Our National Cathedral Embraces Idolatry

     I'm just going to admit it.  This post is not in the least bit politically correct, nor do I wish it to be. When it comes to offending God, this institution is setting new records.  But, sadly, I think it is just a barometer for how far this nation and our society have wandered astray.  But it wasn't always that way.

     The Washington Cathedral, (or if you wish to call it by its formal name, The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington) has historical significance for this country.  When the architectural plans for our nation's capitol were being laid out in 1792, Pierre L'Enfant's "Plan of the Federal City" set aside land for a "great church for national purposes".  It then took 100 years for Congress to grant a charter to establish the church.  It has a long history of hosting national events that embody the American experience, including the state funerals for three American Presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan, and Ford); Memorial services for other Presidents and Heads of State (Nelson Mandela, for instance); a Memorial Service for Martin Luther King, Jr., and one for the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
     It has been a religious institution that supported our heart and soul during trying and emotional times.  Congress has officially designated the Washington Cathedral as the "National House of Prayer".  To that point, during World War II, monthly services were held there "on behalf of a united people in a time of emergency". Before and since, the building has hosted other major events, both religious and secular, that have drawn the attention of the American people.
     And now our attention is drawn there again, but because of a different kind of "emergency".  CBN News disclosed that "The Washington National Cathedral will be hosting a Muslim prayer service for the first time on Friday."  One of the planner's of the event, South African Ambassador to the United States Ebrahim Rasool, who is a Muslim, called the service "a dramatic moment in the world and in Muslim-Christian relations."  A spokesman from a DC-area mosque is quoted as saying, "We want the world to see the Christian community is partnering with us and is supporting our religious freedom in the same way we are calling for religious freedom for all minorities in Muslim countries. Let this be a lesson to the world."  Furthermore, the planners of this Muslim prayer service are calling it a "powerful symbolic gesture."  (Just take a look at some of the co-sponsors of the event:  The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Society of North America; that should put it all in perspective).

     Just let the words of those quotes come together in your mind; let the implied significance of them begin to take shape.  From just a national perspective, these words are chilling.  It truly is a "dramatic moment" as the radical Muslim world, who wishes to annihilate us, sees us opening the doors of one of our nation's holiest worship sites to their religion.  I have a feeling that the Christian community "partnering with them" is viewed as acquiescence, or more likely, concession and submission.
     Is there any reliable witness that can attest to "religious freedoms for minorities in Muslim countries"?  I don't see it!  And I can't help but sense a more ominous tone in the admonition to "Let this be a lesson to the world."  The only thing I am in agreement with is, is that this event is truly "a powerful symbolic gesture."
     It is not enough that this event may leave radical jihadists with an understanding that they have "conquered" our faith; I tremble at the impression it gives our God.  This National "House of Prayer", is more than a church; it was dedicated to "a nation built on the rock of religious faith, a nation we celebrate as "one nation under God," a nation whose founding President, George Washington, said: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."  Yet this National House of God has been compromised by the idolatry of man.
     Not only will another god be worshipped in YHVH's House, but same-sex weddings can now be performed at Washington National Cathedral.  But that's not all ... during a 9/11 ceremony and "Concert for Hope" at the Cathedral in 2011, Christian representatives were not invited; but a Hindu priest, a Buddhist nun, and a Muslim imam were part of the event.
     The actions of our National Cathedral have clearly shown that, as a nation, we have become friends to the world; and we view Him as our enemy.  We have decided to make choices that go against what our God demands, namely "to have no other gods before Him."  He makes it very clear that it is to Him, and Him alone, that we are to bow in worship.  And to worship another god in His House is especially insulting!
     How can we, as a nation and a people, expect His continued blessings when we bow down at the altar of "political correctness" and "equality"?  There is no equal to our God!  But maybe I already know the answer ... there is a part of our society that rejects Him and refuses to seek His favor.  They have no need for Him, choosing to elevate their own foolish "wisdom" over His Omniscience.  How much longer will He tolerate our rebellion, our self-worship, and our impudent pride?  These characteristics are all manifested in our biggest sin ... Unbelief.  We have robbed God of His position as our Sovereign Lord, and offered our worship to idols.  And now the National House of Prayer has become a den of iniquity; we will soon see what a Jealous God He is!

Matthew 21:13   "He said to them, The Scripture says, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers." 

Parents: Have You Taken A Look At Your Child's Homework Lately???

     Over two years ago, in July of 2012, I began writing of the dangers of the Federal Government in our Education system, and their attempt to nationalize the content of instruction in every public school across the nation.  I warned that Federal programs such as CSCOPE and COMMON CORE were undermining American values and indoctrinating our children.
     I followed up that post with one in February of 2013, pointing out the concerted efforts to teach our public school children that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism; Christians were cannibals;  and that students were forced to draw a socialist flag while imagining a new socialist country.  At that time, I became aware that the most insidious deception involved the teachings surrounding Islam.

     The curriculum teaches our kids that "Non-Muslims in conquerored territory are allowed religious freedom (for an additional tax)."  (Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from the murderous rampage of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.) But our kids will only be taught that "Allah is the Almighty God…Allah alone is the Creator, He alone deserves our devout love and worship.”
    Yes, I've been writing about the duplicitous intent of the Department of Education for over two years now.  There have been some victories for truth, and far too many defeats; and for the most part, I'm afraid that many parents may be unaware of what their children are being taught in the name of "advanced current thinking."
     Now The End Begins website reports that "Children are being forced to say the shahada, and forced to learn the Five Pillars Of Islam."  If you are wondering, "Why should that concern me?" or think there is no problem with your child learning about other cultures, I would ask you to consider this:  NTEB's report also includes this bit of information ...  "When Muslims force Christians to convert, they are forced to say the shahada (the Muslim declaration of faith). The Arabic writing on the black flag of jihad (also known as the al Qaeda flag or ISIS flag) is the shahada. This chant of supremacism and imperialism is being forced on American school kids."  Does that make you sit up and take notice?  It should!
     The article tells other stories ... about a mother helping her 7th grade daughter study her Social Studies homework, which consisted of vocabulary words like Qur’an, Mosque, Alms, Caliph, Jihad, Sunnis, Shiites.  Furthermore, she discovered that her daughter's assignments instructed her to "draw detailed pictures of the 5 pillars of Islam and write a word collage of all that is good with Islam."
     Just imagine if a school's curriculum included lessons that asked students to study words like Jehovah, Tithing, Pentateuch or Communion; or if a student was told to memorize the 10 Commandments or write a short story about all that is good with Christianity.  You would have the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and every anti-Christian organization in the country filing suit!
     The good news about this particular parent's experience is that she became active this year in getting appointed to a schoolbook review board at her daughter's school; educated herself on what the Constitution says about favoring a religion; and started uniting parents through social media, in a consolidated effort to make other parents aware.
     She's not the only parent who is outraged over this reeducation of our school children.  You might have seen this story on The Kelly File on Fox News.  Marine and Iraq war veteran Kevin Woods was not happy that his 11th grade daughter was asked to write a paper on the 5 pillars of Islam, Mecca (the holiest place in Islam), and the prophet Mohammad.  He called the school and reportedly told them he disagreed with his daughter being taught these subjects.  His argument was based on our inability to mention God in the classroom, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and pray before a football game.  

