.

"Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."

"The constitutional problem created by almost a decade of activist lawsuits to destroy our marriage laws demands a constitutional fix," Daniels added.

Alliance Defense Fund had this to say:

TO: Christine
FROM: Alan Sears, President

New Jersey Supreme Court Denies Victory to Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocates, But Need for Marriage Amendments Reaffirmed...
Minutes ago the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that "there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage." ADF coordinated the friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of our good friends at the Family Research Council in support of marriage as well as other efforts related to this litigation going back several years.

However, the court gave the legislature six months to create a structure for same-sex couples to receive all the benefits of marriage. We must now pray that the legislature will take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect marriage.

Like the previous decision from the Washington Supreme Court, we had major concerns about how New Jersey's high court would rule --given their record of judicial activism supporting demands of the homosexual legal agenda. (It was the New Jersey Supreme Court that ruled that the Boy Scouts had to allow practicing homosexual activists to be scoutmasters -- a decision overturned in a sharp rebuke by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000.)

A full copy of the ruling can be read at Harris Opinion

ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy (right) says: "If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn't need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage," but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other "unions" makes marriage meaningless. It's critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent the court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only."

While we praise God that the court did not fabricate same-sex "marriage", we cannot allow this decision to lull us to sleep. Despite the string of defeats over the past four months, advocates of same-sex "marriage" are re-dedicating themselves to their effort to re-define, and eventually abolish, marriage, and will seek any means they can to do so. In fact, just a few months ago, over 1,200 advocates of homosexual behavior signed on to a statement called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" which calls for the complete destruction of the legal framework for marriage and the family. See Beyond Marriage.

Please remain in prayer for the EIGHT states -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- that will be voting on constitutional amendments on November 7th. These amendments (as well as a federal marriage amendment) are CRITICAL to stop the same-sex "marriage" caravan.

You can be assured that advocates of homosexual behavior WILL NOT GIVE UP in the efforts to force same-sex "marriage" on America. Please also remember the marriage cases pending in California, Connecticut, Maryland, and Iowa.

Read about the nine ADF wins for marriage since this summer...

Alliance Defense Fund
15333 N. Pima Road Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

But ironically, on this day I also received a stunning email from MassResistance which is an organization that is currently embroiled in a huge fight against gay activists in Massachusetts. I hope you will take the time to read it all; including the links. You will see what parents would have to deal with if "gay" marriage became law in any other state.

If you don't think there is a real threat to religious liberty, freedom of speech, or freedom of association, just take a look at how parent's rights, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are being whittled away by gay activism in Massachusetts. No need to imagine the slippery slope that traditional morals and values advocates would have to slide down as a result of legalizing "gay" marriage. We can already see the chaos that would result just by observing what is going on in Massachusetts today.

I would like to start with the end of the MassResistance email. It is a message that has been floating around the Internet over the days, and it is written by John Haskins. I first heard about John Haskins back in 2001 when I was researching the Tufts University gay indoctrination conference in which high school students were bussed from their schools and given explicit information about how to perform homosexual sex acts. John wrote an article called It's 1984 in Massachusetts and Big Brother is Gay. If you choose to read through that entire forum thread, you will be amazed at what you read there.

Traditional family advocates were sounding the alarm bells way back then. But when "gay" marriage became law in Massachusetts by judicial fiat, the floodgates to destroy marriage as an institution were opened. This terrible decision also led to the blatant infringement upon parents' rights to raise their children in a Christian, biblical worldview.

The following is what Mr. Haskins has to say today. I sincerely hope that his words will awaken Christians to the negative affects that "gay" marriage imposition would have on us all.

"...Americans are the first people in the history of the world to believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind. It's a dangerous conceit. War, and preparations for war, are the norm." -- Michael Ledeen

Ledeen's insight also describes magnificently the complete failure of the pro-family movement and other "conservatives" to grasp that they are in a war for everything that matters and that the sacrifices and commitment -- and, yes, "radicalism" (that dirty word) -- necessary are far beyond what we are now making. Proudly "pragmatic" moderates control the pro-family movement and "conservatism," whatever that has degenerated into. They ruthlessly, sometimes even viciously, undermine and attempt to humiliate and ostracize any conservative or pro-family leader or group that seems "too radical" for them.

We have seen it over and over again in Massachusetts and the catastrophic consequences of the surrender here will be felt for many generations around the entire country. They manifestly have no grand strategy, no real weapons that would intimidate their enemies, no end game and no concept of offense. How is this possible? It is because their fundamental characteristic is that they are unwilling to acknowledge that the enemies of their children are waging war on them. A war for everything.

Why is this so hard for "respectable conservatives" to face? Because it would require real sacrifices in standard of living, social acceptance, and leisurely lifestyle. It is far more comfortable to continue endlessly splitting the difference between good and evil until there is no more good left to split, snickering all the while at those who seek to emulate the passion and "radical" commitment to ideals and principles that drove the Founding Fathers to revolution and that characterize every Godly figure in the Old and New Testament.

In a war of bullets this would be called treason. In politics and culture wars it is merely a permanent state of "dignified" surrender.

John Haskins

The entire MassResistance email:

MassResistance - ** Oct. 25 Email Update **

It's gone too far:
Get involved!
Join the movement to take back our government in Massachusetts! (Feel free to pass this along to others)

Please help by Donating!
MassResistance Blog
Weekly MassResistance Radio Show

In this email update:

1. Major US corporations funding legal attacks on David Parker -- and the push for homosexuality in schools!
2. Ex-homosexual to speak at MassResistance fall banquet Nov. 14! Homosexual newspaper phones MassResistance for more info.
3. Learn the truth about the "anti-bullying agenda" in schools on MassResistance radio show, now posted.
4. Gays claim "big victory" in Hong Kong as courts lower age of consent for homosexual sex to 16.
5. An observation . . . ("must read")

=== 1. Major US corporations funding legal attacks on David Parker -- and the push for homosexuality in schools! ===

The next time you go to Staples, or use Verizon phone service, do your banking at Bank of America, or choose Comcast for your Internet, or buy a Gillette razor, keep this in mind: you are helping bring the homosexual agenda into your schools, including the elementary schools. And worse than that, you are helping them stop David Parker in his federal civil rights lawsuit to require that he be notified and able to opt out when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his first-grade son.

