Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Expanding Intolerance, Shrinking Freedom, Collapsing Public Education

I had heard about it, but had not seen the video.

An event at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is a microcosm of a much greater epidemic that is choking the American culture.

I received an email from President Obama's team this morning, reminding me that today is his 100th day in office. I had heard that it was, but I appreciated the personal reminder. Before a very long list of accomplishments already booked on the resume, I noticed five words that spoke loudly.

Focus on the Family has published an analysis of what the President has done to undermine pro-life and pro-family policies in his first 100 days. I have linked it.

Newt Gingrich has written an excellent article this morning on the president's first hundred days, which I also have linked. Both are very informative. I recommend both.

However, the words I picked up from the Obama email was, "With the country in crises..."

There is a crises. We are expanding intolerance and shrinking our freedoms, while public education collapses.

Let me use the video from UNC, Chapel Hill, to make the point.

Former Congressman, Tom Tancredo, was invited by a student organization to speak on the subject of instate tuition for illegals, which is an issue at UNC.

Protesters stormed the one-hour lecture, took over the podium and eventually the police were forced to shut down the lecture.

Those who dissented, would not allow anyone to hear a one-hour lecture on something with which they disagreed.

It gets worse.

Now, immigration is a very important and emotional issue. But there are many important and emotional issues.

Here's the problem.

You will notice when you watch the video the assault on the event was not primarily a disagreement on the issue. It was an assault on the students right to hear something those who were protesting did not want them to hear.

The prophets of tolerance are becoming the most intolerant among us. They have inverted and perverted the concept of tolerance, making what was once a Christian virtue, a bludgeon for control.

Tolerance no longer involves "putting up with" or "enduring" those beliefs and views with which you may disagree. Tolerance has now become the measure of affirmation. When certain beliefs or actions are not affirmed and embraced, you are then said to be "intolerant" and therefore deserve what you get---whatever that may be.

You will note from the video, that in this case, the assault was agitated and encouraged by professors.

These are the same, most often tenured, professors who are teaching and shaping what your children will believe. And their lesson is about much more than immigration. It is about undermining the very freedoms that have given them their place in the classroom and given all of us the most blessed nation in the history of the world.

These are the professors who lecture kids every day across this country with anti-Christian, anti-American, philosophy and when challenged, run behind their "freedom of speech" rights and declare open minded discussion is part of the educational process, while they are the worst among us to violate that very right.

Abraham Lincoln once said that the philosophy of today's classroom is the philosophy of tomorrow's government.

The University did finally issue an apology of sorts, after this became public, part of which said, "We pride ourselves as being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard."


If this happens in public, imagine what happens in the classroom with the door closed.

Tolerance has become a tool of intimidation. Students have told me for years that they have been punished if they spoke out on their beliefs in the classroom and the professor did not agree. Particularly issues of faith and culture.

This kind of intolerance comes mostly from the left---not from the right. A week before this event, John Kerry had spoken in a similar forum taking a position many conservative kids did not share. There was no disruption. And certainly no assault on his speech.

If you are a student in a classroom and do not embrace the extreme left, you are tagged as intolerant by those who practice intolerance.

If you are a young woman competing in the Miss USA contest and do not hold the politically correct view on how marriage should be defined, you are publicly mocked, humiliated and possibly denied what many felt you had already won.

The fountain head of expanding intolerance and shrinking freedoms is the collapsing public education system. As it collapses, it is taking down with it some of the most important virtues of our society.

Yes, Mr. President, our country is indeed in crises.

Be wise. Be prayerful. Be vigilant. Be active.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Congressman Says Obama Moving U.S. Toward Secularism and Socialism

Rep. John Fleming, R-LA, has gone on the record expressing outrage over an episode a couple of weeks ago saying "Where you see socialism, you see a decline in Christianity and religion in general."

I would agree that you would at least see a decline in the freedom to express religious beliefs.

He said, "Obviously that suggests that our president does not want to be associated with religious symbols, at least not Christian symbols."

"That" is the incident that happened a couple of weeks ago at Georgetown University where Obama's administration asked that the historic symbol of Jesus Christ's name---IHS---be covered so it could not be seen during the President's speech.

He said their explanation wasn't good enough.

Fleming requested a minute to speak on the House floor saying, on the record, "I join many Christians in expressing my outrage at this request."

He said the administration has no problem spending money imprinted with the phrase, "In God We Trust," but won't have our President speak with any symbol of Christ in public view.

He says he sees a trend. I think he's right.

The Congressman said, "This country was founded on solid principles of Judeo-Christian ethics, why should our president cover an important symbol of our heritage?"

"I have a concern," he said, "about the very sharp turn to socialism that's happening in our government."

He said where socialism exists, you see a corresponding decline in Christianity and religion, and, "If, indeed, our president and our liberal Congress---based on the legislation that has happened and what's in front of us---that would be consistent with the secularization of society."

He also said he wanted to call attention to the White House request to have the IHS symbol covered, because it reveals the president's values.

It's hard to tell what the President actually believes, because there is little to no consistency between what he says he believes and what he actually does.

Case in point: Marriage. Life.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Elway Results on Marriage in Washington State

Faith and Freedom Network paid The Elway Poll to ask one simple question: "In your opinion, should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?"

A majority said no.

I have included the entire report. Demographically, the results were predictable, with Seattle strongly in favor of homosexual marriage, King County favorable, but less so, with the rest of Washington State opposed.

The age demographics should be of concern to all who support traditional marriage.

Click here to view a copy of The Elway Poll.


Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Sen Dan Swecker: "Beyond Gay Marriage"

Senator Dan Swecker has served the people of the 20th Legislative District and the people of the state as a Senator since 1995. Prior to his public service, he served his country in military service.

Senator Swecker has written a column titled, "Beyond Gay Marriage". It is a well reasoned look at the government's role in marriage and why marriage should not be redefined.

Beyond “Gay Marriage”
By Senator Dan Swecker

Political conservatives have little difficulty establishing that they are against “gay marriage.” The difficulty comes when politicians seek to curry the favor of conservatives and still try to find a middle ground on this issue to attract moderate voters. Many suggest they would support civil unions or domestic partnerships. They try to have it both ways. In doing so, they violate one of our most fundamental principles of the role of government. That principle is that the least government necessary to solve a problem is usually the best government.

Let’s look at the purposes of government in defining marriage. The best way to do this is to review the appropriate role of government in regulating private affairs.

What if we did not have a government institution called marriage? In that case, people would choose to live together base on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would recognize very quickly that only one type of relationship would rise to the level of critical government interest and concern. That is the relationship between one man and one woman, because it produces offspring.