     But school officials say they "are not teaching religion; they are teaching world history."  You can imagine after serving our country where Islam is the predominant religion, he just might have a difference of opinion.  And being a Marine, his language was probably pretty colorful.  That got him a no-trespass order from the local police, for being "threatening."  But he's standing by his convictions, and after the school refused to give his daughter an alternative lesson, she will be refusing to submit to the propaganda and will most likely receive an F for the class.
     These stories are not out-of-the-ordinary.  What frustrates me, is this has been going on for at least two years, and is most likely deeply entrenched -- not only in your school system, but in your child's mind!  I cannot stress how this invasive curriculum is undermining our country ... it's not education; it's not world history; and it's certainly not teaching cultural diversity --- it's brainwashing and proselytizing!  And to be honest, it's being done throughout all grade levels.  It's not just your college kids you have to worry about being taught anti-American and anti-Christian doctrines.  Common Core has a curriculum for Kindergarten through 12th grade!  They are trying to change the basic belief systems of our kids!
     As long as Common Core is a continuing threat to mislead our children and change what this country has stood for, I will continue to write about it to wake up as many parents as I can.  This tactic is not new and is actually prophesied by Jesus.  In Matthew 10, He tells us that children will rise up against their parents.  What better way for Evil to infiltrate a nation or a people, than to turn the hearts and minds of the children against all that their parents have taught them?  And think how easy it is to do, when the parents aren't even aware the campaign has begun?
     I beg you, PLEASE take the time to do some research about what your children's curriculum includes.  Question them, look over their assignments and peruse their schoolbooks.  And be like these parents I've mentioned.  Speak up, and speak out!  Do not be silenced or threatened by School officials or School Boards.  There is an evil-intentioned agenda eating away at the center of our national identity, and it is stealthy and persistent.  The infection has begun, and unless we are vigilant and relentless in bringing it to light, it will succeed in poisoning us.  Time is running out!

Psalm 14:12    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."
   

"The Affleck Syndrome"

     It has certainly been interesting to watch uber-Liberal atheist Bill Maher and his atheist author buddy Sam Harris attempt to talk religion with Hollywood hothead Ben Affleck.  The subject was the Left's reaction to criticism of the violence committed by jihadists in the name of the Islamic religion.
     First of all, I found it amusing that Maher declared that Liberals have a claim on "the freedom of speech; the freedom to practice any religion you want without fear of violence; the freedom to leave a religion; equality for women, minorities, and homosexuals" ---- these are principles he called "Liberal Principles".  (Why is it that Liberals are the only ones who believe in these principles?  Don't all people want freedom and equality?)
     Sam Harris went on to say, "Liberals have failed on the topic of theocracy."  By this, I believe he is referring to a particular doctrine of a particular religion; in this case, Islam.  He goes on: "Liberals will criticize White theocracy and Christianity... they will become agitated about the abortion clinic bombing in 1984; but when you want to talk about treatment of homosexuals, women, and free-thinkers in the Muslim world, then you are called racist."  That automatically introduced the loathsome word (gasp!) ... Islamophobia!  

     That's when Affleck could contain himself no longer.  He almost came flying out of his seat as he tried to equate that kind of logic with disparaging comments about Jews and Blacks.  His argument was that Maher and Harris were conflating Islam with Muslims; they were painting a broad brush of doctrinal belief across all Muslim cultures and peoples.  Who is right?  Or are they both correct?  The problem is you have men -- two who have publicly stated they have no love of religion or faith; and one who shows no evidence that he knows what faith is -- trying to defend a religion that our culture cannot understand or equate.  So that makes them authorities, right? (Wink, Wink).
     From my decidedly (and unapologetically) Christian viewpoint, it looks to me that Mr. Affleck wants to argue this from a position of relativism.  In other words, I think he believes that no one can argue what Islam stands for, because Muslims are free to interpret Islam as they wish.  So those who interpret it violently are just "a few bad apples", so to speak.  And when you try to use "relativism" as an argument, you become less interested in defining the true nature of something, and no one is ever really to blame, are they?
     As Raymond Ibrahim, an award-winning journalist and Middle East and Islam specialist, points out in an article on PJ Media, "The fundamental mistake in the position of [Islam apologists such as Ben Affleck] is that it places Muslims on a higher pedestal of authority than Islam itself (even though Muslims are by definition “one’s who submit” to Islam, which is “submission” to Allah’s laws).  Islam is based on the law, or Sharia — “the way” prescribed by Allah and his prophet.  And Sharia most certainly does call for any number of things — subjugation of women and religious minorities, war on “infidels” and the enslavement of their women and children, bans on free speech and apostasy — that even Affleck would normally condemn."
     We, in the Western culture are simply unable to understand that this is not only a religious problem, but a cultural one.  Yes, not all Muslims are jihadists.  But, we must ask ourselves this:  "Are all Muslims Islamists?"  There are many that do not embrace violent jihad; they wish to work within the system, but if they are a true Islamist, then they still believe in the strict doctrine of Sharia Law, and that is where the danger lies.
     It is the foundation of Sharia Law that the jihadists want to impose on the world.  I will agree that it is wrong to say that "all Muslims" want to execute you if you leave the faith, or stone homosexuals; but to me, the fact that one would say it is a problem!  And how do apologists square the fact that a growing number of Muslims are flocking to ISIS, who loudly proclaim their goal of Sharia Law for the world?  This is the same Sharia Law that advocates stoning homosexuals and adulterers, or executing you if you leave the faith, remember? I would expect Liberals,who espouse a person's freedom of choice, to recognize that characteristic of the Islamic faith.  To which, the standard reply from apologists like Affleck, is that we are racists. In our culture, whenever you want to shut down any argument or logic, you simply invoke the "race card", and you are discredited.  But here's the problem, Ben --- a Muslim is not a race of people, but a follower of the religion of Islam.
     As Rich Lowry, of the National Review Online, wrote, all Bill Maher was trying to say "is that self-consciously tolerant liberals often look the other way when confronted with the intolerance of the Muslim world." But Ben Affleck just can't go there.  It feels too judgmental, and as any modern American Liberal must do, he cannot give any hint of American or Western "exceptionalism".
     So how does he explain away that Christians in Syria and Iraq are given three choices by Muslim Islamic believers -- convert to Islam, become enslaved to the system, or death?  Or does he simply ignore the difference in the way Christians and Islamists pray about their enemies?  There is a huge difference between loving your enemy and praying for those who persecute you, and praying for your god to cut out the tongues of your enemy, freeze their blood and inflict pain and misery on them.
     The sad truth of the controversial debate between these men is that they argued over the unfair criticism of Muslims and Islam, and found nothing good to say about our Christian Faith.  They are blind to the inherent sinful nature of all men, and that we are all in need of a Savior.  They just look down upon us misguided followers of Jesus, and refuse to look up for their redemption.  They're so smart, and compassionate, and they have no need of deliverance; they have all the answers.  Their arguments are just a symptom of the West's egocentricity and social relativism -- we are self-important, and there are no moral absolutes; our values and ways of interpreting the world can vary from society to society and even within different sections of societies.  So, how dare we question another person's actions, especially if they look different and act different than we do?
     The bottom line is this:  These men, who have no faith of their own, are incapable of understanding an extreme faith; and are only capable of projecting their own moral relativism on another culture's actions.  In the end, their opinions don't really matter; they are just an actor and talking heads.  But sadly, we have politicians who are responsible for our national safety who have no more faith, and their moral view is just as cloudy.  God have mercy on us!