This past Saturday night at a fancy fundraiser dinner in downtown Boston these same companies and others donated thousands and thousands of dollars to the "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC), a national hardcore homosexual activist group. HRC calls itself "the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender political organization" and raises money to push the homosexual agenda into public schools and businesses, and to use vicious intimidation tactics against anyone who gets in their way. They are very clear about how they want to change America and its people.

Oh, and did we mention: the keynote speaker of that event was Deval Patrick, Democratic candidate for governor! And these also include Blue Cross Blue Shield and Tufts Health Plan -- why are health organizations funding this??
See for yourself: Here are links to the HRC fundraising dinner.

Coming out against David Parker

Last month, the Human Rights Campaign (and their alter ego, Human Rights Campaign Foundation) led a group of Massachusetts pro-gay organizations in filing a 24-page "amicus brief" in federal district court against David Parker's lawsuit -- Parker's attempt to get the Lexington, Mass., school officials to respect his civil rights.

Among many other insidious things, they claim that David Parker's claim is "frivolous", and they go on to say:

The mere lack of congruence between plaintiffs' religious beliefs and what the Lexington schools have chosen to teach . . . does not state a claim that the defendants have intentionally denigrated the plaintiffs' religion and are engaged in a campaign to teach the children that the parents' religious beliefs are wrong.

Worse than that - they make the absurd claim that the child has a "right" to be exposed to homosexuality even if the parents disagree:

If a parent chooses to have his or her child attend the public schools, that child has a right to a broad and high quality public education, not one constrained by individual parental beliefs.

And here's some of their legal logic:

[T]he plaintiffs attempt to avoid a motion to dismiss by resting on what is essentially a flawed syllogism: 1) they have religious beliefs which are disapproving of people who are gay or families headed by gay people; 2) the Lexington schools teach principles of equality, diversity of society, and welcoming of all to the schools, including children who are gay or whose parents are gay; and therefore, 3) the school defendants are intentionally targeting the plaintiffs' religious views and "campaigning to teach" the plaintiffs' children "that the family's religious faith was incorrect."

And here's what Human Rights Campaign also says in the brief about why they are committed to supporting the defendants (the school officials and teachers) against David Parker:

HRC supports the ability of defendants to provide students with a diversity of viewpoints, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
This is what these corporations are funding -- against David Parker and you!
Here's the entire "amicus brief" filed by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, and other groups against David Parker.

Parker Lawsuit

And here's the David Parker info on his arrest, harassment, and his lawsuit against the school, etc.

David Parker info

David Parker is funding this mostly out of his own pocket. The muscle to oppose him is coming from big business. And that same money is also being used to proselytize kids in the public schools in Massachusetts and across America to accept homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality as a normal lifestyle.

What you should do:

People across America need to let these companies know -- in the absolutely strongest terms possible -- that we won't stand for companies using our money to attack us and our children -- and David Parker.

If the people at these businesses don't personally hear from you it will be as if we don't care. If this is not worth an extreme amount of outrage, what is?
Go to our TAKE ACTION PAGE with phone numbers and other contact info!

Take Action Page

Going after your children:

This slick 48-page book, "Reference Guide to Coming Out", published by Human Rights Campaign, was distributed to students at a local high school just this past week. Guess where the money came from?

=== 2. Ex-homosexual to speak at MassResistance fall banquet Nov. 14!
Homosexual newspaper phones MassResistance for more info.===

This is your opportunity to meet and hear a powerful story from a former homosexual who has left that lifestyle and is now happily married with children. He will shatter the false propaganda you've been hearing about this from the "gay" movement. Emerging as one of the nation's key speakers on 'coming out' of homosexuality and the 'gay' agenda, Stephen Bennett brings a bold, uncompromising perspective on one of the most heated topics in America today: homosexuality. As a man who lived the "gay" lifestyle until he was 28 years old, Stephen is now happily married to his wife of 12 years, Irene. They are the parents of two little children - a boy and a girl. Stephen is an outspoken, passionate speaker with a resolve to educate America about the truths and dangers of homosexuality, as well as to dispel the myths of the "gay" misinformation campaign. He appears frequently on numerous television and radio broadcasts nationwide. He also writes for many national publications including WorldNetDaily, is the Special Issues Editor on homosexuality and the 'gay' agenda for the American Family Association, and has been asked to speak on behalf of Concerned Women for America. Stephen is now co-authoring his first book, I Was Gay.

(This week the homosexual newspaper "Bay Windows" left a message on our office phone wanting to interview us for a news story about this banquet. As we've said before, the ex-gay movement is the homosexual community's worst nightmare because it directly confronts their political agenda and propaganda about "being born that way".)

Stephen Bennett"Let's Focus on the Children: Living In a World They Didn't Make"
Tuesday evening, Nov. 14, 2006
6:30 pm
Holiday Inn, Boxborough, Massachusetts

ALSO: Special appearance by David Parker: David Parker will be giving an update on his situation!

Do not miss this great opportunity! Only $40 per person -- table of 10 for $375.

For more info & payment information, please email Bob or call 781-890-6001.

=== 3. Learn the truth about the "anti-bullying agenda" in schools on MassResistance radio show, now posted. ===

MassResistance Radio Show airs twice each weekend:
Saturday at 10 am,
Sunday at 7 pm.
TUNE IN: WTTT AM 1150 in Boston

This past weekend's show -- now posted -- features: Great state rep candidates Will Whittlesey (from Natick, who got on the ballot via write-in!) and Lonnie Brennan (Andover) These guys are both first-rate -- the kind of people we desperately need on Beacon Hill! Also, have you noticed all the talk about the need for "anti-bullying" programs in the schools? Well, here's what you need to know about the "anti-bullying" agenda in the schools, and its homosexual activist connection. And more on Romney and "gay marriage".

Now posted (for streaming audio and also podcast) on the MassResistance website:
MassResistance Radio show

Also, there's more of the anti-bullying agenda on the MassResistance Blog

Homosexual activist behind state's new "anti-bullying" curriculum

=== 4. Gays claim "big victory" in Hong Kong as courts lower age of consent for homosexual sex to 16. ===

We couldn't help but notice the buzz and excitement in the homosexual press over the last few days around their "victory" in Hong Kong. With their usual political maneuvering, they got a court to strike down the age-of-consent laws for homosexual sex to 16 years old! That's right -- men legally going after teenaged boys in high school. Of course, this is nothing new, unfortunately. Last year we reported that they had successfully gotten it down to 16 in Britain, and were now trying to get it down to 12.