Society would quickly determine that providing incentives to keep these relationships intact, for as long as possible, is a very high priority. Through reasonable legal means, we would make provisions for these relationships to hold property, share benefits, and provide the best possible nurturing environment for the next generation. We would spell out responsibilities in these relationships. We would also determine the conditions for the resolution of these benefits and responsibilities in the event that the marriage is terminated. That is exactly what we have done in defining marriage.

The failure of traditional marriages has a devastating impact on peoples’ lives, most often the lives of women and children. We need to look no further than the poverty statistics for single women with children. Such failures often have negative impacts on society as well, and increase the demands for government resources and services. No other relationship rises to this level of government concern. No other relationship is as important for the protection and provision of the next generation. For exactly those reasons, government has limited the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

One might ague that many other types of relationships have value for those who choose to participate in them. Why not include them in the definition of marriage?

First, it is important not to change the focus of people entering into the marriage contract. This is not about feelings and it is not about the mutual benefit of the two parties. It is about the next generation. If we change the definition of marriage solely to accommodate these other purposes, then the expectation of people entering into marriage will change.

Marriage will become a decision to stay together as long as two people love each other or as long as it is to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient for the welfare of our children. Marriage needs to be a commitment that goes beyond the moment and looks to what is best for the children in spite of these other considerations.

A second argument is that we could easily include other relationships without hurting the traditional institution of marriage. There are many valid two-party relationships that could easily be added to the list. The homosexual community says “gay marriage” is one of those. What about brothers and sisters, same sex siblings, an elderly parent dependent upon an adult child, two good friends, and so forth? All of these relationships have value for the parties involved. Why not include them as well?

Of course, the answer is that we need to keep government intervention in relationships to a minimum and focus our resources on the critical group we originally identified, the children. To do otherwise would simply reduce resources available to sustain children and families of traditional marriages and diminish the level of societal commitment to this one most important union.

Government has a compelling interest to intervene in this one relationship and define marriage as it has traditionally done. Other relationships do not rise to this level of government involvement and government should stay out of them!

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Protecting Marriage is Protecting Children

In the vigorous debate over homosexual marriage, most adults have very strong feelings and are not hesitant to share them. Yet one part, the most important part of the marriage debate---the child, is rarely consulted and often not considered.

I have watched homosexuals bring their children forward at the hearings in Olympia as they testified in favor of various homosexual rights bills and ask their child to make a plea to the lawmakers. As the little kids said what they were supposed to say, I have wondered how they really felt---and, does anyone really care?

As a youth pastor in Hollywood, I have walked with and ministered to kids who were raised in homosexual homes. It was not pretty.

Protecting marriage is protecting children.

David Blankenhorn wrote an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times last September 19, prior to the vote on Prop. 8.

His column begins with, "I am a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage."

He says, "Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position."

"But," he says, "I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion."

His "different conclusions" if read with an open mind, will give anyone, except perhaps a hard core homosexual activist, reason for pause and reflection.

I have summarized his "different conclusions," as a liberal Democrat and taking an honest look at homosexual marriage. I have also linked his column.

*In all societies marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.

*Marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it a license to receive benefits or social recognition.

*Marriage is primarily a license to have children.

*Marriage is a gift that society bestows on it's next generation.

*Marriage unites the three cord dimension of parenthood---biological, social and legal---into one pro-child form.

*Marriage is society's most pro-child institution.

*Child Trends, a non partisan research group has found that family structures clearly matters for children and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents.

*Children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into the world. The 1989 U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right.

*Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him.

*We must be permitted to openly discuss what our society owes it's children. Particularly when looking at legislation like Prop. 8.

*Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father?

*Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another?

*Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children?

*How many parents per child is best?

*In regard to same-sex marriage, children are rarely consulted.

*"I believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her."

*"I believe that we, as a society, should seek to maintain and strengthen the only human institution ---marriage---that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children".

His conclusion is this:

"Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation, further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing---the gift, the birthright---that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support"

Consider forwarding this blog to friends, family and those whom you feel could benefit from it.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

I Have Cloned a Human: I can be "As God"

This morning Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, a controversial fertility specialist, is telling the world, "I've cloned a human."

He says he has cloned 14 embryos and placed 11 of them into wombs of four women. A documentary film maker says he filmed the process as evidence that it happened and that the women were consenting.

Zavos is controversial, to say the least. Many researchers dismiss him. However, he seems to reflect a tendency that others, perhaps a couple of years behind him, share.

Zavos said on Kentucky Public Television, just after the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, "I don't have time to think about the ethics of what I am doing. I'll leave that to someone else."

It is apparent that others, in our rush toward secularism, are agreeing with Zavos. While he and others may not have the time to think about the ethics of what we are doing, people of faith and pastors in particular, must have the time and courage to do so.

If not us, who?

The moral vacuum that is being created in America as a result of running from the biblical principles upon which this country was founded and framed, will certainly lead to a similar place as the first two humans found themselves as a result of believing they could be "As God."

While President Obama has said he will not support human cloning, his new embryonic stem cell research policy and guidelines have some very concerned.

There are those who believe that the Administration is sliding even further down the slippery slope.

While the President has publicly denounced human cloning, Douglas Johnson from the National Right To Life Committee told ONENEWSNOW.COM that he believes the Administration is sliding even further down this slippery slope.

He said, "This seeming restraint is really part of a step-by-step strategy intended to desensitize the public to the whole concept of killing human embryos in federally sponsored research."

Once killing is acceptable, artificially creating life cannot be far behind.

Incrementalism is an important component of the extreme far left agenda. We have seen it in Washington State in regard to homosexual marriage---we are seeing it now in matters of life.

Perhaps all medical research should heed the ancient medico-scientific injunction, Primum non nocere--"First do no harm."

Pushing the envelope can be a good thing in some fields of achievement, however, to do so in this field, without the restraint of biblical morality will be deadly.

The serpent said to the first woman, "You will not surely die, you will be like God."

Pretending to be God when you are not God is a very risky venture.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Hate Crimes: Who is Expressing the Hate?

It's ironic. And tragic.

Last week our kids were asked to remain silent for a day in school to honor and remember the homosexuals who have been bullied. Today, Congress is hearing yet another expansion of so-called "hate-crimes" legislation that will give "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" the same federal protection as race, which Focus on the Family and Liberty Counsel say will undermine and challenge freedom of speech and religious freedom.

While the rush is on to expand everything homosexual, it's interesting that hate seems to have become a regular part of the homosexual agenda.

This past weekend at the Miss USA Pageant, things turned very ugly because contestant, Miss California Carrie Prejean did not answer a question properly. Perez Hilton, an openly homosexual writer asked her how she felt about gay marriage. She answered honestly, saying she personally believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Because of her belief, she was called a "Dumb Bitch." Perez went on to say she has "half a brain" and had she won he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara.

I believe he would have.

Last week during the "Day of Silence" event, Karen England, director of Capitol Resource Institute in Sacramento, began receiving vicious voice mail, including death threats, simply because she had advocated that parents consider keeping their children out of school that day.