Isaiah 5:20   "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
   

   
   

The WWII Memorial Prayer Act

     It was nice to see that the Congress, in its entirety, could agree on something.  Early in June, the Senate unanimously passed a bill called The WWII Memorial Prayer Act (S1044).  Just a few days ago, the House of Representatives passed it by a bipartisan majority.  The essence of this Bill is its' commemoration of the prayer that President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke on the morning that troops were landing on the beaches of Normandy.  The purpose of this legislation is that this Landing Day prayer will be added -- at no cost to the American taxpayer -- to the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C.
     The history behind this worthy legislation is that seventy years ago, on the morning of June 6, 1944, as Allied forces were landing on the beaches in Normandy, President Roosevelt went to the airwaves and prayed with the nation for God's blessing and protection upon our brave fighting men. He prayed, "Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity… With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.  Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen."  (For a full rendition of FDR's prayer, click here.)
     Senator Rob Portman, a sponsor of the bill, said, "Every day, countless Americans volunteer to serve our country. Many more before them have made the greatest sacrifice of all, giving their lives to defend our freedoms. On D-Day, our nation mourned our men overseas who fell while combating tyranny. President Roosevelt asked us to come together to pray for these courageous heroes, and his words provided strength and comfort to a grieving nation.  At no cost to the taxpayer, my bill will immortalize this extraordinary prayer on the World War II Memorial so it becomes a permanent reminder of the sacrifice of not just those who fought in World War II, but also of the men and women who fight for us today and all those who lay down their lives for the cause of liberty."
     It should come as no surprise that the ACLU has filed a letter of opposition, in which they state, "Religious freedom is a fundamental and defining feature of our national character. Given our robust, longstanding commitment to the freedom of religion and belief, it is no surprise that the United States is among the most religious, and religiously diverse, nations in the world. Our religious diversity is one of our nation’s great strengths.  

     This bill, however, shows a lack of respect for this great diversity. It endorses the false notion that all veterans will be honored by a war memorial that includes a prayer [which] proponents characterize as reflecting our country’s “Judeo-Christian heritage and values.”  In fact, Department of Defense reports show that nearly one-third of all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces identify as non-Christian.  Likewise, many of our veterans and citizens come from a variety of religious backgrounds, or have no religious belief; thus, it is inappropriate to honor the “power of prayer” in a national memorial.
     Memorials are designed to bring our country together in a unified reflection of our past. Indeed, the WWII Memorial’s stated purpose is national unity.  Instead of uniting us as we remember the sacrifice of those who served, the inclusion of this prayer on the memorial would be divisive: It would send a strong message to those who do not share the same religious beliefs expressed in this prayer that they are excluded and ‘not full members of the . . . community.’      
     "Well .... let me just say this:  This is a memorial to WWII veterans and their experience.  It's about them, and for them.  I do not have the precise statistics, but I would venture a guess that a vast majority of those serving in our military THEN, probably checked the box "Christian" on their enlistment papers. So, it's not about the "nearly one-third of all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces", as the ACLU alleges.  And it is not about changing history, as it certainly appears to me is the desired result of this opposition.
     For God's sake (literally)!  On June 6, 1944 the President of the United States proclaimed this prayer in our hour of need.  He properly reflected the spiritual nature of our country at that time.  Just because individuals and organizations such as the ACLU want to project "exclusion" and "divisiveness" upon this memorial prayer, doesn't make it so, or take away its historical importance.  I am so tired of these dissenters trying to claim we are not, nor have ever been, a Christian nation.  When you read the entire prayer, it is obvious President Roosevelt was speaking to a nation of people who had faith in the Christian God.  I'm sorry if the ACLU doesn't want to accept that truth.
     This bill has now been sent to the President's desk for his signature.  Will he sign it?  As far back as 2011, when this bill was first introduced, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management at the time, Robert Abbey, said any plaque or inscription bearing the prayer would “dilute” the “elegant” memorial’s core message and therefore “should not be altered.”   Nonsense!  I hope that this bill doesn't languish on the President's desk; pushed aside until Congress takes its summer recess, and then to be forgotten upon resumption of official duties.  This prayer, spoken by an American President, is an important part of our national experience, our history, and our spiritual consciousness.  Let it be forever memorialized.

Jeremiah 29:12    "Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you."

   

A Win For Hobby Lobby & The Constitution!

     I sat, holding my breath yesterday morning, awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court on the most important case before the bench, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.  As you should know, the case was to determine whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can exempt a company from federal government regulations requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees.
     In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court gave a narrow ruling that "closely-held corporations" can't be forced to provide contraception.  Basically, the Court held that private, family-owned businesses can claim religious exemption to being forced to provide certain contraceptive measures that are designed to end the pregnancy of a fertilized egg; in effect, resulting in abortion.  Specifically, Hobby Lobby objected to four of the 20 contraceptive methods in the mandate; pills and devices that can work after conception, including morning after pills and IUDs.  Essentially, the Supreme Court has voted that our religious convictions matter, and corporations can have a religious viewpoint under federal law.
     I have to admit that tears spontaneously filled my eyes, as I looked heavenward and thanked God.  Perhaps He had heard and answered the collective prayers of Christians who asked that we not be forced to compromise our faith.  Of course, the skeptics will point out that it was a narrow victory; far from unanimous, and is not a clear mandate from either the Court or the populace.  They will argue that women, who wish to receive these methods of birth control, will be denied, and the government was only trying to require businesses to provide a health care option the women need.

     But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote his own opinion, pointed out this mandate did not come from an elected body; not from Congress, or one of the three elected Branches of government; but from an unelected bureaucracy, namely from the Department of Health and Human Services.  He found it troubling that an unelected bureaucrat (at the time, Kathleen Sebelius) could set down such sweeping laws that effected the electorate.  That is clearly unConstitutional!
     I will admit that I'm a little confused about the dissenting opinion coming from Justice Ginsberg, who saw this as a gender equality issue in the workplace.  Already, opponents of the Court decision are misleading the public by saying that employers are exempt from providing all contraception methods.  In truth, only four of the twenty were excluded.  Then of course, we are hearing a montage of talking points on the injustice towards women, and how this is part of the continued "war on women."  But these arguments just don't hold water.
     The Court ruled that women who want these contraceptions are not banned from getting them; they have other ways to receive them, like buying them for themselves (as they had been doing for the 30 years before the Affordable Care Act).  Or if HHS was so concerned about the availability of free contraceptive methods, why didn't they pay for them?  (Of course, if the government paid for them, it would mean the American taxpayer would be footing the bill, right?)  In the end, the Court decided that this mandate intruded upon the "individual conscious" of Hobby Lobby's owners, and DID prohibit them from the "free exercise" of their religious beliefs, which is a violation of the First Amendment.  It gives me a small glimmer of hope that our national foundation of religious liberty is still holding strong.  Keep praying, America!