Make no mistake about this tragic and destructive movement. Coming to your state before too long.

"Gay sex victory as Hong Kong government abandons under-21 law.

=== 5. An observation . . . ===

This has been floating around the Internet over the days, written by our own John Haskins. We thought it was important enough to reprint here.

"...Americans are the first people in the history of the world to believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind. It's a dangerous conceit. War, and preparations for war, are the norm." -- Michael Ledeen

Ledeen's insight also describes magnificently the complete failure of the pro-family movement and other "conservatives" to grasp that they are in a war for everything that matters and that the sacrifices and commitment -- and, yes, "radicalism" (that dirty word) -- necessary are far beyond what we are now making. Proudly "pragmatic" moderates control the pro-family movement and "conservatism," whatever that has degenerated into. They ruthlessly, sometimes even viciously, undermine and attempt to humiliate and ostracize any conservative or pro-family leader or group that seems "too radical" for them. We have seen it over and over again in Massachusetts and the catastrophic consequences of the surrender here will be felt for many generations around the entire country. They manifestly have no grand strategy, no real weapons that would intimidate their enemies, no end game and no concept of offense. How is this possible? It is because their fundamental characteristic is that they are unwilling to acknowledge that the enemies of their children are waging war on them. A war for everything. Why is this so hard for "respectable conservatives" to face? Because it would require real sacrifices in standard of living, social acceptance, and leisurely lifestyle. It is far more comfortable to continue endlessly splitting the difference between good and evil until there is no more good left to split, snickering all the while at those who seek to emulate the passion and "radical" commitment to ideals and principles that drove the Founding Fathers to revolution and that characterize every Godly figure in the Old and New Testament.In a war of bullets this would be called treason. In politics and culture wars it is merely a permanent state of "dignified" surrender.
John Haskins

Please help MassResistance continue to do our job! If we don't win the fights going on in our Legislature over the next several months, our schools and our lives in Massachusetts will be changed forever.

Donate to MassResistance by credit card

Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454

Contact us if you want to get involved.


Also, check out the MassResistance blog (for you red-meat activists)!

[If you are on this list by mistake, or do not want to get our email information alerts, please accept our apologies. Please call us at MassResistance at 781-890-6001 or email us back, and we'll immediately take you off the list. We've tried to only include people who've contacted us at some point or otherwise indicated they would like to hear from us.]

Also, if this is being forwarded to you and you want to be on our primary list, please let us know!


New Jersey High Court Tells Lawmakers to Redefine Marriage

Conservatives say today's ruling in favor of same-sex unions must motivate values voters to get to the polls.

Nathan Bradfield weighs in with his post New Jersey Supreme Majority Epitomizes "Breathingist"

Monday, October 23, 2006

A Conscience Without Offense Towards God

Early Warnings

I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
Acts 24:16

Recommended Reading
1 Timothy 1:18-20

In Ewa Beach, Hawaii, sits a rather plain-looking white block building with a small ramp leading to the front door. It is unimposing, but what happens there could save thousands of lives. It’s the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, established in 1949. Its purpose is to continually monitor the Pacific Basin for seismic activity and provide early warning flashes for possible tsunamis.

The human heart also has an early warning system, established in the soul, which continually monitors for the seismic activities of sin in our lives. It’s called the conscience, and the apostle Paul’s desire was to serve Christ with a pure conscience (2 Timothy 1:3).

One man quipped, "Conscience is that still small voice that is sometimes too loud for comfort."

Are you listening to your conscience? The Bible warns that if we don’t heed this still, small inner voice, it may become seared and defiled (1 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:15). When that happens, it’s like disconnecting the sirens and signals from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

If your conscience is speaking to you about some matter, hear it and heed it!

There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience.
French proverb

John 7:1 - 8:30

Sunday, October 22, 2006

On Our 23rd Wedding Anniversary!

Celebrating 23 years of marriage on October 23, 2006!!

Taking our vows of love and commitment before God, family and friends!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Saturday, October 21, 2006

It's About Time Kerry Answered for This!!


John Kerry's recent appearance (UGH!!) on the Fox News Channel brought back memories (well, actually, they were more like nightmares) of when he was running for the highest office in the land and potentially, could have become one of the most powerful men in the world.

Thank God he lost the election! Even just the thought that he might consider running for president again makes me gag!!

I do not believe that he is fit for that job... ever!! Each election is SO VERY IMPORTANT on so many issues and it is vitally important that the right person is elected to President of the United States.

I know that some readers here probably voted for Kerry back in 2004. I voted for Bush and I'm so thankful that he has had the leadership skills to ignore the haters and naysayers while doing what is right for our country. We have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11. There have been many attempts, but they were thwarted because of the national security measures that Bush put into place.

Back in 2004, my vote for Bush went deeper than just my own personal choice. In August of that year, I attended a conference where the speaker was Gerald Coffee who served in the Navy during the Vietnam era. He was in a North Vietnamese prison camp for 7 years. He had quite a moving story to tell about those years.

What impressed me most about him was that his speech was unbiased and geared towards giving everyone in the audience hope, faith, and courage in life despite overwhelming circumstances that can happen. There is so much more to share but my time is limited right now.

Just listening to his stories of torture, inhuman conditions etc. made me realize that I have absolutely NOTHING to complain about...ever again.

At the end, there was a question and answer period. Someone asked whether or not the POWs for Truth claim was true and if he heard the broadcast of Kerry's 1971 testimony where he claimed the veterans raped, pillaged villages, cut off arms and legs etc. and committed atrocities. This man LIVED THROUGH IT AND SAID IT HAPPENED! He was in the prison and heard that propaganda and slander out of Kerry's mouth over and over again; plus all the negative rhetoric of the anti-war movement, of which Kerry was part of.

How did he hear it?

The Vietnamese broadcast it loud and clear over the PA system in the prison camp!

Mr. Coffee stated that Kerry SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE for what he said and did. Through Kerry's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, Kerry WAS RESPONSIBLE for some of the torture and many of the deaths of POWs who were still there when he was spouting his anti-war rhetoric.

