Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Rabbi Rightly Divides the Gospel, Rev. Jim Wallis and Karl Marx

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
President Obama has been calling Rev. Jim Wallis his adviser on "spiritual" matters and chooses him precisely because Wallis comes to most political matters with a well known and decidedly leftist outlook regarding the economy, healthcare and the environment, and with anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Western tilt, voguish in leftist circles, especially religious leftist circles.

In some ways, he is Rev. Wright toned down.

Wallis teaches that "redistribution of wealth is what the Gospel is all about."

And the President says, Amen!

Wallis decries the greed on Wall Street, and rightly so, but never mentions the greed and abuse by leftist union leaders and their organizations.

The President and Rev. Wallis teach doctrine that more closely relates to Marx, than to the gospels.

I've been planning to write about this for the past couple of weeks, however yesterday I changed my mind. At least for now.

No,no not my belief, but my plan to write about it. Yesterday I read a column that says what I was planning to say--except it's better than mine would have been.

And it was written by, of all things a Jewish. rabbi. Rabbi Aryeh Spero.

If you read nothing else today, please take a moment and read the following column:


Obama's Liberal Clergy Confuse Karl Marx With The Holy Books

When it suits him, Barack Obama, who keeps reminding us this is not a Christian country and is against retaining In God We Trust on our coinage, trots out liberal ministers quoting from the New Testament and offering “what Jesus would have done” to sell his socialist political agenda to the American people.

Last month, was the second time Rev. Jim Wallis beamed while leaving the White House singing the President’s march, Onward Leftwing Soldiers. The President calls the Reverend Jim Wallis his adviser on “spiritual” matters and chooses him precisely because Wallis comes to most political matters with a well-known, decidedly leftist outlook regarding the economy, healthcare and the environment, and with the anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Western tilt voguish in leftist circles, especially religious leftist circles.

Wallis has stated that “redistribution of wealth is what the Gospels are all about. Absolutely.” He is also urging an “economic leveling of society.” The Rev. Wallis shares some of the views of Barak Obama’s previous “advisor”, Rev. Jeremiah Wright – they’re just toned down a bit.

Wallis cites the extreme poverty in many parts of the world as a need for us to redistribute our wealth not only domestically but also across the globe, as a way to achieve what he calls “biblical justice.”

But, if Wallis wishes to alleviate poverty, why would he choose the very redistributionist plans that have caused poverty in those areas and, worse, wish to institute them here, on us? Instead of depleting ourselves of wealth, why not teach others how to achieve their own prosperity?

I suspect Wallis knows all this, but, like so many on the left, is bothered by the fact that some live better than others and that constitutes “inequality.” Rather than lift others, it seems “fairer,” to the left, to bring us down. It is easier, quicker and provides the redistributionist with a sense of moral superiority.

Besides, there’s much more glitter in indicting the successful of one’s own country.

Like many in the left-wing clergy, Christian and Jewish, Wallis arrived at the seminary with a leftist view of the world, which subsequently colored his reading of Scripture.

No doubt, it is hypocritical for the Left to accuse conservative clergymen of mixing religion into politics when they ever more frequently cite religion to justify their leftwing politics. But, in a curious way, it reveals a hidden truth: their understanding of religion is rooted in their political beliefs and, thus, they are but mixing politics with politics.
Conversely, our reverence for religion is intrinsic and sees the goal of religion apart from political paradigms and utopias. Naturally, then, we are accused of being “too religious.” I, actually, take it as a compliment.

Though a Democrat, Wallis says, “God is not a Democrat or Republican.” That is true, but neither is He a left-wing ideologue, and it would seem that a loving God would desire prosperity for as many of His children as possible and not wish to penalize those who live by the virtues of hard work, sacrifice, discipline and responsibility that He has bequeathed to us. It only makes sense that God favors a system that provides his children with the greatest opportunities and avenues for economic prosperity and its concomitant condition of human dignity, uniquely sponsored in the Judeo-Christian outlook upon which America’s economic system is fashioned.

The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity – but, none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.

The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble both the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”
Those who receive charity are taught the virtue of gratitude. When given everything by the state, however, through redistribution of wealth, recipients are taught not gratitude but a sense of entitlement.

Imbibing a sense of entitlement negates and corrupts the virtue of work that God himself announces as something good for man: “Six Days Shall Ye Work.” But, the leftist egalitarian is unwilling to accept the notion that there are benefactors and recipients, since it seems so “unequal.”