Joshua 24:15        "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
   

What You Need To Know About The Caliphate

     I find it a little disconcerting that I have to go to news sources outside this country (most notably the U.K.) to get a more accurate picture of world events.  Perhaps it is because the rise of fundamentalist Islam has taken a greater toll upon their country.  But we would do well to take note of these effects, and therefore be better informed and prepared.
     In fact, Before It's News reports that in the Middle East, a very dangerous thing for the West is happening, and it is happening rapidly.  A Muslim Caliphate is growing literally by the day. What is a Caliphate? A Caliphate is taken from the Arabic word Khilafa which means ‘succession’.  A Caliphate is an Islamic state led by a man with dual power.  That leader is both the supreme religious leader and a primary political leader, also known as a Caliph, or successor to Mohammed. The Caliph closely follows and strictly adheres to Sharia law over the land.
     Now, there will be those who will say that a Caliphate is a historical term, and has no significance in the modern world.  But anyone paying attention cannot deny the escalation of Sharia law, nor ignore the warnings of those who wish to see it instituted here and around the world.

 
     So, just to give you an idea of how important an issue this is, consider this information printed in the U.K.'s Daily Mail:
• Syria:  Moderate Sunni rebels and al-Quada linked jihadists are attempting to overthrow the Shia regime in a 3-year civil war that has left 150,000 dead.
• Iraq:  Sunni militants (ISIL) capture huge sections of the country on their march to Baghdad in an insurgency aimed at toppling the Shia-led government and creating an Islamic state across the Iraq-Syria border.
•  Saudi Arabia:  Hard-line Sunni regime has supported rebels in Syria, while Baghdad accuses the Saudis of financing the Sunni Islamic militants in Iraq.
• China (June 24):  The government releases videos showing how Islamic militants are using the internet to incite terrorist activities in the country after a string of attacks.
• Kenya (June 24):  At least 5 people have died in an attack on Kenya's coast just days after Al Shabbab kills 60 people in twin massacres in revenge for Kenya's military role in Somalia.
• Malaysia (June 24):  The highest court in the land upholds a ban on Catholics using the word Allah  to refer to the Muslim god, in what some experts fear is a growing Islamization of the country.
• Central African Republic:  Human rights groups warn that revenge attacks between Christian and Islamic militia risk creating conditions of a genocide similar to that in Bosnia in the 1990s.
• Nigeria (June 25):  At least 21 killed and 17 injured in an explosion at a shopping center in Abuja.  The attack was blamed on Islamic militants, and followed Boko Haram's abduction of 90 villagers yesterday and the kidnapping of 300 Christian schoolgirls last month.
• Libya (June 25):  Libyans head to the polls for parliamentary elections as violence from a patchwork of militias, including Islamic extremists, grips the country since the ouster of Muammar Ghaddafi. 
• Sudan (June 24):  Sudanese mother freed from death sentence for marrying a Christian is charged with fraud as she tries to leave the country for not using her Muslim name on travel documents.
     These facts alone should alert you to the very real crisis that the world is facing.  And lest you think that these are just civil wars and infighting that will remain within the boundaries of the Middle East, please reconsider.  Again, The Daily Mail reports that Islamist militants fighting in Iraq and Syria are producing a weekly English language magazine designed to recruit and radicalize would-be jihadists in the West.  The magazine, which is professionally designed and edited, is published by AlHayat Media Center - the propaganda wing of ISIS, the Sunni militant group whose brutal campaign to establish an Islamic state in the Middle East has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda.
     And they know what they are doing.  Titled, 'The Islamic State Report', the weekly magazine is published every seven days.  Now on it's fourth edition, the first was printed on June 1st. A fifth edition is expected to be released on Saturday.
     As with any propaganda tool, the magazine presents arguments in favor of ISIS and their objective.  It opens with several pages describing the history of the Middle East, and attempts to justify the establishing of a caliphate as a mission to correct the carving up of the region by Allied forces in the aftermath of the First World War.  Combine this message with heavy social media presence, and one can see how this could be effectively used against the West .
     The publication of the magazine is just the latest in ISIS's massive propaganda campaign, which includes dozens of accounts such as Twitter, Facebook and Ask.Fm.  Would-be jihadists in the West are encouraged to make contact through private smartphone messenger services, and ISIS has even developed its own android app.  They have also released slick English language recruitment videos, and even sell ISIS-themed clothing and memorabilia, such as T-shirts, ball caps and cuddly toys.  And the propaganda is working.
     Britain's Home Secretary reports that it is believed that about 400 young men have left the UK to join ISIS in the Middle East.  Secretary Theresa May warned these jihadists are now 'just a few hours flying time' from striking Britain, adding that they will 'want to attack us' when they return.  She said the terror threat was now 'on the doorstep of Europe' and was the most serious since 9/11.
     And are we naive enough to think that our homeland has not been targeted by this slick and persuasive campaign?  Just a few short years ago, the mention of a new Caliphate was ridiculed and labeled paranoid.  Now it is boldly publicized in a professional and inviting magazine, and brazenly touted across all lines of social media.  September 11, 2001 surprised us all, and it devastated this nation.  Now, there are those who wish to do more than "harm" us; their goal is submission or total destruction.  And they are broadcasting their intentions.  What more proof do we need? When will the West (and specifically, this country) wake up?

1 Peter 5:8    "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about; seeking whom he may devour."

Are We That Far Behind?

     If, as Americans, we were honest with ourselves, I think we would find that as we have attempted to become more "tolerant", the overall repercussions have been a disintegration and deterioration of the fabric of our society.  Does that mean that a bigoted, exclusive and insensitive people is preferred?  Absolutely not!  But there needs to be a balance between respecting our differences and allowing the destruction of our culture in the name of "acceptance".

     I am saying all this because of a disturbing trend that is taking place in Britain, and which has the possibility of becoming a problem for us, too.  I found it very interesting when CBN News reported that "the British government has announced that schools will be required to teach British values."  Why make that distinction and what brought this on?  Apparently, this new policy came about in the wake of news that Islamists took over several schools in the United Kingdom. This alleged plot to turn British faith-based schools into Muslim training academies has been dubbed "Operation Trojan Horse."
     British Islamic expert George Igler is quoted as saying, "Individuals with a religious motivation have taken public money and basically created madrases; basically created religiously motivated schools that promote intolerance, and this in some cases is a criminal enterprise."  The school policy  decision comes at a time when Britain was already in an uproar over the explosion of Muslim halal food in the nation's food supply, and after revelations that several predominantly Muslim sex gangs around Britain were using English girls as sex slaves.
     Another aspect of this development is that Britain is the only Western country with a functioning network of Sharia tribunals and councils.  There are over 100 Sharia courts in Britain, and they are dealing with marriages, divorce, even with criminal matters. They're also marrying children!
     In Birmingham, England, with its large Muslim population, authorities say Islamists were turning schools into centers of extremism.  And in one school the Muslim call to prayer was broadcast across the school playground, and non-Muslim teachers were forced out.