Kerry is a war criminal and unfit for commander and chief of our armed forces!! If he has the gall and audacity to run again in 2008...remember what Mr. Coffee, (and other POW's; some who didn't live to tell what happened) endured because of Kerry's blathering in 1971!




When John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam he branded them as "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry's true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004. The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn't have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone -- not even theatre-goers -- the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed by Kenneth Campbell, a University of Delaware professor, Kerry campaign aide, and long-time anti-war disciple of the Massachusetts Senator. Campbell co-founded the Philadelphia chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and, in 1971, he was one of Kerry's key war crimes "witnesses," one of several on whom Kerry claims he based his Senate testimony.

Campbell's lawsuit put a unique spin on the definition of defamation: He claimed that Stolen Honor damaged the public reputations of himself, Kerry and others by questioning whether they truly were the baby-killers they claimed to be!

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry's treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF's mission is "to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits, we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up for Kerry's treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America's history in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the world.

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle . . . for our soldiers, then and now. For more information about Vietnam, the foregoing litigation, or to make a donation, please access the VVLF website now.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day
Director and President,
Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force's most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country. Please go here to read Col. Day's statement in its entirety.

Hat Tip: GOPUSA Friends

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Back in this post, Limpy99 stated:

"I don't understand how the private lives of homosexuals is such a threat to you and your beliefs."

It isn't the private lives of homosexuals that is a threat to me or my beliefs, it is the legalization of the homosexual agenda (meaning, teaching it in schools) and "gay" marriage that is a threat to me, as well as any other parent out there that does not want such sexual liberties taught to their children because it clearly goes against their moral and religious values. What about my, and other Christians religious liberty? If you think that after "gay" marriage, there will be no problems between the two, think again. We don't even have to imagine the conflicts. They are already happening in Massachusetts.

Later in this post, you will have the opportunity to read excerpts from a link that clearly shows that as a result of "gay" marriage being legalized in Massachusetts, the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty is inevitable. Only one side can win, folks. This article tells us why.

Some points to consider from the article:

"Reading through these and the other scholars' papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead--perhaps because they tended to find it "inconceivable," as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that "a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage." That's a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a "long way" from equating orientation with race in the law."

I sincerely hope that last comment holds true.

Chai Feldblum gets down to the crux of the matter.

"Not because I was caught up in the panic," she laughs. She'd been thinking through the moral implications of nondiscrimination rules in the law, a lonely undertaking for a gay rights advocate. "Gay rights supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad," Feldblum points out. In employment law, for instance, "we allow discrimination against people who sexually abuse children, and we don't say 'the only question is can they type' even if they can type really quickly."

To get to the point where the law prohibits discrimination, Feldblum says, "there have to be two things: one, a majority of the society believing the characteristic on which the person is being discriminated against is not morally problematic, and, two, enough of a sense of outrage to push past the normal American contract-based approach, where the government doesn't tell you what you can do. There has to be enough outrage to bypass that basic default mode in America. Unlike some of my compatriots in the gay rights movement, I think we advance the cause of gay equality if we make clear there are moral assessments that underlie antidiscrimination laws."

But there was a second reason Feldblum made time for this particular conference. She was raised an Orthodox Jew. She wanted to demonstrate respect for religious people and their concerns, to show that the gay community is not monolithic in this regard.

"It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?" she writes in her Becket paper. "I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?

To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: "When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don't matter."

But IMO, she starts going in the wrong direction with these comments:

"You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time," says Feldblum. She pauses. "Respect doesn't mean that the religious person should prevail in the right to discriminate--it just means demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position."

Then, she sides with the "sexual liberty" gay activists here:

Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

Religious liberty, freedom of association, and freedom of speech all should trump "sexual liberty." "Sexual liberty" may be an evolving matter in secular humanist circles, but I don't think that the framers of our Constitution meant for such a concept to trump what is already written in our founding documents!

Here is a link to The Evangelical Outpost blog where I found the "Banned in Boston" article. I think that if more evangelical Christians read that article, they will be awakened from the disingenuious mantra being espoused by the gay lobby and jolted from the slumber they are currently in regarding the morally relativistic thinking that "gay marriage can't hurt them."

We can vividly see that the legalization of "gay" marriage in Massachusetts has already resulted in several dire consequences against religious liberty in that state. It has already cause Catholic Charities to stop their adoption efforts there because their religious freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom to conduct their work according to the Catholic church's teachings has been eliminated from consideration based on the trumped up "rights" afforded to "sexual liberty" activists.

But there is even more to consider!

Our main arguments for saving traditional marriage:

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

"Marriage" should not be whatever the law says that it is. The covenant relationship of marriage predates the law and the Constitution.

"Love" and "companionship" are not sufficient to define marriage. (If this were true, minor children and adults should be able to marry each other.)

If homosexual marriage is legalized, the floodgates will be opened for other groups of people to marry. By the same logic, we would be forced to allow a man to marry three women (polygamy) or a brother and sister to marry each other (incest) or, ostensibly, we'd have to let a man marry his dog (bestiality). Recently in Australia, a man married his T.V.!

Denying same-sex marriage is not "discrimination." A homosexual person has the same right to marry as a heterosexual person, he/she simply has to marry the opposite sex.

The sexual union of a man and a woman is the only way to naturally reproduce children.

Studies show that children need both a mom and a dad.

"Gay marriage" is either anti-woman or anti-man. It embraces the concept that one of the sexes is not needed for raising children.

"Gay marriage" is not about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It's about the public approval of radically redefining traditional marriage. A public embracing of same-sex marriage affects all of society.

Before society jumps to legalize same-sex marriage, the fact needs to be addressed that, on average, homosexual men die ten years younger than heterosexual men. Perhaps encouraging "gay marriage" is not good policy for health reasons alone.

"Gay marriage" is a social experiment. No civilization in history has ever legalized same-sex marriage.

Our children are the ones who are the "guinea pigs" in this social experiment.

Ultimately, "gay marriage" is simply an attempt by a sub-group of people, identified solely by their sexual conduct, to obtain societal approval of their sexual behaviors.

If we re-define marriage, we will un-define marriage and it will become meaningless.