That the Bible never called for redistribution of wealth is obvious when considering that it required from its citizens only a tithing, a 10% giving. It mandated another 5% or so toward functionaries in the temple as a compensation for work they did on behalf of the citizenry, like civil servants. And while government certainly has a safety-net role, the state should eschew policies that enlarge dependency and certainly not manufacture conditions, as is the Obama Administration, that make redistribution of wealth inevitable.

The equality that God seeks is not in a manufactured across-the-board parity, but in “Equality before the Law.” In matters of law and redress before the court, all are equal, be they rich or poor. A virtuous and Godly society is not one that redistributes wealth but distributes law and justice across its population.

The Rev. Wallis is correct that Wall Street exhibits “greed,” yet finds nothing wrong with the work-rules and “Cadillac provisions” of unions that are rooted in greed. Nor does he castigate the greediness of millions who, out of a sense of entitlement, do not work or pay, but demand to be subsidized from the take-home pay of other people’s labors.

Evidently, it is not greed, but achievement born of capitalism, that bothers Wallis.

A society that is leveled is a society in which all become equally disadvantaged. Yet, many liberals prefer an equality of mediocrity and lack of wealth over one of achievement and prosperity if, in the end, prosperity means some have more than others, even though the poor directly benefit and live better because of the success of others. This is not social justice but socialism, which is a political category, not a moral category.

The greater the ability to create wealth, the more money is available for charity and good works. It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.

The primary theme of the Bible is individual responsibility, not entitlement and dependency. God wants the individual to be robust. The Rev. Wallis and others like him see the Bible as endorsing pacifism, be it pacifism in national defense and security matters or pacifism in economic matters. The religious left doesn’t see man solving problems through robust free-market activity but calls for, as they do regarding environmental challenges, retreat. They lack a belief in man’s ability, in man himself.

It is ironic that men of the cloth endorse the views of Karl Marx who despised the Bible.

Marx propounded his message and political outlook almost two millennia after the Bible was written. His outlook is not of the Bible. To him, religion was the opiate of the masses. Marx offered a new opiate for the people: redistribution of wealth and the welfare state. Clergy should think twice before endorsing the views of Karl Marx.


Thank you for your support of this ministry.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

"A Conscience Thing"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Both former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Stormans family of Olympia are dealing with an issue of conscience. Their views stand in stark contrast.

Pelosi recently told the Washington Post, "I'm a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it...but they have this 'conscience thing,'" that puts women at risk.

Her comments hardly evoke the idea of "honor" or "love" for her church or faith.

In stark contrast, the Stormans family of Olympia, who are not Catholic, also honor their faith and have consistently acted on their conscience over the past several years, refusing to sell Plan B "morning after" or abortion pills in their pharmacies in the area---at great personal expense.

They are back in court this week, defending their right to conscience. In their case "the conscience thing" is a part of their deeply held pro-life belief.

Dan Kennedy at Washington Right to Life sent me the following information: I would strongly recommend you remember the Stormans in prayer and shop in their stores as much as possible.

Subject: Pharmacist Conscience trial in Tacoma starts TODAY

Sent: 11/28/2011 9:10:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Pharmacist Conscience trial in Tacoma starts TODAY

Sent: 11/28/2011 8:39:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Prayer Request/pharmacist Conscience trial starts TODAY

See details and brief background below and trial details and please pray for:

* Clarity, efficiency, wisdom, and stamina for the attorneys defending the right of conscience
* Protection for those attorneys, the plaintiffs (pharmacists and pharmacy owners) and their families
* That those attorneys and plaintiffs would be wise as serpents and innocent as doves
* That the Lord would confound the opposing side
* Favor with Judge Ron Leighton, and that he will rule in favor of the plaintiffs
* For the Lord to reveal Himself and His truth to the other side in court; for their salvation, and that they will recognize that life, created in God's image, is at stake here
* That the Lord would be glorified in the outcome

Thank you so much for your prayer support.

Background: In ~2006, the Governor of Washington, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Northwest Women's Law Center (now Legal Voice) demanded that the Washington Board of Pharmacy pass regulations forcing pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their conscience and dispense Plan B, the morning after pill (which has the potential to prevent implantation of an embryo, thus terminating life in its earliest form). Their demands were a part of a national agenda by pro-abortion groups to eliminate conscience rights protections for these health care professionals and to force private businesses to sell early abortifacients such as Plan B and Ella.