     I bring this to your attention because if you think it can't happen here, think again!  Todd Starnes, at Fox News, reported that parents at a Wichita, Kansas elementary school were shocked to discover a giant wall display inside the building promoting the five pillars of Islam.  The exhibit was part of a religion component being taught at Minneha Core Knowledge Magnet School.  School officials said the study of Islam is part of their “Core Knowledge” magnet curriculum, and if you've been reading my blog for awhile, I don't have to point out that anytime you see the word "Core" in a school curriculum, you better be looking for Common Core, the federally funded education curriculum -- which includes many studies on the religion of Islam, by the way.  Supposedly, the "Core Knowledge" purpose is not to explore the matters of theology, but to understand the place of religion and religious ideas in history.  But that begs the obvious question ... If the purpose was not to teach theology, why was the school teaching the five pillars of Islam?
     Then there's the issue of the Sharia courts.  According to an article in The Washington Times, Islam’s sharia law is insinuating itself into our courtrooms, schools, prisons and every other aspect of society. The lever often used is one of discrimination against the precepts of shariah, while Christian and Jewish customs and laws remain.  In a 2011 report, the Center for Security Policy found 50 “significant” published appellate court cases where sharia law entered a U.S. court’s decision making.  Among those cases are the following:
•  The Muslim Students’ Association and the Muslim Accommodations Task Force has convinced at least 17 universities to have foot baths built or under construction, including Boston University, George Washington University and Temple University, and at least nine universities have prayer rooms for “Muslim students only,” including Stanford, Emory and the University of Virginia, according to USA Today.
•  Illinois’ Skokie School Districts replaced Veteran’s Day with Eid ul Adha, a major Muslim holiday, in 2013.
•  In Ohio, a Muslim death row inmate, Abdul Awkal, has filed a federal lawsuit arguing the prison system’s failure to provide halal meals is a restraint on his religious freedoms. His on-going case already succeeded in having pork removed from the prison system’s menu.
     In each of these cases, intimidation and threats of lawsuits forced U.S. laws and customs to give way to sharia law.  In the face of this pressure, we must admit the facts as the British have now figured out, and as Omar Ahmad, co-founder/Board Chairman of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), in 1998 said publicly, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
     Is it too late for Britain?  Michael Gove, British secretary of state for education, told parliament that British schools must be put under new leadership, and taken in a fresh, new direction.  "And we will put the promotion of British values at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children."
     Will America learn from Britain's failing "tolerance" policy?  Will we listen to the wise words of our Founding Fathers, who themselves confronted the differences between the two religions?  John Adams wrote a 4-page letter after he and Thomas Jefferson met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, regarding the Barbary Pirates’ demands for tribute.  In the letter he made this observation:  "We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
     Just as the foundational principles of our Christian faith have not changed in a couple of thousand years, neither have those of the Islamic faith.  The threat to Great Britain is real and it has progressed to the point that they must push back or risk losing their culture.  So, I ask the question presented by this post ... Are we that far behind?  I have listed only a couple of examples of where we have "bowed down" to the tenets of Islam and forsaken our own laws, traditions and faith.  Do we really think if we show a good faith gesture of tolerance that we will still be allowed to honor and glorify our God?  It is time we pull our heads out of both the clouds and the sand, and stare the truth in the face.  If we don't want to follow in Britain's footsteps, then we better decide to know what Islam really is and how we are going to protect our own values.  Our schools and our courts are already under attack.  We better pay close attention!

1 Corinthians 8:5-6    "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."









   

Harvard's Black Mass Is Another Sign

   

     The powers that be at the exclusive Ivy League University of Harvard may have rejected its Extension Cultural Studies Club request to hold a "Black Mass", but do not think that it was done out of reverence for any religious institution, or God, for that matter.
     In fact, University President Drew G. Faust affirmed the University’s commitment to free expression, noting that the club would be afforded the decision to proceed with the re-enactment, although she did deplore the event as offensive.  But thanks to the 10,000 men and women of Harvard who spoke out against this despicable ritual, the Satanic Temple was forced to move its "re-enactment" to a location off-campus.
     You will understand why this event angered and embarrassed students, alumni and friends of the Harvard family when you realize that, historically, black masses have involved desecrating the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the real body of Jesus Christ, by placing it on the genitals of a naked woman, urinating on it, and slitting an infant’s throat to pour blood over it.  Nice, huh?  And the President of Harvard thinks this group should be allowed their "free expression."  Disgusting!
     But I believe that there is an even deeper significance to the desire to play out this ritual on the grounds of Harvard.  Founded in 1636, Harvard College is the oldest institution of higher learning in America.  In 1692, the leading Puritan preacher, Increase Mather, became president of Harvard. One of his acts was replacing pagan classics with books by Christian authors in ethics classes, and maintaining a high standard of discipline. The Harvard "Lawes" of 1642 and the "Harvard College Laws of 1700" testify to its original high level of discipline. Students were required to observe rules of pious decorum inconceivable in the 21st century, and ultimately to prove their fitness for a bachelor's degree by showing that they could "read the original of the Old and New Testament into the Latin tongue, and resolve them logically."  My, how times have changed!
     So what better place for Satan to prove that He has authority in America? The Devil knows darn well that if there was a Harvard group that wished to parody Mohammed, it would have been condemned by everyone.  But it's an open market on any religion that professes faith in God, and everyone is free to express their dislike of Christianity.  Meanwhile, the Devil gleefully uses the members of the University's Extension Cultural Studies Club who claim that they are simply "a marginalized group of society."
     Do not be surprised if some Southern Poverty Law Center or ACLU lawyer comes to the group's defense, claiming denial of First Amendment rights.  This fight is far from over, and if the political correctness of the University President is any indication, special dispensation will be given to this group as an "alternative religious community."  For now, I will echo the words of the former President of the Harvard Catholic Student Association:  "This is a time of prayer for those who seek to persecute the Church and the University that has allowed it. The only response to such overwhelming hate is that of Christ Himself: love."

1 John 4:3   "and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." 

Is This The American Way?