I could give you links to dozens of articles that would share precisely why redefining marriage would be detrimental to society. There are biblical reasons and secular reasons to not only oppose same-sex marriage in particular, but the affirmation of gay-behavior-indoctrination through public schools, in general.

The experiment of homosexual marriage in the Scandinavian countries proves the fact that marriage, as we now know it, would become more and more irrelevant. The confusion that erupts in the minds of children is a strong factor against it, too.
Want more reasons? It's about dilution, and, we already see the negative results of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Parent's rights to raise their own children as they see fit is being destroyed through intimidation and lawsuits by pro-gay activists in the public schools there.

Enraged Gay activists show up and spew their hatred at Christian ministry events (Like Love Won Out) which are held to help those who want to escape homosexual behavior and attraction.

It has been my experience that despite evidence that backs up my reasons (and the majority of Americans, as well) for wanting to keep the several-thousand-years- old definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman intact, those who oppose us will not change their minds no matter what. It is a battle between ideologies that are polar opposites, and the excuses used by the other side are just that...excuses being used to destroy an institution that all cultures recognize (at one time or another, at least!) and that was originally instituted by God (as evidenced in the Bible).

Even more evidence that same-sex marriage results in chaos.

Just found another perfect example of how parent's (and students!!) beliefs and rights are being usurped by homosexual activism in public schools!

In Canada, their new leader is attempting to correct the current gay-agenda-machine which has become relentless and is threatening the traditional freedoms of religion and speech in that country.

In conclusion, the legalization of "gay" marriage is most definitely a threat to me and my beliefs, as well as the beliefs of millions of Christians and Orthodox Jews.

With that said, if you are still interested in reading more articles, I will do a search at my message board and give you the links. However, if you think that you would never change your mind on this matter anyway, perhaps I should not waste my time researching and sharing such articles. It's up to you.

Hat Tip: The Evangelical Outpost

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

It's Not Mars We Need, But the Master

I love it when I open my email and there is a message that speaks directly to the dangerous times we are living in right now, but also speaks of the hope that is in us through knowing Jesus Christ our Lord.

I don't know whether Stephen Hawking is a believer or not. Guess I could do a search and find out. But from the following small piece of information, it appears to me that he is relying on man's achievements in space to "keep us from disaster and dangers we have not thought of yet."

When I was growing up, the threat of a nuclear war with the former Soviet Union was quite real. I remember my elementary school back east running "air raid" drills. We would all hurriedly leave our classrooms, go down to the basement of the school, and cower along the long walls near the bathrooms. That drill, alone, was enough to scare the living daylights out of us! We may not have understood all the reasons why, but the teachers would try to tell us that it was for "protection" in case of an emergency.

Later in life, when I learned of the huge danger that had loomed over our country during that time, I realized how important it was to pray for God's protection over our country. Today, the danger is much greater. With Islamofascism intent on destroying us any way that it can, and the threat of North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons, we have a lot to worry about here on earth!

But then I remember the words of Jesus.

Matthew 6:27 - (NKJV)
"Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?"

Luke 12:25 - (NKJV) "And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?"

In Max Lucado's book Traveling Light, he describes worry as "the burlap bag of burdens" that we, unfortunately, tend to carry around with us on a daily basis.

Psalm 55:22 - (NKJV) Cast your burden on the LORD,
And He shall sustain you;
He shall never permit the righteous to be moved.

Jesus asks us to lay down our burdens.

Matthew 11:30 - (KJV) For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

Isaiah 46:4 - (NKJV) Even to your old age, I am He,
And even to gray hairs I will carry you!
I have made, and I will bear;
Even I will carry, and will deliver you.

When you read the Turning Point message below, think about how difficult, expensive, and cumbersome it would be to create life on Mars as it exists on our earth. Mindboggling, isn't it? I think so. And yet, there are scientists who believe that the earth just came to be by accident, from a "Big Bang" millions of years ago. No need for a creator or intelligent designer. The earth just happened to be habitable for life, while the rest of the planets in our solar system aren't. As the book and documentary called Privileged Planet exhorts:

Gonzalez and Richards counter the prevailing notion among scientists that Earth is merely an average rocky planet revolving around an ordinary star on the outskirts of an undistinguished galaxy. The authors present evidence that suggests life in the cosmos is a rarity due to a variety of prerequisite conditions, such as the unique properties of water, the peculiarities of the Earth-moon system, the sheltering effects of Jupiter and Saturn, and the fine-tuned nature of the universe. The authors maintain that these same conditions allow mankind's significant discovery of the structure of physical laws and the universe. The appendices examine a revised Drake Equation and tackle the idea of "panspermia" - the seeding of life on Earth.

In another review at the link above, D. Thomas Porter states:

Richards and Gonzalez have an intriguing answer to a troubling question: Why is Earth so well-suited for complex life and observation of the universe by its inhabitants? More critically, is there evidence, scientific evidence, to suggest design—a purpose that explains more than the sheer permutations and probabilities which allow for complex life-form existence?

Well. As we well know by now, the scientific community is not comfortable with the question of "why," so books like The Privileged Planet aren't about to get a fair hearing. But books like these help us in our faith that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. You see, I believe in the "Big Bang" too. Except my view of it is likely much different than Hawking.

God spoke and BANG! It happened!

In addition to this, I don't think that he would have to worry so much about the "human race extinction" if he knew Jesus Christ and God's Word, the Bible. Stephen Hawking may be considered one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable astrophysicists in our world today, but the "fear (meaning reverence) and knowledge of the Lord" is the beginning of wisdom.

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen 1:1 KJV)

What came first? Mind or matter? The Bible tells us:

Jhn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

Jhn 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jhn 1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Hbr 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:


With all of these thoughts in mind, here's the Turning Point commentary for the day:


Many, O Lord my God, are Your wonderful works which You have done; and Your thoughts toward us cannot be recounted . . . They are more than can be numbered.
Psalm 40:5

Recommended Reading
Psalm 40:1-5

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently told a conference that human beings must quickly establish a base on the moon and colonize Mars, otherwise global warming or another catastrophe may drive the human race to extinction. "Life on earth is at the ever increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers we have not thought of yet," he said.

The Bible teaches that earth’s days are numbered; but the Bible also says that God has not abandoned us, nor has He forgotten His children.