Although the Board initially voted to pass a regulation supporting conscience rights, it abruptly reversed its position when the Governor threatened the Board. In 2007, the Board passed the final regulations that require pharmacists and pharmacy owners to dispense drugs like Plan B and Ella regardless of a pharmacist's religious objection. They prohibit providers from referring patients to nearby providers when the providers have a conscientious objection, but in practice allow providers to refer patients for business and secular reasons.

After the Board's ruling in 2007, two Christian pharmacists and a Christian pharmacy owner sued the Washington Board of Pharmacy for violating their constitutional right of conscience and free exercise of religion. After numerous delays, the trial for this lawsuit is finally scheduled to begin Monday, November 28th, at the Federal Courthouse in Tacoma, WA, and will probably end December 22nd.

The outcome of this lawsuit will not only affect religious conscience rights of pharmacists, pharmacy owners and health care professionals, but has the potential to affect anyone in our state who chooses to exercise his/her constitutionally protected right of religious conscience.

Many of you have likely followed this situation and participated in some of the multiple public hearings, church petitions, letter-writing to the Board of Pharmacy, Governor Gregoire, and newspapers, commented on soundoffs and message boards, etc. Maybe you even wondered whatever became of the case, years after the initial assault began at the level of the BOP. Please, please pray for a good trial and outcome as requested above and also consider attending one or more days or half-days of the trial in order to give moral support and see how the system works. (It should be quite interesting if the prior Oral Arguments are any indication.) This might be a valuable experience for teens and perhaps older pre-teens too.

Dates: Mon. - Thurs. Nov. 28 - Dec. 1
Thurs. - Fri. Dec. 8 - 9
Mon. - Thurs. Dec. 19 - 22*
*(Trial could theoretically take less than the allotted 10 days though that seems unlikely.)

Time: 9:30 - Noon and 1:30 - 4:30 [May need to arrive early to assure seating availability inside the courtroom, in addition to first allowing time to find parking and then pass through airport-style security.]

Location: US Federal Courthouse at 1717 Pacific Avenue in downtown Tacoma (old railway station building on north side of the street, a bit west of U-W Tacoma.) Using case name (Stormans vs Selecky) or judge name (Hon. Ronald Leighton), you will be able to obtain room information from security upon your arrival.

Dress: Dress pants and shirt/sweater for men, (suit/tie optional); comparable for women; no t-shirts/sweatshirts/jeans please; no sidearms (federal courthouse).

Please forward to others who may be interested in praying re: very important case.

Thank you for your support.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Thanksgiving: Pres.Obama, Gov. Gregoire and Gov. Arthur B. Langlie

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Millions of us celebrated Thanksgiving this past weekend, eating great food, spending time with family, watching some football and most importantly giving thanks to God for His blessings.

Giving thanks to God on a specific day began with our first President. In 1789, Washington told a newly chartered nation to celebrate its first Thanksgiving by giving thanks to God, to, in his words, "Beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions"--- to pray to God, "to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue..."

In 1863, during the Civil War, Lincoln made Thanksgiving a celebration to be commemorated each year on the fourth Thursday of November. He said it was to be a "Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens," to "commend His tender care" for the needy and to heal the "wounds of the nation and to restore it according to Divine purposes."

News has provided a good overview of both Lincoln and Washington's relationship to Thanksgiving Day. Although there were no Thanksgiving Presidential Proclamations between 1816 and 1861, most Presidents have referenced the historical and spiritual significance of Thanksgiving Day.

At least until now.

President Obama sort of redefined Thanksgiving this year---at least for him and his family, calling it a "celebration of community." In his speech, the President said he and his family would spend the day "eating great food, watching a little football, and reflecting on how lucky we are."

"Celebration of community?"

"How lucky we are?"

Columnist Ben Shapiro tweeted, "Unreal that Obama doesn't mention God in Thanksgiving message." You're right Ben, he didn't.

Sherman Frederick at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, ground zero for "luck" wrote, "Somebody ought to remind Obama that when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God."

While the President reflected on his good luck, Gov. Gregoire didn't even bother to make a Thanksgiving proclamation---or reflect on her "luck". The Tacoma News Tribune speculated that she was probably too wrapped up in cutting the budget to think about blessings or Thanksgiving.