   

     I have a couple of questions today ... Who gets to decide which "agenda" a nation should conform to?  And what qualifies that agenda to become the standard by which all must obey?  These issues are on my mind in the wake of HGTV canceling a new program featuring brothers, who just happen to be up front about their faith.
     The twin brothers, Jason and David Benham, saw their show, "Flip It Forward", cancelled before it was ever aired.  The reason?  A blog post by Right Wing Watch, a subsidiary of Norman Lear's liberal progressive advocacy group, People for The American Way, purported to reveal the brothers' anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim views.  The fact is, when someone who does not share the Christian faith attempts to comment on its standards of behavior, they often misrepresent them and distort them.
      Of course, when David Benham writes the following in The Christian Post, those who do not understand the Gospel Message will only see hate.  He wrote:

In the Leviticus passage, it says that death is the consequence for homosexual sin. This is how detestable this type of sin is to God. However, Jesus came and took the consequences of this sin upon Himself on the cross. Homosexual sin is covered by the blood of Jesus, the same way stealing is. The only difference today is that homosexual sin carries with it an agenda, other sins do not. Homosexuality demands acceptance, and the blood of Jesus cannot forgive sins that are no longer sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses sin. 

     Now, you and I know what he meant by this discourse.  He does not state that he hates homosexuals.  He says that God has pronounced a particularly stark sentence on this specific sin ... BUT the sin of homosexuality, like all sins, is covered by the atoning blood of Christ.  However, in today's world, this particular sin has become different than other sins that are forgiven.  There is a power behind it that attempts to influence or force a program of action ... that is the "agenda" that Benham speaks about.  This force, which is carried out by various organizations, such as Right Wing Watch, demands that this sin not only be accepted, but promoted; in effect to be declared a non-sin.
     The Benham brothers have now become the latest in a select group of Believers who dare to stand boldly for the life to which God calls us all.  I am impressed with how they have handled this situation; saying that they can choose to love others (including homosexuals and Muslims), while still adhering to God's standards and principles.  In fact, they hold no grudge against the HGTV network, who knew of the brother's faith and opinions on this topic and others, equally as controversial.  "We don't feel wronged at all. This isn't HG versus us, or us against the gay community. This is an agenda, and we're getting to witness it right now," Jason Benham said.  "Our comments have never been aimed at gays, but at an agenda that says you can't stand by your beliefs.  It's only going to get worse because [of the  agenda] that wants to silence the beliefs that we have."
     Are they outspoken about their opinions on issues that God finds offensive?  Yes!  They have not shied away from protesting in front of abortion clinics, declaring that "87 percent of Americans are Christians and yet we have abortion on demand; we have no-fault divorce; we have pornography and perversion; we have a homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation; we have adultery; we have all of the things; we even have allowed demonic ideologies to take our universities and our public school systems while the church sits silent and just builds big churches. We are so complacent, we are so apathetic and we are very hypocritical in the church, that’s why the Bible says judgment begins in the house of God."   By definition of the Liberal Left, these comments are labeled extremist.  But if you call yourself a Christian, who can truthfully deny them?!
     So now, there is a demand that the Benham brothers be silenced because a certain segment of the population doesn't agree with them.  Does that conform with the mission statement of People for the American Way?  In part, their "Vision" on their website states thus:
•  People For the American Way is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts. The American Way.  (Except if your Christian values are in contrast with what we determine is "real".)
•  Our vision is a vibrantly diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams, and encouraged to participate in our nation’s civic and political life. Our America respects diversity, nurtures creativity and combats hatred and bigotry.  (Unless we disagree with your belief system; then we will subject you to our own brand of hatred and bigotry, and deny you the freedom to pursue your dreams).
     Go to their website and you will get a clear picture of what their "vision" is ... to promote the Progressive agenda, by any means available; and that includes bullying TV networks to silence anyone who voices Christian values.  Unfortunately, Jason and David Benham did not have the following of Duck Dynasty --- their show was cancelled before it ever aired!  But as they proclaimed shortly after the call from HGTV, "If we have to lose our show because of our faith, so be it."  Sorry, Progressives ... no hate speech, no condemnation; nothing but the willingness to continue to promote the Love of Jesus Christ.  You can try to take away our livelihoods, silence our voices, and paint us as extremists.  But we will continue to pray for you and seek to conform ourselves to the image of Christ.  That is the American Way I envision, and that is the only agenda that will truly change men's hearts.

Ephesians 4:17-18     "This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;"

   

A Victory For Prayer

     Yesterday, it was announced that the Supreme Court upheld the town of Greece, New York's right to open their town council meetings with a prayer.  Although the decision was narrow, with five Justice's upholding the right to pray, against four dissenting Justices, I will gladly take the victory.  But the dividing line was quite obvious -- the Liberal Justices versus the Conservative/Moderate Justices -- and we should not be so confident as to think that this battle against Prayer is over.

     It should be quite evident to all, that our First Amendment right that prohibits the interference with the free exercise of our religion hangs in the balance … literally.  The appointment of one or two more ideologically liberal Supreme Court Justices, and the next case before the highest court in the land will not go our way.  One can see the differences in philosophy and political theory when reading the merits of the case, as seen by the opposing sides of the Court.
     As reported by the Associated Press, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions.  "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers," Kennedy said.
     However, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's four liberal Justices, said, "I respectfully dissent from the Court's opinion because I think the Town of Greece's prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality -- the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian."
     So, let me pose a question to you … it is a fact that the town of Greece, NY has a population of just under 100,000.  Additionally, it is a fact, that the population is primarily Christian.  If you are curious like me, you can Google the yellow pages website for churches in the town of Greece.  I stopped counting at page 14, and over 400 religious institutions.  I counted one Islamic church, eight individuals (who I can only assume offer some sort of non-traditional worship services); the rest all fell under the category of "Christian".  So does it not seem logical that the town of Greece would wish to dedicate the service of their town officials by offering a solemn request for help, or an expression of thanks … and that this would be addressed to the Christian God?
     By the term religious "equality", I am left wondering if Justice Kagan prefers that all prayer be discontinued, or just prayer to the Christian God?  It appears to me, that if the town council had wished to pray to Allah or some Wiccan deity, she would not have disagreed.  On that point, we may take some encouragement at these words from Justice Kennedy:  "Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred, any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy." So for now, as long as town councils do not attempt to convert anyone to Christianity, or demean another faith,  we do not have to censor the use of "God" or prayer in opening ceremonies or formalities.
     But, lest we let down our guard, we must remember that it is the express purpose of the godless to limit our expression of faith and worship to our most Holy God; especially in public forums.  The more they can limit the influence of Christianity, the more they can control us.  A populace who believes in the inherent rights given to us by a God who promotes individual responsibility and accountability, is a nation that will never be suppressed.  So take advantage of the liberties still left to us …. AND PRAY!

Luke 18:1    "And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart."