Since the success of Prop. 8 in California, hate and violence toward anyone who stands for marriage between a man and a woman has dramatically increased.

England expressed a growing concern that many of us share---- her own safety.

"But," she said, "If I'm getting this just over encouraging kids to remain home, I can't imagine what it's like to send a junior high or high school student into an environment where everyone is participating, and they say, 'No, I'm not going to.'"

Behind the facade of love and benefits and the little kids they bring to the hearings, is a steel cold resolve to destroy anyone or anything that stands in their way of redefining marriage, re-engineering society and normalizing that which is not and has been rejected by every major civilization and every major religion.

They are using bigotry, hate and violence against any resistance to their agenda. And many of our lawmakers are skipping along with them down a very dark path.

Please check out the stories I have linked. Focus on The Family gives direction as to how you may voice your opposition to the "hate-crimes" bill being heard today. Take a moment and make a call.

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Seattle Times: "Domestic Partnerships are Marriage, Apply the Word"

UPDATE: I have just received the results of our state wide survey, asking voters if they approve of homosexual marriage. I am studying the results today. We will be reporting them this week.

Seattle Times: "Domestic Partnerships are Marriage, Apply the Word"

The Seattle Times is at full throttle, going straight for homosexual marriage in Friday's edition.

Be assured we are responding with equal passion and conviction in preparation to file our referendum. We, however, are restraining ourselves until the bill is actually signed into law.

The Times loaded their gun by choosing to carry several national columns supporting homosexual marriage. On Thursday they carried Ellen Goodman's piece "Defense of Marriage Act Is Becoming Indefensible," and Friday, Fromma Harrop's syndicated column, "The State by State Evolution of Gay Marriage," along with their own editorial proclamation, "Domestic Partnerships Are Marriage, Apply The Word."

Before Gov. Gregoire can even sign the bill, SB 5688, into law----and she has a quick draw for advancing the homosexual agenda, Washington's largest newspaper is saying it was marriage all along, confirming exactly what I and others in the faith community have been saying from the day this bill was introduced.

But wait! Didn't Sen. Ed Murray stand tearfully, with quivering voice on the floor of the Senate and say, "I wish this bill was marriage, I sincerely wish this bill was marriage, but it is not"? Yes, he did. I just reviewed the video. And didn't Senator Rodney Tom from the 48th District around Bellevue and Redmond send out a letter assuring his constitutes that this was not gay marriage? He sure did, I just reread it.

Why did they lie?

I guess that was then---this is now. All the homosexual activists who have sworn on a stack of ----something, assuring voters that this was not---I repeat not, gay marriage, are now basking in the afterglow of the deception.

Truth changes when relativism is the compass.

Not only is the Seattle Times calling for the state to go straight to homosexual marriage, their editorial board has even published their own definition of marriage.

The Times says, "Passage of the Domestic Partners Expansion bill moves Washington quietly, purposefully and rightfully down a path toward full recognition of same-sex unions for what they are, marriage."

The "big lie," that was said to be merely about benefits and fairness---not marriage, has now succeeded, and as the Times now affirms, is marriage.

The Times also admits that the big lie was quietly and purposefully moved forward. We now better understand what we all knew 4 weeks ago when the news media that regularly covers a half dozen people on any given corner protesting any given idea, would not cover 2400 citizens standing on the Capitol steps in the rain in defense of marriage.

Their silence on SB 5688 has been deafening.

The Times now has their own definition of marriage: They say marriage is an institution that socializes couples and families into a community; consists of a loving relationship; has a legal definition and societal recognition.

Ellen Goodman, in her column carried by the Times last Thursday titled, "Defense Of Marriage Act is Indefensible," says DOMA, "Is an out of date law that enforces an identity crises."

Those who honor an institution that has existed for more than 5000 years in every civilization, which honors and elevates the special union between a man and a woman, provides for procreation and the nurturing of the child and is the cornerstone of every successful society in history, are now diminished to people who are in some kind of identity crises.

There is certainly an identity crises, however it exists with those who are helping drive the homosexual agenda who cannot decide from day to day which restroom they want to use.

This deceptive agenda seeks not only societal recognition, but cultural affirmation. They are standing squarely against the historical beliefs of every society in history, every major religion in history and the biblical teachings upon which this country was founded.

Is this enough to awaken us? I think it is.

Gov. Gregoire will almost certainly sign the bill this week.

We are prepared to immediately file a referendum to overturn SB 5688 once she has signed it.

The Faith and Freedom PAC board has been expanded, a coalition of nearly all the faith based organizations in the state have come together and we are committed to work together to defend marriage and overturn this back door deception to achieve homosexual marriage in Washington State.

The organizations have asked me to lead and we will be using the Faith and Freedom PAC, however nearly all the faith based groups will be involved in the campaign and in leading their respective groups of supporters.

Larry Stickney from Washington Values, Senator Dan Swecker, Representatives Matt Shea and Jim McCune have been added to the PAC board and Ron Boehme of YWAM and others will be involved in top leadership.

We must all stand together. No one alone can or should attempt to address this issue. We believe that with God's help and blessing, your support, and a united effort, we can turn this tide. The wind is not at our back at the moment.

We fully understand that we are standing against the press and the electronic media in most cases. We further understand that many young people have been indoctrinated by public education to turn away from the historical model of marriage and forsake both societal norm and biblical teaching on homosexuality and marriage.

We also understand that many well meaning people have been misled and deceived into thinking that this is about fairness and benefits, not about homosexual marriage. We feel that the truth will surface and it will be seen in the light of articles such as the Times columns, the Seattle Times editorial board itself and our campaign to educate the public on this issue.

The numbers I'm initially seeing are indicating that Washington voters do not approve of homosexual marriage. More on that later.

Our efforts to overturn SB 5688 will draw national attention and nationwide financial support from homosexual activists to defeat us.

Are you prepared to stand with us?

We are already receiving emails from Europe and elsewhere opposing our efforts.

This is the time. And this is the defining issue.

This is an issue in which people of faith and conservatives must prevail. The future of our culture hangs in the balance. The kind of state and community you will hand to your children and grandchildren is attached to this issue.

Please stand with us financially and prayerfully. Donate to Faith and Freedom Foundation.

Thank you and God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

WA State Legislature Approves Homosexual "Marriage"

Washington State Legislature Approves Homosexual "Marriage" --without the name---for now.

Washington State lawmakers passed SB 5688 yesterday afternoon, thus giving the homosexual activists what they want.

Gov. Gregoire will sign it.

We will seek to overturn it by referendum.

While the lawmakers were voting in favor of homosexual marriage in the Capitol, I and several other leaders in the faith community were meeting a few blocks away, finalizing details before filing a referendum to overturn this legislation.