Psalm 139 says, "How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them."

Jeremiah 29:11 says, "‘For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,’ says the Lord, ‘thoughts of peace . . . to give you a future and a hope.’"

We can forget the Lord, but He can never forget us. He loves and knows and cares, and we should think about that. When your world is threatened, it’s not Mars you need, but the Master.

God’s thoughts of love are very many, very wonderful, very practical! Muse on them . . . no sweeter subject ever occupied your mind.

God’s thoughts of you are many. Charles Spurgeon

John 3:22 - 5:18

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Cheapening Forgiveness?

Today, I replied to a WorldNetDaily letter writer. He was concerned about the concept of "cheap forgiveness." While I can understand his feeling the way he did, I don't think that he was theologically correct in his conclusions. Bob, Charlie L., Mark, Highboy, Anna, Stephen, Susan, Saltnlight, Real Deal, (and other Christians who post here), feel free to correct me if you think I am in error about this. Also, if you have more to add (I hope you do!!) please post it. Admittedly, this involves some deep, theological thought and application. But I think it would be good to ponder and discuss.

Here is the original letter at WorldNetDaily. I will then post my reply afterwards.

Cheapening forgiveness

I'd like to address forgiveness as outlined in Craig R. Smith's "A lesson from the Amish" and David Kupelian's "The war on fathers."

Forgiveness should not, ever, be given without repentance. Surely you will say that Jesus forgave on the cross those who were not repentant. Uh-huh. But what about Luke 17:3 when He said, "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." The key word here is IF. Got it? Or will you say that Jesus must have forgotten about this and changed His mind on the cross? Forgiving those who have not repented and teaching this to others is hurting the Body and those who are in real need of forgiveness. This false teaching only leads others to believe that they can do whatever they please and they'll be forgiven.

God doesn't forgive without repentance, and God doesn't ask or instruct anyone else to do so, either.

Stop it. At once. Forgive, yes, when there is repentance – only when there is repentance.

John Snakenberg


My reply:

I'd like to reply to John Snakenberg's letter regarding "cheap forgiveness."

Human forgiveness for a wrong done by others is different from God's forgiveness for our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ at the cross.

In this particular case, human forgiveness was given by the Amish people towards the perpetrator. It was probably done in accordance with Christ's admonition to forgive, as well as for the benefit of themselves (the Amish). The third benefit is that the family which the murderer left behind, would be shown to be innocent of his actions (which they, of course, were).

Bitterness, anger and hatred towards a murderer are human emotions that we all would feel towards any act of murder. It's even worse if it (God forbid!) ever happened to our own children. How could we not be torn apart by it? It 's a sobering reminder that there is good and evil in the world. Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble." But he didn't end there. He also said, "But take heart! For I have overcome the world."

However, such negative emotions caused by evil acts and kept inside, steaming, burning and eating at our hearts, would do nothing but add to the anguish within, as well as the anguish of all involved. Releasing this to God through forgiveness, overcomes those negative feelings. At least that is what happened to me when I, personally forgave another person who did me wrong. It was such a relief!

Admittedly, this is really tough to do. My situation wasn't anywhere near as terrible as the murder of the Amish children. We can all learn quite a lesson in humility, grace and forgiveness through these people and how they handled such deep grief.

This brings us to the question, "can there be forgiveness without repentance, and can forgiveness be complete without it being accepted?"

That is a great question! In my case, I forgave an individual in my own heart without even telling her how much she hurt me. She didn't have to accept my forgiveness for her actions, I just gave it out freely, in secret, through prayer to God. When I did this, it was like a huge burden was lifted from my soul! I was able to be reconciled with this person, and our relationship was restored, healed and is growing ever stronger now. I will tell you this. I
couldn't have done it without the Holy Spirit's leading in my life. That made all the difference.

Also, extended forgiveness done in such a manner as this, helps the healing process for all concerned (e.g. the murderer's family and the Amish people affected by this horrible tragedy).

Human forgiveness afforded between people here on earth is a finite act of the will because of Christ's infinite, sacrificial act at the cross of forgiveness. This is what is meant in Jesus' example of "how should we pray?" The answer is, "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Our capacity to forgive comes from God Himself!

As far as God's forgiveness being afforded to the murderer himself, it is true that he could not have the grace, mercy and salvation bestowed upon him by God unless he repented of his sins and accepted Christ as Lord and Savior of his life before death. We don't know, for sure, if he ever did so in his lifetime or not. It doesn't appear likely, but we can only guess at this point. As is the case with each of us, it is a matter between each individual person and God.

Jesus asks us all, "Who do you say that I am?" How we answer that question, whether or not we are born again (see John 3), and whether or not we die with our own sins upon our own soul or covered by the blood of Jesus Christ through the cross, determines whether or not we are forgiven by God. That decision for (or rejection of) Christ determines where we spend eternity...with God or separated from Him...forever.

Friday, October 13, 2006

National Marriage Battle Intensifying

Same-sex Marriage supporters, foes continue on collision course

Download the complete PDF of this article

"The forces that are behind these lawsuits are absolutely committed to impose this on our nation through the courts." -- Matt Daniels

Even though 46 states have passed amendments or statutes defining marriage as solely a relationship between a man and a woman, Alliance for Marriage founder Matt Daniels is wary.
Daniels knows the decision of only one judge could undermine the pronouncements of 20 voter-approved state amendments and 26 state legislatures protecting traditional matrimony.

It almost happened in July. The Washington State Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But an imminent breakthrough is possible in any of half a dozen other states where homosexual marriage activists have argued their cause before the highest courts.

"The forces that are behind these lawsuits are absolutely committed to impose this on our nation through the courts," says Daniels, whose organization is based in Merrifield, Va. "They eventually will succeed in more states than Massachusetts."

By a 4-3 vote, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 determined that same-sex couples have a fundamental, constitutional right to marry. But the law there restricts such marriages just to Bay State residents.

In most other states where suits are pending, nonresidents would be able to file for marriage licenses as well, creating a potentially chaotic national patchwork of legally binding unions. That's one of the reasons Daniels has been pressing since 1999 for a federal amendment that narrowly defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

"We are inevitably going to have a national standard with respect to marriage," Daniels predicts. "Marriage is too fundamental a social institution to have radically different definitions in different states."