     
       

National Day of Prayer Under Attack

     Tomorrow, May 1st, is the annual National Day of Prayer.  As President Ronald Reagan stated in his 1983 declaration,  "From General Washington's struggle at Valley Forge to the present, this Nation has fervently sought and received Divine guidance as it pursued the course of history. This occasion provides our Nation with an opportunity to further recognize the source of our blessings, and to seek His help for the challenges we face today and in the future." 
     Notice that he did not advocate a particular faith, but rather implied that people of all faiths should pray that this nation would receive Divine guidance.  Indeed, the 1952 law signed by President Harry Truman [proclaiming a National Day of Prayer each year] was amended in 1988 with two stated intentions of the National Day of Prayer:  that it would be a day when adherents of all great religions could unite in prayer, and that it may one day bring renewed respect for God to all the peoples of the world.
     So what's the problem?  As reported by World Net Daily, this national event, which features Anne Graham Lotz as honorary chairman (Billy Graham's daughter), will also include a color guard, a military band, a vocalist and a chaplain.  That's enough for Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, to declare that "military participation in the event would suggest government endorsement of Christianity."  That's stretching it a bit, don't you think?  Nonetheless, Mikey is up to his old tricks of ridding the military of any Christian influence just to satisfy his personal leanings.
     He cites the fact that he has received over two dozen complaints (really, Mikey?  That's all the argument you have?) from Pentagon workers, who object to military participation in the event.  His hatred of Believers, and Christians in particular, is evident in the following statement:  “The planned participation by uniformed U.S. military personnel in this private fundamentalist Christian religious event, run by a non-federal entity, is an unequivocally clear violation of [a] plethora of DoD regulations and instructions.  The U.S. military absolutely cannot endorse these searingly sectarian events by its public participation in them.”
     The ridiculousness of his argument is on display in this outrageous statement:  “The National Day of Prayer Task Force is to the National Day of Prayer as what a National Football League al-Qaida chapter would be to the National Football League.”  Let me get this straight --- Weinstein says he takes no issue with the National Day of Prayer itself; so does he think the Task Force is "radicalizing" the event?  He seems to think that the Task Force is pushing Christianity on unwilling people.  But to compare a day when anyone can peacefully pray to the God of their choice with a group of religious zealots who want to force their faith by the edge of the sword seems a little disingenuous.
     But here's where Weinstein's complaint takes on a sinister aspect.  He asked that the Department of Defense not only pull out of the event, but also reprimand those who approved military participation.  In a letter to the DoD, Weinstein wrote, "[The Military Religious Freedom Foundation] respectfully demands that [Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel] aggressively investigate and appropriately punish any of the individuals and/or organizations that would have allowed for uniformed personnel to participate in this sectarian spectacle."
     Perhaps at the heart of what torments the soul of this man, and why he displays such vitriolic hatred of Christianity, is his own experience in the military.   According to Weinstein, who is Jewish, both he and his sons received physical and psychological abuse at the hands of anti-semitic Evangelical Christians while serving in uniform.  If that is true, I join him in detesting those so-called Christians who would debase our Jewish brethren.  But on what grounds does he have the authority to demand that military participation in the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional?  None!  Why does he honestly think that a military band's presence at a National Day of Prayer that has been instituted by 34 of the 44 Presidents, should be "investigated and punished"?  What harm does it cause to anyone?  Is this a vendetta against those few who personally harmed you and your family?  If you don't want to participate ... then don't!  No one is forcing you to attend or watch the ceremony.  So why is it so important that you deny someone else's opportunity to be involved?
      I am sincerely sorry that Weinstein has been a victim of anti-semitism.  There have been Christians throughout the centuries that have been guilty of this sin.  There are those in the Church today who would proclaim the same religious bias and bigotry, but I pray that not all of us Christians would be painted with that broad stroke.   And, please, Mr. Weinstein, do not condemn the entire military for the actions of a few evil men.  Your goal of removing Christian influence from the military, in what you see as "unconstitutional religious persecution", will only leave that institution open to more acts of discrimination, hostility, and injury.  If you let your anger and hatred guide your actions, your vengeance will never be quenched.
     My final thought is that Mikey Weinstein doesn't need my condemnation nor my criticism.  He needs my prayers.  He has suffered great indignity and he is obviously bitter and resentful; to the point that he wants to punish the nation and the military for the wrongdoings perpetrated upon himself and his family.  But I will pray that on this particular National Day of Prayer, he will receive a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation; that he will be able to lay down his sword of vengeance and seek the true freedom of religion that he espouses.  Our military, stripped of God, will be left without a clear sense of morals or principles, and subject to the designs of evil men.  I cannot believe that Mikey Weinstein is in favor of that.

2 Timothy 2:3-4    "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the One who enlisted him."
   
   

New American Low: Prison Time For Religious Beliefs?

     I'm not exactly sure why Colorado was picked as a battle state for the Progressive Elites, but once again "The Centennial State" is on the front lines of a Constitutional struggle.  Breitbart.com is reporting that Jack Phillips, a small businessman who owns a bakery in Lakewood, CO is facing a possible prison sentence for exercising his First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion.
     Mr. Phillips was asked by two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, to bake them a cake to celebrate their marriage.  Phillips, being an Evangelical Christian, believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Incidentally, the Constitution of the State of Colorado defines marriage in the same terms.
     You see, Phillips puts his heart and soul into his cake creations, and actually feels that he is a participant in the wedding celebration when he bakes a cake for a couple.  Citing his religious beliefs, he cannot, in good conscience, participate in a celebration that he believes goes against God's commandments.  But apparently Craig and Mullins' consciences are centered more on their desires than God's.  They filed a discrimination lawsuit with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the administrative law judge, Robert Spencer, found in their favor.  [An interesting side note to this case:  these men claimed to have been already married in Massachusetts and wanted to celebrate their wedding in Colorado.  Anybody else suspicious that this was a calculated incident to force this issue in the hopes of changing the State Constitution and setting a precedent?  Just a thought.]

     To be fair, Judge Spencer acknowledged that Jack Phillips "believes the Bible is the inspired word of God; its commands are binding on him; and God’s intention for marriage is the union of one man and one woman."  The Judge also found it relevant to the case that "“Phillips believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”  Up to this point, I think the Judge has pretty much represented the Christian view accurately.  If only he had stopped there....
     Even with his compassion for the baker's position, Judge Spencer went on to say, "Nonetheless, all this fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”  What about the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are forced to provide service because of who they are?  There seems to be two sides to every story, EXCEPT when it comes to Christians and their beliefs.
     In effect, the court of law is saying that Phillips has no right to follow his Christian faith, or any other religion, when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrate gay marriage, even if there is no legal same-sex marriage in the state where the alleged offense took place!  
     So what does this ruling mean for Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who owns his own business?  Under a Colorado law in effect in 2012, Phillips could be sent to jail for up to 12 months for his decision. Although that law has been repealed, it is possible that he could still be criminally prosecuted. At the time the article was written, Phillips has stated that he will continue to refuse to participate in same-sex wedding celebrations, even though he realizes that, both under the now-repealed law, as well as for violating a court order, he could be incarcerated.
     The Alliance Defending Freedom organization, which is a network of over 2,000 Christian lawyers, is defending Mr. Philipps pro-bono, and released this statement:  Jack Phillips is committed to faithfully following Jesus Christ, regardless of the personal cost.  American citizens should not have to live in fear of a prison sentence merely for disagreeing with the government’s opinion. All Americans should remain free to honor God in our lives and in our work. The government has no business threatening Americans with jail time for simply exercising their constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion and speech. Every American, whatever you think about this issue, should fear a government that ignores the First Amendment in order to exercise this kind of power over its citizens.
     Once again, there are obvious questions --- why not just take your business elsewhere?  Why does Jack Phillips have to surrender his legal rights to allow your unconstitutional request?  Where is the support of all Bible-believing Christians in this matter?  I will pray for Jack Phillips that he has the strength of his faith and the conviction of his beliefs in the coming days.  And I will pray for Charlie Craig and David Mullins that they will come to know the tolerance for others that they demand for themselves.  What joy could there be in forcing someone to be a part of your personal celebration?  This case is truly a sad commentary on our culture.