A more detailed press release will be forthcoming following the Governor's signing of the bill into law.

The bill, the homosexual activists in the Legislature initially called "Every Thing But Marriage," but dropped after we called them out on it, elevates homosexual relationships to that of traditional marriage, thus eliminating any legal difference between domestic partnerships and marriage.

Their next step will be an easy one them. Litigate, correctly claiming there is no legal difference, then claim discrimination and it's a done deal.

They will have successfully done an end-run on the State Supreme Court ruling which upheld DOMA and will have dismantled the Defense of Marriage Act.


We can overturn this legislation with our referendum.

Joshua once asked the people of God to, "Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house," he proclaimed, "We will serve the Lord."

This is that kind of moment. Do you believe in homosexual marriage?

If you do not, stand with us. If you do, then watch it happen.

I do not believe a majority Washingtonians believe in homosexual marriage, nor do they want to become a national attraction for homosexuals from our states and countries.

We know we will be outspent probably 6 to 1 or more on this referendum campaign, however we are equally confident, people of faith and conservatives will do all they can do to help us.

If you regularly support Faith and Freedom, my most sincere "thank you."Please continue.

If you do not or have not supported us recently, please do.

I cannot over state our need for your financial support today. Thank you for making that choice and stepping up with us to defend the time honored and biblically mandated institution of marriage.

Click here to make a donation to Faith & Freedom.

Thank you and God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Why We Do What We Do

Plan to join the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Tea Party at noon today on the Capitol steps in Olympia, WA.

SB5688 is schedule for a vote today around 2 PM.


Why We Do What We Do

There is a constant chatter that is suggesting that abortion, homosexual "marriage" and pro-family matters should not be part of the public political discourse in America.

Those suggesting that, are, for the most part, secularists and left leaning.

However, not all are.

In different and creative ways, the media is helping this chatter along with news stories intended to support that notion in the interest of bringing our divided nation together so we can be strong, etc. The media also often misrepresents the facts or ignores certain stories for the same reasons.

There is also a movement, well rooted in the same media that suggests that those of us on the "right" are growing weary, are burned out, or in the face of recent set backs, simply giving up.

Dr. James Dobson was on national television last night straightening out a story that has been circulating about him.

Since Dobson announced to the Focus on the Family staff that he was going to step down from some of his responsibilities on the board of the organization he founded, the other side has taken his remarks to staff, twisted and edited them and essentially ran to the ends of the earth with their message, not his.

Starting with the London "Telegraph" rewording his statements in part by omission and part out of context, a story has developed that Dobson has grown tired of the cultural war, has lost heart, has thrown in the towel and any other mindset that would suggest failure. None of which is true.

Last night he was on Fox News' "Hannity" explaining why he would never "throw in the towel" on principles that have been his passion for more than three decades.

How could any of us burn out or give up on eternal principles, when we know that by embracing them an individual or a nation will be blessed with life, prosperity and freedom, and by rejecting them one can only experience decline, insignificance and ultimate bondage?

However, it is not only the media and their allies on the left that are trying to dampen the passion of the Christian conservative, some who should be thankful and supportive of this kind of commitment are also suggesting the "values" people are in the way and perhaps responsible for recent setbacks in elections.

There seems to be a philosophical disconnect among so-called "moderates who have enjoyed seeing the people of faith and conservatives do much of the heavy lifting. While the idea is fed and nurtured by the left, some in the Republican Party are now beginning suggest that there should not be public discourse on such issues as abortion and homosexual marriage---"it's divisive," some say. Of course it is as long as people oppose wholesale killing of unwanted babies and stand in defense of marriage. If the folks who carry the banner for righteousness and traditional values are silent and gone the moderates and far left can live happily ever after, because for them it is about politics. For people of faith and conservatives it is about principles.

This is a secular left wing dream that will not come true.

There are reasons we do what we do.

Political activists eventually burn out, give up, throw in the towel.

People of faith who have this burning passion for faith and freedom and to see our country and our communities stand on eternal principles, don't give up. Eventually there is an appropriate time to pass the torch to the next generation---but you never give up.

Recently, the newly elected chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party gave an interview to a gay newspaper in which she said the Republican Party would not be focused on social issues during her term as chairman and she would back all Republican candidates, regardless of where they stand in the culture war.

She said, "To me, social issues are personal issues. Those are personal views, and we're not legislating---at least, I'm not legislating anyone's personal views."

I sincerely hope she will set aside her position in regards to legislation for those whose personal views include rape, murder and theft, which are also social issues.

Massresistance, a Christian activist organization in the state, has responded to her comments.

Unfortunately, I see some of these same seeds being planted here in Washington State. Sam Reed in an op ed column, suggested some of the same beliefs. Our own press is quick to report these kinds of statements. Reed's and others similar comments are causing some people of faith and conservatives to reevaluate the depth of their commitment to the Republican Party.

Starr Parker has written an excellent column on the subject. In it she says, "Those who write off Christian conservatism as a political force have underestimated the driving compulsion behind traditional faith and American freedom.

Faith and the desire for freedom are often underestimated.

Starr asks, "Without a moral compass in politics and law, where do we go to answer the hard questions?"

Unfortunately, the answer is that every man becomes a law unto himself which leads to chaos.

"The Christian right," she says, "has interjected itself into the political world because the political world came into their world." This has happened through the aggressive advancement of abortion on demand, the redefining of marriage and the attempt to strip every vestige of Christian morality from America's public life.

She concludes, "America is in a crisis because the wrong people have been making the wrong decisions for too many years. Christian conservatives have an obligation to help lead America to it's founding principles of traditional values and limited government. Christians must actively shape public policy in the country and inject our values into every part of our shared space."

And that is why we do what we do.

Thank you for supporting us and allowing us to continue.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The Decline And Fall Of Christian America. Did Newsweek Get It Right?

Yesterday I incorrectly said that the Day of Silence was scheduled for this Thursday. It is scheduled for this Friday. I have linked an article that shows the typical "hands off" posture many school boards and administrators are taking. This one is from Mount Si High School.

The Decline And Fall Of Christian America. Did Newsweek Get It Right?

You have likely seen or heard of the feature cover article Newsweek magazine published Easter week proclaiming, "The Decline and Fall of Christian America".

However, a survey taken the same week by Rasmussen suggests that Newsweek may not be correctly interpreting what they themselves refer to as "a small detail" in a 24-page report they are using as the basis for their Easter week story.

Belief in Jesus Christ, His ministry and His deity is actually on the increase.

Jon Meacham in his story for Newsweek has taken a "small detail, a point of comparison" from a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey and built a feature story that may reflect as much about the media as it does about "Christian America".

Meacham points to a comparison in the report that says, "The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points since 1990," uses the concerns of several Christian leaders, points to the recent defeats in the culture battle and concludes that we have reached, "The end of Christian America" and are "Beyond a Christian nation, the Christian God is not dead in American life, but he is less of a force in our politics and culture than at any time in recent memory."