Interestingly, I came across a Thanksgiving proclamation in letter form from a former Washington State Governor that shows that Washington State has not always been too busy or preoccupied to proclaim a Thanksgiving to God for His blessings. And unlike the President, this Governor wasn't reflecting on "luck".

In fact this Governor served two separate terms.

His first term as Governor began 32 days before I was born. His second, when I was old enough to know about such things. I remember him.

Governor Arthur B. Langlie clearly defined the significance of Thanksgiving Day and how we ought to spend at least a part of it in the following letter:

This Proclamation likely explains why in the formative years of my life, growing up in the Yakima Valley, so many spoke so highly of Governor Langlie---even some Democrats, who happened to be my relatives.

Will either of the two leading candidates to replace Gregoire have that kind of conviction? Not likely.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Bold. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Many vital decisions lie ahead. Thank you for supporting our voice and our actions on behalf of conservative, Christian values and principles.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Psalm 100

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
A Psalm of Thanksgiving

Make a joyful shout to the LORD, all you lands!
Serve the LORD with gladness;
Come before His presence with singing.
Know that the LORD, He is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Enter into His gates with thanksgiving,
And into His courts with praise.
Be thankful to Him, and bless His name.
For the LORD is good;
His mercy is everlasting,
And His truth endures to all generations.

Have a happy and meaningful Thanksgiving.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Thanksgiving On A Hill Is Challenged

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Thanksgiving On A Hill Is Challenged.

This past Veteran's Day, four Marines carried a 13-foot cross to the top of a hill at Camp Pendleton and erected it precisely at the time and date of the official end of World War I.

The cross replaced one that had been erected on the hill back in 2003 by Marines before they were deployed to Iraq. The first cross was destroyed by a brush fire.

The cross was erected as a memorial to those who have given their lives for our freedom and an expression of Thanksgiving for those freedoms.

The Los Angeles Times wrote a complimentary story about the Marines, with a picture of them erecting the cross on top the hill. What followed may not be surprising, but it certainly exemplifies just how precious and fragile our freedoms are.

After the excellent Los Angeles Times article was published, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers became aware of the cross and are now demanding the cross be removed.

Ironically, the sacrifice of the lives of our military of whom this memorial was intended to honor, is protecting the freedom of atheists to make such demands. You know the "separation" drill.

John Quincy Adams described our freedom and the Revolution that established it like this: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Perhaps the greatest threat today in America is not so much from without, but from within. Apparently the Marines are free enough to fight and die defending our freedom, but not free enough to express their deepest feelings of gratitude if there is any linkage between their thankfulness and their Christian faith.

John Quincy Adams would be shocked. And disappointed.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln would not be. He said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

In his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation he also said, "We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God who made us."

As we approach Thanksgiving Day, let us give thanks for the freedoms and blessings that are ours, and be mindful of why they exist, from whom they come and how they can be lost.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Thankful. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Free. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Seeking Affirmation

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
When the Associated Press asked homosexual activists at their Bellevue press conference last week what additional benefits they can gain by getting the name "marriage," they said in addition to all the benefits already given them by the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law, they want the name "marriage" because it will "erase the stigma" attached to their behavior and lifestyle.

They are seeking affirmation for a behavior that has been rejected by every successful civilization in the history of the world. And by every major religion.

This weekend I received a message---actually, an observation from LeAnna Benn, who heads up a program to help teens in the state. In light of remarks made to the Associated Press last week, I found her observations very, very interesting. I believe you will too.

In her own words:

"Under our just ended federal grant, we had same sex attendees. Many requested inclusion but few showed up for the relationship education classes. Most of the requests in person, by phone and by email were “tests” to see if our organization would discriminate."

"I found that many same sex women were residing in a group and one shy woman would ask if we helped same sex couples, then another. Finally, the dominate, outgoing partner of the previous 2 or 3 women would bring the group together in front of the table or booth and confront my staff with the question of our willingness to let them join the class."

"Recently, I got an email request to include folks for multiple partner living arrangements. What is next? It is not too far of a stretch to include polygamy is it?"

"Since we are receiving no funding from anywhere, do we have to include anyone that has strange configurations?"

No, LeAnna it's not too far of a stretch to include polygamy in their thinking. Once the door of re-defining marriage is legally open, it is only a matter of time until all kinds of strange configurations will be claiming the name. If marriage has been redefined, what then is the civil rationale to restrict marriage in all these configurations?