It's been a bruising battle so far. In June, the U.S. Senate couldn't even rally 50 members to bring the issue to debate, let alone the 67 votes needed for passage.

In July, the U.S. House rejected a constitutional amendment introduced by Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, an Assemblies of God member. Although the measure passed 236-1.87, it fell 47 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority for enactment. A constitutional amendment failed in both houses of Congress in 2004 under nearly identical circumstances.

Daniels believes the national battle will become more intense. Many media, business and education forces have lined up against the amendment. Yet in every state where a ballot referendum has occurred, traditional marriage has triumphed, frequently by lopsided tallies.
"This is not just an issue for people of Faith," Daniels says. "This crosses racial, cultural and religious lines."

Still, many editorial writers and cartoonists ridiculed congressional leaders for even bringing the matter up this summer, viewing it as a minor issue compared to the conflict in Iraq, immigration reform, gas prices and health care.

Even Christians haven't been mobilized to the extent Daniels and others expected. If a state legalizes homosexual marriage and out-of-state residents are allowed to wed there, Daniels envisages the United States quickly following the path of Canada, where clergy have been charged with hate speech crimes for preaching the biblical view of marriage and Christian schools have lost tax-exempt status and accreditation.

"If our laws are altered to declare marriage between a man and a woman as a form of bigotry, it will have profound consequences on the church," Daniels says.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, where more than 8,000 same-sex couples have recited vows since 2004, Christians are working to pressure the legislature to put on the 2008 ballot a state constitutional amendment overturning the judicial court's decision.

Assemblies of God Southern New England Superintendent Otis D. Stanley says the district has encouraged Massachusetts churches to incorporate marriage standards in their bylaws.
"We take a stand that no Assemblies of God minister will ever be forced to conduct a marriage against his or her conscience," Stanley says.

In addition to Massachusetts permitting homosexual marriage, Connecticut and Vermont have a "civil union" option for homosexual couples.

In November elections, another half-dozen stares -- Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- will have homosexual marriage amendments on ballots. In addition to two-thirds passage by Congress, a federal constitutional amendment must secure approval from three-fourths (38) of the states.

Another reason a federal constitutional amendment is necessary, Daniels says, is the full faith and credit clause in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution. A ruling allowing homosexual marriage in one state could invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress a decade ago.

"Too many Christians are believing the political rhetoric that this is a state issue," says Glenn T. Stanton, author of Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. "But it's also a federal issue because you can't have differing marriage laws in different states."
Stanton, who is also marriage and sexuality senior analyst with Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., says it's important for Christians to understand the theological implications of homosexual marriage.

"Both male and female represent the image of God, but the same-sex marriage proposal says a particular part of the image of God is not important for the family," Stanton says.

Traditional marriage advocates are in agreement with the Washington State Supreme Court majority decision, which declared, "Limiting marriage to opposite sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children."
Stanton believes homosexual activists shortchange the needs of children in making their marriage arguments.

"All human civilization at any time and any place has been based on marriage between men and women," Stanton says. "No society needs more civil unions to solve social problems. Government shouldn't be in the business of blessing emotional relationships."

"Courts may be able to change laws, but they cannot change the fundamental reality that our kids need a mom and a dad," says Daniels, whose own father left his mother when Daniels was 2. "In the long run we will win this battle based on that evidence."

Daniels has been able to recruit clergy across the denominational, political and ethnic spectrum to his cause. Ordained Assemblies of God ministers Samuel Bettencourt of Downey, Calif., and Sam Rodriguez Jr. of Sacramento, Calif., are in leadership roles with AFM.

Rodriguez, who also is the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, has been engaged in keeping the issue before 15 million Latinos.

"We understand what Scripture dictates in regard to sin and homosexuality," Rodriguez says. "But we tackle the issue from the reality that we need a mom and a dad in the home. That is the number one deterrent to gang violence, drug abuse, dropping out of school and teenage pregnancy. Marriage is the institution that is the bedrock of civilization."

Marriage is important because it defines humanity, Stanton argues. "Marriage is the place in society that bridges the human divide and brings men and women together on a whole bunch of levels," Stanton says. "The same-sex marriage proposition really says half of humanity is merely optional."

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Columbia "Uninvites" Attendees to Shoebat Talk

Wow!! The hypocrisy, censoring, and just plain stupidity of Columbia University is just unbelievable!! Under the guise of "security reasons" (yeah right...bullcrap!!), the "chaplain?" made the decision to "disinvite" (can you believe THAT??) about 125 conservatives who showed up in the rain to hear two ex-terrorists turned born-again Christians share their journey from jihad indoctrination to Christian faith and love.

This excerpt from the question and answer period was riveting:

A young black male questioner said that although the speakers spoke positively about the United States, he (the questioner) felt that for a black man the United States was a very violent place. Also, Walid had expressed his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr, and the questioner asked what about Malcolm X. Anani responded that if the questioner thought the United States was violent, welcome to Beirut, where, for 30 years, 200-300 people were killed in the streets daily. Look at Iraq now, where Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other. All through the Muslim world, sectarian violence is a problem, and it has nothing to do with the United States. Walid said that all countries have problems, but Abu Ghraib and Baruch Goldstein are exceptional, and acts of violence and hate crimes are routinely denounced in the United States and Israel, whereas the Muslim world celebrates killings of Americans and Jews. He said he did not have a high opinion of Malcolm X, who, unlike MLK, preached divisiveness rather than love. (bold mine)

Entire story, with video downloads, available at Atlas Shrugged.
TrackBack URL for Atlas Shrugged entry:

My previous post about Walid Shoebat.


10/13/06 update: More at Daily Infidel. Be sure to read the comments!

10:00 a.m. Pacific time: Great post over at Sacred Scoop.

Here's an excerpt:

Walid and the other speakers were trying to tell the audience that ‘talks and appeasements’ mean death for Israel, and gain for radical murdering terrorists, but the students evidently didn’t believe them despite the fact that the students haven’t got the slightest idea of what life in the Middle east is all about. Don’t you just love it when someone without a clue tells those who are experts that they are wrong? Makes ya all warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

Walid had no sooner finished telling the crowd that he grew up being indoctrinated with hate and racist ideology from a very young age, by the ‘moderate Muslims’ population, when the crowd, apparently deaf to any criticisms of Radical Islam, accused him of hate speech for criticizing the very foundations that indoctrinated him with racist murderous ideology in the first place.