However, a Rasmussen Survey released last Saturday, found that:

79% of Americans believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

88% believe that the person known to history as Jesus Christ actually walked on the earth 2000 years ago---up five points from a year ago.

82% believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God who came to earth and died for our sins.

I can imagine a much greater feature story built around these findings than those chosen by Newsweek.

The media, Newsweek in this case, may be mis-reading some very important facts. While I'm not disputing their survey's finding, it seems odd to me that fewer people would identify themselves as "Christian" while declaring that they believe the very fundamental, core beliefs of Christianity. In fact we are taught biblically, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31) And in this case "saved" means becoming a Christian or follower of Christ.

It seems the belief in Jesus Christ is strong and growing. Perhaps Meacham and others are failing to properly define Christianity in current terms.

There are certainly local churches and denominations that are not growing and a number of them are in decline because people are discovering new and vibrant churches and church groups that are better suited to meet their needs and those of their families, but we should not conclude that Christianity is in decline because of these changing dynamics.

Perhaps the most poignant thing I personally took from Newsweek's epic of Easter is their conclusions about the culture.

People of faith have indeed experienced some set backs in electing leadership who reflect biblical values. There has been a significant shift toward the secular left with the election of Obama and a number of lawmakers across the nation, however much of this is serving as a wake up call to people of faith.

There have been lapses of cultural involvement by Christians in the past, however history, I believe, shows that when there is a rush toward the left, there is a corresponding response from people of faith and conservatives.

I believe that may well be under way at this time. We should not forget that people of faith and the Republican Party are not synonymous. People of faith are primarily principle and values driven, not politically driven.

I am certain it is premature to declare the Decline and Fall of Christian America.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Day Of Silence: Will Congress Endorse It?

Thank you for your support as we expand our efforts in preparation for an initiative or referendum to defend marriage. Click here to make an online tax-deductible donation.

There is a resolution before Congress, asking the federal government and all public schools to officially recognize and celebrate the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education's Day of Silence goals, which extend far beyond the elimination of bullying.

Laurie Higgins, director of the Illinois Family Institute says, HCon 92 is, "One more insidious, incremental step on the march to wide spread cultural approbation of sexual deviance."

The Day of Silence is scheduled for this coming Thursday, the 1st. Congress has promised a vote on Res. 92 before Thursday.

To participate, students take a vow of silence for the day to protect the "injustices" against students who are homosexual, self-identify as homosexual, bi-sexual and transgender. The very classrooms that have confused these kids as to their sexuality are now honoring their confusion and asking those who are not confused to remain silent for the day.

The day of silence requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. Can you imagine any other cause that would so disrupt the classroom with the blessing of public education?

They have politicized the class room around the homosexual agenda. This is but one example from many.

This event is sponsored by a partisan political action group with the implicit purpose of undermining the belief that homosexuality is immoral--that it is some how normal behavior.

Not only are some students taking the vow of silence, some pastors and Christian leaders seem to doing so as well.

I'm asking you to do two specific things regarding breaking the silence.

First call your Congressman or woman and tell them you strongly oppose the Day of Silence Resolution 92 and ask them to vote no on the resolution. You may find contact information on this website.

Secondly, I'm asking you to consider keeping your child out of school on Thursday--the Day of Silence.

If your child attends public school call your school today and ask if they are allowing the Day of Silence this Thursday. Do not ask if they are sponsoring or cooperating, they will tell you no, because it is technically a "student" sponsored event---but in reality, the schools and homosexual activist groups are deeply involved with holding, facilitating and expanding the event.

If the school says yes--in any form, tell them you do not agree with the homosexual agenda and you feel the Day of Silence is indoctrination---not just an attempt to reduce bullying. They will disagree, but don't bother to argue. It won't help at this point. Simply tell them you disagree with the homosexual agenda and your child will not be attending classes that day for that reason.

There is a nationwide effort to encourage parents to take a position against the effort. In some cases public schools lose federal funding when students are absent. If enough parents and students decided to not attend that day, it could be felt economically.

I'm giving you a couple of links you should check out.

The Illinois Family Institute are one of several organizations who are leading in taking a stand against the Day of Silence. There is good information on their site.

Secondly, there is a student response to the Day of Silence, called Day of Truth. There is information about the Day of Truth on their website. This year's Day of Truth is scheduled for next Monday, April 20th.

Don't forget to call your Congressional Representative regarding Resolution 92.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Obama Considering Geoengineering the Climate

Thank you to those who have made a contribution to help as we begin the campaign to defend marriage. Your help is needed at this time. We are making critical decisions as to how we are going to proceed and are making commitments that are costing money now. Click here to make an online, tax-deductible donation to Faith & Freedom.

Obama Considering Geoengineering the Climate

With President Obama's support and knowledge, there are those who are not only proceeding to re-engineer the family, re-define marriage and diminish the sanctity of life, but are now planning to possibly tinker with the Earth's climate.

The President's science advisor, John Holdren, says that global warming is so dire that they are discussing radical technologies to cool the Earth's air---by shooting pollution into the air.

I suppose China would supply the product.

Some of the extreme ideas that are being discussed are not just Holdren's personal ideas, but are being discussed in administration meetings.

The ideas are so extreme that I could hardly believe what I was reading. I found it hard to believe that people with that kind of authority were actually discussing those kinds of things, given the growing body of dissent among scientists who disagree with the global warming alarmists.

Even the CNN weather guy has doubts about global warming.

In light of what the Obama Administration has done with our financial structure and social structure over the past few weeks, perhaps it isn't so far-fetched to think that he would be blasting pollution into the air to cool the Earth one day soon.

Check this out.

One extreme option that the Obama people are considering is shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Holdren said, "It's got to be looked at, we don't have the luxury of taking anything off the table."

He compared global warming, twice in his interview with the AP, to being "In a car with bad brakes, driving toward a cliff, in the fog."

He also said they were considering using so-called "artificial trees" to suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.

He said at first it seemed, "Prohibitively expensive," but a re-examination shows it might be less costly.

Not to worry, Mr. Holdren, you are on the Court in the" Kingdom of Trillion". It doesn't matter what it costs---yes we can.

And some thought Al Gore was off the page.

Interestingly, CNN, not known for their conservative views or clear thinking, are saying they don't think global warming is necessarily man made and their weather guy said, on the air, "You know to think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant." Watch video.

I would agree. There seems to be no shortage of arrogance in this Administration.

We are called to be stewards of God's creation, and we can certainly do better than we have done.

It would seem, however, that tinkering with the idea of re-engineering the world's climate might be a little beyond the concept of stewardship.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Rick Warren's Comments are Troubling

Rick Warren seemed to be apologizing to Larry King Monday evening for supporting Proposition 8 in California. He said his supportive comments were only made at the last moment and in response to a question from someone who attends his church.