This is the time to stand for marriage---to defend it as only between one man and one woman.

Beside the moral and biblical reason to reject re-defining marriage, there is also the aspect of unintended consequences over time.

Thank you for supporting us in this critical time of defending marriage.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Homosexual Lifestyle: "I've Been There" It's "Anything But Gay"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Ironically, most supportive comments come to us in private email message. I thank you for the recent messages of support. It means a great deal to me and all involved here at Faith and Freedom. However, most of the negative, sometimes so vile they cannot be published comments are posted on the website. Private messages are kept private.

We are grateful to our readers here in Washington State, across the country and in 35 countries, for your interest in what we write about Judeo-Christian values and the culture.

Yesterday, a post was made on our blog posted earlier this week titled, "Ed Murray's Action Items For Re-Defining Marriage". I have no idea who this person is nor where they live, however, while their comments were posted, I think their message should be read by a broader audience that may not read all the posts.

We have never done this before, but today I am sharing the comments and experiences of one of our readers who has been in the homosexual lifestyle and anonymously shared their personal view and experience. Please take a moment and read this person's comments.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ed Murray's Action Items For Re-Defining Marriage ...":

Tony, [ reference to a previous comment]

You can sing your story all day long but it will not change the truth of what is going on in the 'gay' (anything but gay) community. You 'preach' your tolerance here (yet have NO tolerance for another view) but the chances of ONE homosexual person being consistently committed to another is 1 in 9000! Most people posting here haven't been close to the community to say BS to your ploys but I have seen it first hand. What a line of garbage!

The whole movement is just full of lies. I could go on but let me share just a touch of real life research and statistics. And if you want to hear more I'll tell you about my loved ones and their real life stories. To find the story of this dear daughter is 1 in a million, as the say. It just so happens that I have a cousin who probably fits that bill....but then I don't REALLY know them that well to testify to their monogamy.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

(Had lots more but my message was limited.)

Then, you want us to consider that homosexual behavior is normal and something the rest of us who realize - again, from experience - it is a choice, to accept as if you are helpless. Oh my word, talk about selling the bridge. You have to be kidding. Have you gone to a bar in Seattle, heck, Renton. Sure looks like lots of commitment (not). How about the sign on a Spokane bar "New meat requested" Gosh, I wonder what kind of a bar that is??? Commitment. Are you really expecting those of us who have been there and seen it to buy this garbage?

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

A Moral State Of Denial

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The argument for homosexual "marriage" hasn't changed over the past 11 years, according to the Seattle Times editorial board. However, they say, things have now changed, "attitudes are more accepting."

This week they exhorted the people of the state: "ALL right, Washington State: Let's do something bold. In the name of fairness and equality for all residents, it is time to stop working around the edges of domestic partnership rules and benefits. Our state should legalize same-sex marriage."

If the arguments haven't changed, why have attitudes changed?

Several reasons come to mind.

Gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee's spokesman identified one reason. He said for him, it's an "equal rights" issue.


Sen. Ed Murray and other homosexual advocates have convinced some of the people that homosexual "marriage" is not re-defining marriage---it is "marriage equality." Josh Freides, director of the just launched campaign, told KOMO radio following my interview with KOMO that they prefer the word "marriage equality" to same-sex, gay or homosexual "marriage." He said they particularly don't like the term "homosexual". But what makes marriage "equal" if it is extended only to homosexuals? What about polygamous groups who also "love" and are committed to each other? And all the other inequities found in marriage? What about first cousins, brother and sister, two sisters or two brothers, parent and child---all forbidden from marriage.

Mr. Inslee, please show us the equality in merely adding homosexuals, while excluding all the rest of those who will be equally qualified, at least in their mind, under the new rules for marriage, should it be redefined.

This is "special rights." Not equal rights.

What then will the argument be for not expanding "marriage" to all other groups? Will the Seattle Times Editorial board be telling our children in 11 years or less, it's time for polygamous "marriage"? Will they suggest it's time to "do something bold" and further redefine marriage? How bold will the suggest we become?

The Associated Press article which I linked earlier this week, also identified another reason some "attitudes have changed." The article quoted "supporters" saying, "It's about removing the stigma."

Homosexuality has evolved. It was identified as an act---sodomy, for many, many years. Then it was identified as a condition---homosexuality; now, it is an identity---gay. And from that the homosexual advocates have claimed it to be the new "civil rights" issue, now attempting to identify with and co-opt the African American struggle for civil rights, making it equal with sexual behavior.