I guess you just can’t tell young students anything- even if it comes from first hand knowledge and experience- they just know everything, and whatever you try to say just doesn’t register with their one track, anti-Semite infused little minds. It leads a person to wonder if these students aren’t being indoctrinated by the same ‘moderate’ imams that indoctrinated the speakers in the first place- but my guess is that it’s just plain ignorance on the part of the students- which just goes to prove the old saying that, “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” -Rami Belson (bold mine)

"Politically Incorrect" Censoring of YouTube

I just knew it! The moment I heard that YouTube would be bought by Google, I knew that conservative bloggers (like favorite, Michele Malkin's Hot Air site) choice and/or creation of videos would either be censored, blocked, or banned! WorldNetDaily has the full report.

To still see this video, deemed as a "scary" campaign advertisement (created by Hollywood producer and director David Zucker that was intended to be used by GOP organizations in the closing weeks of the 2006 campaign) and which has been blocked by the Google search engine, go to The Drudge Report.

WorldNetDaily excerpt:

The commentator noted YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND columnist.

Sexually suggestive videos were found on the site unblocked, as were entire episodes of television shows. So was a clip from a movie depicting the assassination of President Bush, "Death of a President."

"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that anti-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff." "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."

Google has come under its own criticism for holding an anti-conservative or anti-Republican agenda. It has been criticized in the past, according to a WND report for hosting "Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival" site on its weblog.

It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads.

Newsbusters: YouTube Censors Anti-Dem 'Scary Movie' Commercial Video

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The Road to Nowhere?

Albert Mohler's latest blogpost: The Road To Nowhere? Middle Church clearly shows that the religious "left" in this country want to compromise the truth in order to advance their agenda.

Mohler states:

As it turns out, one does not have to be very conservative in order to be considered part of the "far religious right" as identified by Bob Edgar. Interestingly for one whose own organization pushes so many political agendas, he claims to speak for those "faithful people" who do not, at least always, "connect their spiritual values with political issues."

As Edgar sees it, there are two different churches in the United States--one based on love and the other grounded in fear. As Edgar asserts, "fear, fundamentalism, and the FOX Broadcasting Company must not be allowed to set the agenda for our nation."

Well then. As children we are wisely advised by parents to learn the art of compromise. This is good advice for children playing in the sandbox. However, it is disastrous advice when it comes to matters of truth. Compromise works when truth is not at issue. But the very character of the National Council of Churches and the larger ecumenical movement is one of constant compromise at the expense of truth.

That is what we are seeing on the leftist, Christian blogs. Everything from abortion to homosexuality is simply waved away as not being sin, and instead, embraced as a twisted kind of "moral value."

Mohler writes:

For example, Edgar could have offered a careful, exegetical, historical, and theological engagement with moral issues. Instead he offers irresponsible generalizations such as this: "The Bible mentions abortion not once, homosexuality only twice, and poverty or peace more than two thousand times. Yet somehow abortion and homosexuality have become the litmus test of faith in public life today."

How can an intelligent reader, armed with even the slightest knowledge of the Bible and the Christian tradition, take such a statement seriously? The Bible does not mention abortion only in the sense that it does not make direct reference to the practice of surgical abortion as is common today. The Bible speaks clearly to the sanctity of human life and to the priority of protecting unborn life. Furthermore, to state that the Bible mentions homosexuality "only twice" indicates that Edgar has redefined homosexuality as something other than that which the Bible addresses in numerous passages.

There can be no doubt that the Bible's consistent judgment is that homosexual acts are inherently immoral and sinful. The Christian church in all of its major branches has understood this for two thousand years. This has been a true ecumenical consensus until recent years when some more liberal churches in the West have abandoned the Christian tradition in order to endorse homosexual practice.

Thus, it is an act of intellectual dishonesty for Edgar to claim to speak for "classic historical Christianity."

That's the crux of the matter, people. The Christian religious left are guilty of intellectual dishonesty when they endorse such things as abortion and homosexuality.

I have had conversations with religious leftists, and they don't mind the compromise that they have made away from what the Bible explicitly teaches about homosexual behavior. To say (as the author of the book in Mohler's blogpost does) that since homosexuality is mentioned only twice (which is a lie), then it shouldn't be as important as poverty or peace, shows downright ignorance of what the Bible conveys on all these topics. Plus, the fact that homosexual "marriage" and the relentless gay agenda indoctrination in public schools is one of the most divisive cultural issues of our time separates it from subjects like the need to combat poverty, a subject with which most Christians would agree upon.

I think that Bob Edgar's views reflect the thinking of most who see nothing wrong with being a "gay-behavior affirming" Christian.

Mohler writes:

In an amazing passage, Edgar asserts: "People of faith must be able to conduct a respectful and open conversation about all aspects of sexuality including homosexuality. God has a lot to say on all these topics, and if we skip the listening and rush straight to the judging--an enterprise in which we're not supposed to be involved anyway--we can't hope to make serious progress in our discussion."

Statements like this must leave us wondering if this author actually means to be taken seriously. His book is filled with moral judgments--judgments about ecology, justice, racism, and a host of other issues. But when it comes to sexuality, Edgar offers the facile suggestion that moral judgment is "an enterprise in which we're not supposed to be involved anyway."

In other words, when Edgar makes moral judgments, he's not being judgmental. But when others moral judgments, they are being judgmental. The Bible does not say that we are not to make moral judgments, or that we are not to judge moral behavior. Indeed, the Bible makes absolutely no sense if that is the case. The Bible--in both Old and New Testaments--is filled with moral judgment and with advisement on how we are to make such judgments. Of course, the judgments we are to make concern behavior, not the heart. We are expressly forbidden to judge another's heart. That distinction is missing from Edgar's analysis.

This is spiritual and moral relativism at work in the mind of Bob Edgar. Read the entire article and you will spot them...hard to miss.

Mohler states:

Nevertheless, conservative Christians did not decide to make abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research front-line issues. It is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty to suggest that evangelicals prompted the national debate on those issues. On all of these fronts, evangelicals are simply calling on the Christian church to stand by its historic convictions and moral wisdom.