There is no social issue that is more defining for biblical Christians than that of marriage and life.

The Bible is incredibly clear on these two issues.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Gen. 2:24

"Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." 1 Corth. 7:2

"Thou shalt not kill." Ex. 20:13

It seemed that Pastor Warren was trying to distance himself from the marriage issue.

I have had a great deal of respect for Rick Warren and his ministry, however his statements to Larry King are very troubling.

His statements were equally troubling to the other side because they are now accusing him of lying and trying to mislead people.

I have linked to Pam's House Blend. You can read his comments, their comments and see the video of his interview with King.

You can watch the conversation and decide for your self.

Martin Luther once famously said, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved."

I am personally disappointed.

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

President Obama Names Anti-Pope, Homosexual Activist to Faith Council

President Obama is doing a little slight of hand, much like the Wa. State House of Representatives with their hearing schedule, as he proclaims to be furthering President Bush's faith-based initiative program while developing a Council with a very different agenda under the name of his Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships program.

He has now appointed Harry Knox, a homosexual activist with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) a homosexual activist organization.

Harry Knox is the director of the religion and faith program at HRC and has recently blasted the Pope and other Catholic bishops and the Knights of Columbus for not supporting same-sex marriage.

He also leads the HRC program to help pastors with sermon material that supports the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender perspective on the Bible.

Knox has described Pope Benedict XVI and other certain Catholic Bishops as "discredited leaders" because they oppose so-called "gay marriage".

The talking points are always the same. If you don't support their agenda, they demonize you by calling you intolerant, bigoted and hateful ---trying to push your beliefs on them. This, of course, while they seek to redefine marriage and re-engineer society.

He has called the Catholic Knights of Columbus "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression," because they supported the successful opposition to Proposition 8 in California.

According to the HRC web site, Knox has created, " a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gender perspective on the Bible."

His goal, the site says, is to create, "faith based transgender education in 40 diverse Congressional districts across the country."

He is leading a pastors event on Capitol Hill in May to further his causes. Clearly President Obama has given a huge lift to his stated goals, by appointing him to the Presidents advisory council. Knox says," We will help the President in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people."

I suppose that means that any faith based ministry that in any way receives government funding for ministry to children, orphans, women, the homeless, etc. who also happen to believe biblical teaching on the sin of homosexual acts, would lose their funding.

Thank you , Mr. President.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said his appointment makes a mockery of the faith- based program.

I agree.

He said, "This is exactly the kind of bastardization of common sense that the Obama people are putting forth."

He says Knox will use this appointment to increase his political capital so he can further his own homosexual agenda.

Interestingly, former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy had been on the list to serve on this same council, however when the list came out on Monday, his name had been dropped from the list. Dungy is well known to be a pro-marriage Christian. He has stood strongly against so-called" gay-marriage".

Donohue says, "Because of the screamers in the gay community that said we can't have a man like Tony Dungy, they have decided to reach out to a man like Harry Knox---this is the way the Obama people work."

Who knows whether Dungy with drew or was taken from the list.

Tom McClusky, vice president at Family Research Council agreed that Obama's Council is certainly weighted toward the liberal left.

I agree with Donohue.

The whole thing is a sham, much like the late night decision to reschedule the last hearing on the Washington State SB 5688. Trickery may have silenced our voices on this latest hearing, but I assure you, it will be heard on this issue.

Thanks for standing with us.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Rep. Geoff Simpson Mocks God, the Bible and Christianity

Rep. Geoff Simpson has mocked God, the Bible and the Christian faith of a constituent from his district. His remarks not only assault God and the Bible, but are verbally abusive to his constituent.

Why? Because she respectfully ask her Representative to vote no on SB 5688.

Simpson, who represents the 47th district, which covers the Covington-Black Diamond area, responded in such a way that should disgrace his party and cause them to apologize and remove him from elected office. Simpson has a right to believe what he wants---he does not have the right to treat citizens whom he represents as he has. I am told he has responded in a similar way to others in his district.

Even homosexual activists should push back on this one--but they won't, because many of them agree with him.

His written response begins with the following, then goes dramatically down hill from there:

"What is it in the bible that leads you to believe stopping gay marriage should top your political priority list? Was there some extra special **emphasis **, italics, bold or bold italics in your bible that called your attention to one aspect of god's law to be the thing you should contact your political representative about? Or did God himself point you to gay marriage as the issue that should be your tip-top, number one political concern."

As he continues he mocks everything from George W. Bush to The Old Testament to this ladies' Christian faith. He also clearly discriminates against her because of those beliefs.

Please don't tell me that the gay movement is just about being happy and rights and benefits. There is a very dark side to the homosexual movement. It is spiritual, rebellious and it runs deep. This affirms just how deeply held their hatred is toward biblical Christianity and our biblical moral beliefs.

I have included Representative Geoff Simpson's response in full. Please read it. May your eyes be opened. I have also included a response to Simpson from a Christian attorney.

Simpson's Response:

From: Simpson, Rep. Geoff []
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:11 PMTo:

Subject: RE: Say NO to same sex marriage SB5688

Barbara –

What is it in the bible that leads you to believe stopping gay marriage should top your political priority list? Was there some extra-special **emphasis**, italics, bold or bold italics in your bible that called your attention to one aspect of god's law to be the thing you should contact your elected representative about? Or did God himself point you to gay marriage as the issue that should be your tip-top, number one political concern?

Jesus opposed the death penalty, saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" - yet George W. Bush set an execution record when he was governor of Texas, and boasted of it. I don't recall ever getting a message from you opposing the death penalty as Christ did.

Why is your "Christian" political activism concentrated against gay marriage instead of against the death penalty?

  • In the interest enforcing the laws of the bible with regard to marriage, let's not forget that;
    It's ok for marriage to consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3: 2-5)
  • Marriage does not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(11Sam 5:13; 1Kings 11:3; 11Chron 11:21)
  • A marriage is considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22: 13-21)
  • Marriage between a believer and a non-believer is forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25: 1-9; Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, nothing in the scriptures permits divorce.( Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and by otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Finally, I need some advice from you regarding some of the specific laws contained in the bible and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:17-21 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.



Open Letter to Representative Geoff Simpson

Re: Same-sex marriage in Biblical context
By Stephen Pidgeon
April 2, 2009

Dear Representative Simpson:

Grace and peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Emmanuel, the propitiation for our sins, our Holy Savior and ultimately, He who will come to judge the living and the dead.

It is written that “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2:10. Homosexuality is not the only sin in the world – there are many others, including the failure of faith. As it is written: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8.

You ask the question, “What is it in the bible that leads you to believe stopping gay marriage should top your political priority list?”