James 5:11    "Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast."

Once Again, God Is Disrespected

     Twice within this last week, the intentional removal of oaths to God were permitted (and approved) by those who should be ashamed.  First, it was the Air Force Academy, who once again attempted to remove "So help me, God" as part of the Academy's protocol.

     Last month, they were embroiled in a controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).  What I find particularly puzzling about this situation is that only 68 minutes after MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint regarding the Honor Oath and a poster that appeared at the Academy with the "offensive" words, Academy Superintendent Lt. General Michelle Johnson ordered the art work removed.  Don't you think that the opposition to a poster bearing the Honor Oath (which was adopted in 1984 by cadets and represents the minimum standard of ethical conduct that cadets expect of themselves and their fellow cadets) should carry more weight and take considerably longer than an hour to abolish?
     This Honor Oath is really very simple:  We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.  Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God.  I mean, really ....  who would deny someone seeking the help of God, should they so desire?  Why couldn't Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF just request that any cadet who feels they can go it alone, be allowed to omit the words while taking the Oath?  Why deny those who put their faith in the Almighty from the confidence these words instill?
     But the removal of "so help me, God" from the poster and the Honor Oath weren't enough, it seems.    It has now come to light that the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.
     Fortunately, after being contacted by concerned parents of cadets, Representative Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and 28 other lawmakers stepped in with cooler heads.   These astute members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.  “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’; however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”  In the letter to the Academy, Bridenstein went on to say, “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”
     Of course, the Academy's public relations office says the removal of the phrase from the three Oaths was a simple mistake; "an editorial oversight".  Yeah, right.  Someone gave the order!  Let's hope that this Congressional contingent pursues this matter and roots out the anti-faith forces within this fine military institution.

     Yet, what can you expect when their Commander-in-Chief omits an “under God” reference, in a film commemorating the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.  In his defense, the White House said the president read the first draft of the historic Civil War speech,  known as the Nicolay version, which does not include the under God reference, as requested by film-maker Ken Burns -- a statement confirmed by a Burns producer.  And I will grant that there are five versions of the speech written in Lincoln's handwriting --- three with "under God", and two, without.
     But as the first black President, who calls himself a Christian, wouldn't you think you would give a nod to your God for the great honor bestowed upon you?  Or at least go with the majority of speeches, which included the "under God" phrase?  I, for one, agree with Representative Jim Fleming of Washington, who along with others said, "Whether you learned the Gettysburg Address in school or saw it recited in a movie or a documentary, you heard these words: 'that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."'
     For the record, Historians are divided on whether Lincoln included the words "under God" in his spoken address, since there was no audio recording at the time. Some witnesses and reports include a reference to God at the end of the address, and others do not.  But President Lincoln obviously subscribed to the notion that this nation could be rejuvenated in a new sense of freedom, with the help of God, or this phrase would not have existed in ANY of the versions.  But the fact that it was deliberately ignored, should tell us a lot, should it not?
     Which makes me wonder how much the President believes in the final words of that paragraph ....  that the nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  It is quite clear to me that the latter will not stand without the protection of the former.  I presume that this is something that President Lincoln understood all too well.  Let's pray that a "government of the people, etc." does not disappear from this current President's ideology as easily as he discarded God.

Psalm 35:27   “Let them shout for joy and be glad, Who favor my righteous cause; And let them say continually, “Let the LORD be magnified, Who has pleasure in the prosperity of His servant.” 
   



   

Grandma's Home-made Jellies and A Free Bible

   

     Here is one of the more ludicrous anti-Christian moves by our Federal Government:  It would seem that since 2011, Louisiana resident Shirley Elliott has sold produce and homemade jellies at Thibodaux Farmer’s Market near Jean Lafitte National Historic Park in Louisiana.  Now, anyone who has tasted the distinguished delicacies of the Bayou State, knows just how special they are.  But it wasn't just the homemade jellies that Shirley was offering.  She also gave away Bibles to anyone who wanted one.
     But apparently an overzealous Park Ranger felt the Bibles could not be distributed near the Park because Shirley's booth was "on federal property."  But Shirley wasn't going to be discouraged that easily.  She knew that Park regulations allow vendors to sell locally grown produce and other homemade goods and handcrafts. Regulations also allow for “non-profit organizations with missions related to … education, youth and/or nutrition” to participate in the market on an equal basis as vendors.
     That's when Liberty Counsel, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom got involved.  They provide pro bono assistance and representation on cases like Shirley's.  “A decision to allow free distribution of the things mentioned above, while disallowing and requiring the removal of Bibles and other religious literature … would be improper and discriminatory,” Liberty Counsel attorney Richard Mast said in a statement to the superintendent of Jean Lafitte National History Park.
     It didn't take long for the acting superintendent of the Park to back down.  Two days later, he responded, saying, “We regret the misunderstanding regarding the distribution of religious materials.”
      The superintendent said the National Park Service “respects the right of vendors to make free religious materials available.  Please assure Ms. Elliott that she is welcome to offer free Bibles at her produce and homemade jellies table.”

     What's amazing to me is the audacity with which every federal employee feels he/she can limit the exercise of a citizen's First Amendment right.  Perhaps they are emboldened by the ACLU's win whereby a portrait of Jesus that has hung in a southern Ohio school district since 1947 was taken down because of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a student and two parents, calling the portrait an unconstitutional promotion of religion in a public school.  The “Head of Christ,” a popular depiction of Jesus, had been in an entranceway’s “Hall of Honor” in a middle school building that was formerly the high school. It was near portraits of dozens of prominent alumni and people with local roots such as the late four-term Ohio Gov. James Rhodes.
     But the costs of battling the federal lawsuit proved too much for the school district, and the portrait was taken down.  “At the end of the day, we just couldn’t roll the dice with taxpayer money,” Superintendent Phil Howard told The Associated Press. “When you get into these kinds of legal battles, you’re not talking about money you can raise with bake sales and car washes. It’s not fair to take those resources from our kids’ education.”
     But whether it is a sentimental portrait or a free book, the deceived of this world are strengthened in their fight to keep us from expressing our faiths and belief in Jesus.  It is crucial that every Christian not be bullied by those, whether from the public or private sector, that would seek to remove Christianity from the public square.
     As the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel so eloquently stated, "“It is the right of every American to advocate a religious viewpoint. Offering books or literature to willing recipients is protected by the First Amendment.  Mere disagreement with the content of the speech is not sufficient to deny those constitutional rights."  We must not back down!

Psalm 43:1     "Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people; from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!"