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Some have argued that the original Greek did not make reference to “homosexuals” but rather to “catamites.” “Catamites” are the younger partners in sexual relationships between two males, typically between an older man and an adolescent youth. The term “catamite” never referred to heterosexuals.

Okay, so we have scriptural evidence that those who practice fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, theft, covetousness, alcoholism, verbal abuse, or extortion will not see the kingdom of God. This includes a large group of people, all of whom should repent and be saved.

But this really is not the issue. The issue is the remaking of American culture to accommodate a distinct minority.

Here is the argument:

Civil society is predicated upon the ethics practiced by the members thereof. In homogenous societies, these ethics are passed from generation to generation. The actual practice of these ethics is what we call morality – or the general condition of the mores of a social order.

The state, in all of its enforceable laws, enforces morality. The state will place a boundary around mores which violate the ethics of the community as those ethics are codified in law. There is no criminal law that does not enforce morality, or that does not reflect an ethic of society.

Our society has exploded into heterogeneity, most notable in the 1960s. Now, we are a culturally divided people (some say hopelessly divided).

“But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.” Matthew 12:25.

Marriage is the very center of our cultural experience. A society is defined by its marriage practices. Some cultures have pre-arranged marriages, but in the west and in particular in the United States, we have marriages based upon the election of the parties.

Nonetheless, marriage has always been practiced in this country as the spiritual union between one man and one woman. This was the morality of the culture when this nation was founded, and is being challenged only now, hundreds of years later.

From the expectation that the morality of marriage would remain constant, generations have given their vows before God to remain faithful, woman to man, and man to woman, that a woman might risk bearing a child on the condition that the man remain to provide for the child. Marriage, before contraception, was a critical component of survival, and the family that resulted from the marriage of one man and one woman was the center stone of our culture, our society, our government, our survival, our prosperity, and most importantly, our homage to our Creator.

Contraception supposedly liberated our society from the necessity of marriage, and we can see how well that has worked. As a society, we have aborted 50 million Americans, and prevented the births of at least that amount through contraception. Many women have died from breast cancer as a result of the “pill”; other women have died from the “morning after” pill, and many tens of thousands of American women have suffered greatly in their lives as a result of the emotional burden and the trauma associated with abortion.

Contraception led to no-fault divorce, which has now given birth to same-sex marriage that will give birth to polygamous marriages that will give license to pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and so forth. Same-sex marriage is merely a gate of entry.

However, as a policy, same-sex marriage destroys the morality – the centuries-old cultural practice - of North American residents who call themselves “American” because it alters the fundamental expectation. No longer is marriage about the proposition of faithfulness and provision from a man whose barbaric impulses would otherwise be spent on unbridled hedonism in exchange for a sexual commitment from a woman, who, should she yield, would most certainly end up with children.

Same-sex marriage alters our homage to our Creator according to His infinite wisdom to reduce the marital relationship from the Holy pact to simply the “choice” of any grouping of people, who “want” to be married.
Most importantly, the state has seen fit to overrule scripture as to what is marriage.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6.

The state’s assertion that it has the authority to overrule God’s ordination is, simply put, fascism. Mussolini, the founder of modern fascism, explained fascism simply as “the state over all.” That of course, included God. Holy Scripture will not dictate our social order, because we are now going to exercise the right to place the state over the authority of God.

That is what the fuss is all about.

You ask whether “God himself point you to gay marriage as the issue that should be your tip-top, number one political concern?”

For me, this is not the tip-top, number one political concern: overturning no-fault divorce is my tip-top concern, but that’s just me. The death penalty is off-point, so I won’t address your concern or lobbying effort as to this issue. Let’s review your other biblical questions:

You have said: In the interest enforcing the laws of the bible with regard to marriage, let's not forget that;

It's ok for marriage to consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3: 2-5)

These citations merely reflect that certain persons in biblical history were polygamous (Jacob, for instance, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel). You will note that none of the people referenced here had homosexual or catamite relationships.

Marriage does not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(11Sam 5:13; 1Kings 11:3; 11Chron 11:21)

While this is true, it is also true that the keeping of concubines worked substantial tragedy as a result.

A marriage is considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22: 13-21)

This law was set forth as a construct within the Israelite homogeneous culture. If you wanted to practice something else, feel free, but you would be required to do it within some other nation or tribe.

Marriage between a believer and a non-believer is forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25: 1-9; Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30)

This law was even more draconian than you describe. Ezra did not allow for any ethnic or racial diversity whatsoever. Again, you are discussing a set of laws designed to keep Israel as a set apart, Holy people. If you wanted to practice something else, feel free, but you would be required to do it within some other nation or tribe.

Since marriage is for life, nothing in the scriptures permits divorce.( Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

This is false. Divorce is expressly permitted on the ground of sexual immorality.

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31.32.

The Mosaic law permitted divorce on the ground of uncleanness:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.” Deuteronomy 24:1.

God Himself executed a divorce on the basis of harlotry:

“The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce;” Jeremiah 3:6-8. (This entire chapter is an excellent read).

If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and by otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Again, you are speaking about laws directed to the homogeneous nation of Israel.
You have then gone on to seek advice as to specific Old Testament laws. Let me see if I can help.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

This sacrifice was completed with Christ’s death on the cross, which tore the veil in the temple in two and ended sacrifice.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

This argument is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. First, the term “slave” in the original Hebrew was interchangeable with the term “servant”. This describes primarily an employment relationship (journeyman/apprenticeship) that was practiced during this era, not the kind of slavery practiced, say, in China, where people are arrested for practicing “Falon Gong” and are incarcerated in slave camps to make cheap goods for American consumption. You will notice that the so-called “slave” arrangements are merely bond-servant contracts that expire at the end of six years, and the context of the “selling” of a daughter then goes on to discuss what happens if the betrothal goes bad. Talk to me about this passage after you have reviewed the hermeneutics in the original Hebrew.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

This is a complete misstatement of the scripture. Read the passage. It merely declares that if there is contact, you are to be considered unclean for seven days. Too bad we didn’t have socialized medicine back then to give us a misdiagnosis of “clean” and infect us with a flesh-eating disease while we’re there for treatment.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Again, you misconstrue the term “slave” as originally stated. You really cannot discuss this subject, unless you are prepared to discuss Sabbath and Jubilee. An understanding of Jubilee would go a long way toward healing our nation about now, but, whatever you do, don’t look to Scripture for advice – your friends would ostracize you for life.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Well, you don’t know, do you? Jesus expressly clarified this edict;

“Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”

And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:23-27.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Yes, I can.

“The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. Acts 10:9-15.

Shellfish is okay now, but check for allergies.

7. Lev. 21:17-21 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

The first thing you need to be is of the tribe of Aaron and to have been called into the priesthood, which no longer exists now that the New Covenant has occurred. Thanks for taking the scripture out of context again to prove a non-existent point.

Now, I have a few questions for you:

1. Isn’t it true that any person over the age of 18 can be named in a medical power of attorney, giving them visitation rights in a hospital and giving them rights to make life and death decisions on behalf of the other party?

2. Isn’t it true that any two persons can enter into real estate deeds in this state under “joint tenancy with full rights of survivor” that would allow real property to be immediately vested in the surviving tenant?

3. Isn’t it true that adoption laws provide for any reasonably competent person to adopt, even if single?

4. Isn’t it true that one person can leave their entire estate to another by means of a will, and that under the terms of the will, the testator can name a guardian for the children and can arrange for the transfer of assets by means of testamentary trusts.

5. Can you tell me the divorce rate among same-sex male couples in France, Holland, Norway and Sweden? How about the divorce rate among same-sex female couples?

6. Can you tell me about the incidence of marriage among heterosexual couples following the codification of same-sex marriage?

7. Finally, can you give us the resulting demography (the birth rate) in countries that have adopted same-sex marriage and are you willing to disclose whether you have an agenda to decrease the population of Washington and the US by means of same-sex marriage?

I do not bring these questions to harm you or to condemn others; but I am guided by the following:

“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20.

Attorney at Law, P.S.
(425)605-4774 telephone
(425)818-5371 facsimile

ATTENTION: receiving, reading and the relaying of this email does not establish an attorney-client relationship unless you have a previously signed and valid attorney-client agreement with Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S. The contents of the foregoing email and any attachments may be CONFIDENTIAL or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED in nature and if you are not the addressee any non-authorized reading of this message or forwarding to another party may be a violation of law. If you believe you have received this email in error, please call Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S. immediately at (425)605-4774.

IRS TAX NOTICE - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in the U.S. Treasury Regulations, any advice relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. This notice also applies to the tax law of the State of Washington and any other state or locality

Friday, April 03, 2009

Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Traditional Marriage

Earlier today, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down marriage as being only between one man and one woman, saying it was unconstitutional.

Some of the same tactics that are being used in the Washington State legislature have been used in the Iowa legislature to block the issue of homosexual marriage going to a public vote.

When the Washington State Senate heard SB 5688, Sen. Dan Swecker proposed an amendment that would have sent the issue to a vote of the people. The liberal left, who hold the majority in Olympia, were adamantly opposed to allowing a public vote.

The DesMoines Register is reporting this morning that pro-marriage legislators in Iowa have attempted to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Iowa Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley called for an immediate move to amend the constitution, thus putting the matter in the hands of the people. “Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people.”

The tactic of avoiding a public vote and advancing homosexual marriage through the courts or litigation seems to be the standard procedure for gay rights activists nationwide.

As you know, we are presently working to bring the matter of same-sex marriage in Washington State to a vote of the people.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

President Obama: "I'm Here To Listen Not To Lecture"

That could well be the wisest thing our President has done for a while. With riots in the streets of London and world leaders continuing to push back from Barack Obama's economic policies, silence may serve him well---particularly for a day or so.

The world leaders already know what we are now beginning to discover in regard to the Obama/Geithner economic recovery plan.

Bloomberg is reporting that our government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent, or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount nearly equal to our nations total gross domestic product of $14.2 trillion in 2008. That's $42,105 for every man woman and child in America and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation.

David Broder in the liberal Washington Post says they are not revealing the whole picture either. He says they learned their tricks from the Bush administration, but are not coming clean with all the numbers. He says its worse than they are saying.

John McCain called this fiasco, "generational theft". And it is. Our children, grandchildren and beyond will live with these decisions for generations to come.

An equally serious and troubling problem is to whom we owe the money.

China. They are colonizing America, differently than England, but none the less just as effectively.

China is calling for the world to replace the dollar, has just presented their newest military weapon that our own military say they have no defense against and are cutting 30-year deals with Russia for oil at about $20 per barrel according to FOX News yesterday.

What is the answer? What should America do?

China has deployed what is called in the West, the "Sizzler," and it has been offered to Iran as well.

Orville Hanson has evaluated weapons for the Navy for 38 years and he says, "This is a carrier destroying weapon, that's it's purpose."

A Pentagon employee said Russia, who built the weapon, has also offered it to Iran. Officials say we have no weapon that can effectively defend against it.

While China acquires weapons against which we have no adequate defense at sea and builds strong financial ties with Russia and Iran, they are continuing to expand their stake in America, by buying our T bills, etc., economically colonizing our country.

Now China, Russia and other countries are calling for the world community to replace the dollar with a new global currency.

Obviously that is a concern to most all Americans. In fact, Rasmuessen polls showed yesterday that 88% of Americans oppose allowing the dollar to be replaced.

There is now a growing greater concern, that our President and Geithner may not be leveling with the public.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minnesota, says a day after Geithner promised he nor the President would consider allowing the dollar to be replaced, he left that option on the table when asked by reporters about China's proposal.

She has now introduced a resolution that would ban the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency.

And yesterday AP, not your conservative news service, is reporting that Obama has already broken his promise regarding no taxes on the middle class by raising the tax on tobacco . I've linked the story, you can read it.

So what can we do?

I believe Walter Williams, the well known African-American columnist has touched the answer in his latest column. He says our problem is immorality.

At it's core, the problem in America is spiritual, not political. Certainly our leaders could and should use better judgement---but ultimately the problems we face today in this great country will be solved by spiritual renewal.

The social issues we face today are related to rebellion against God, our Creator and Giver of life.

While we are preparing the next step in the defense of marriage in Washington State, I am asking you to join me personally, and set aside a special time to pray for our country and our state every day.

Greater is He that is in you, than he who is in the world.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

German Family Seeks Asylum in US to Home School their Children

It's an amazing story. Home schooling is so important to Uwe Romeike, a classically trained pianist, that he sold his grand pianos for money to move his family to the US so he could home school his kids.

He refused to comply with the government's repeated orders to put his kids in public school, until finally the police came, demanded that his children attend public school and fined the father. He has now fled the country and tomorrow in Memphis, will be asking for asylum. Michael Donnelly, an attorney with the Home School Defense Association, is representing him.

His explanation for wanting to home school his children rather than place them in a public school is chilling.

CNSNEWS quotes Romeike saying, "It's really different in public schools today than when I was in public school. They (The State) believe the children must be socialized and all kids must grow up the same and act the same, otherwise they won't fit into society."

He explained that the public schools were teaching his kids values that the Romeike family do not hold.

I would recommend that Mr. Romeike not experiment with public education in the US either regarding values.

Bernadette Meyler, a Cornell Law School professor who has studied differences in religious liberty between America and European countries said, "The idea is home schooling might lead to the emergence of separate societies that would not share the same vision of the (German) state."

I sincerely hope this is not a snapshot of how far left America is going as we stagger toward European socialism.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.