Sexual behavior is not equal to ethnicity. Nor should it be identified with the civil rights movement.

I have written a personal message to biblical Christians. If you are a biblical believer, please take a moment and read it. If not, please skip it.

"A covenant with death---we have made lies our refuge."

Isaiah, the prophet, defined the moral collapse of his time, saying, "The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink. They are swallowed up by wine...they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." (Is. 28)

He said the tables "are full of vomit and filth; no place is clean."---An ugly image, to say the least.

In defining the moral collapse of our times, it can be said that some religious leaders are intoxicated by the so-called "tolerance and acceptance" of our times. Too many religious people are intoxicated by relativism, embracing a "new" truth called tolerance, believing right is wrong and wrong is right and perversion is normal. Values in this brave new world are ever changing. No absolutes.

Relativism and relative values allow everyone to determine what is "fair" and what is not.

Our times could also be defined by some churches wanting to "emerge"---relating to everyone, without taking a biblical stand on anything. Social Silence. While our very foundations crumble. And people continue to look for answers.

This, while trampling the sanctity of life---calling it choice, redefining marriage---calling it equality, and stripping Judeo-Christian values and principles from the foundations of our culture and county, calling it inclusion or fairness or honoring diversity.

We err in vision and stumble toward Sodom in our judgment.

Isaiah spoke encouragement and justice to his fellow citizens, speaking, "Strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate."

I believe God will give strength and courage and provision to those who seek to turn back the battle at the gate of our culture and communities today.

Your continuing financial support of this ministry and God's strength and blessing, allows us to continue to fight the battle--- to turn back evil at the gate.

And the battle rages. Your support gives us strength. Without it we could not do what we do.

Marriage is under more attack than ever. Recently, Sen. Patrick Leahy D-VT, a powerful and very liberal Senator who voted for DOMA when it was passed in the 1990s said, "Much has happened since DOMA became law, it must now be repealed." The President agrees.

Last Friday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla and Chair of the Democratic National Committee said, "Saying life begins at conception is 'extreme and radical'."

And the President has mocked the House resolution affirming "In God We Trust" as our national motto.

State Senator Ed Murray, encouraged by the media and some religious leaders, is preparing to introduce legislation that will nullify Washington State's Defense of Marriage Act and usher in so-called homosexual "marriage." This session. And he and his colleagues launched their "conversation" with the people of Washington State, this week.

There are both politicians and pastors who support him.

We err in vision and stumble in judgment.

Rep. Matt Shea is the chair of a new alliance for marriage group. I serve with him, and helped organize the group. It includes several other State Senators and Representatives, including Rep. Brad Klippert, Rep. Jason Overstreet, Rep. Jim McCune, Sen. Val Stevens and others . Larry Stickney and Attorney Steven Pigeon are also part of the group. We have called it DOMA--Defense of Marriage "Alliance". We are now laying the ground work to defeat Sen. Ed Murray's bill to redefine marriage in the next session. A press release is forth coming.

We are scheduling meetings around the state. If you would be interested in helping organize a meeting in your area, please contact me by email. I will need your name, phone number and address. And will need to verify who you are. I know you understand. I will personally respond and will not share any of your personal contact info.

If we cannot kill the bill in session, we will run a referendum and bring it to a vote of the people.

Isaiah said of those who mocked godly righteousness in his time, "We have made a covenant with death---we have made lies our refuge."

Killing the unborn in the womb is not health care, nor is it a "right" or a "choice."

Redefining marriage, mocking the oldest and most fundamental institution in human history, created by God, is not a "civil rights" issue, nor is it an act of "equality." Or "fairness." It is rebellion against our Creator. God calls it sin.

Homosexuality is an act---a behavior, not an identity. Homosexual behavior is not equivalent to ethnicity.

Today's culture is taking refuge in lies. So are some religious leaders.

The battle must be turned back. Will you help us?

Our expenses going forward over the next few months are significant. If you are inclined to help us defend marriage, this is the time to step up. Your support is absolutely necessary, if we are to turn back the enemy at the gate.

Please mail a check or make a secure online donation.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I thank you, for your stand and your support and may God bless you.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Ed Murray's Action Items For Re-Defining Marriage In WA State

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Sen. Ed Murray and his coalition to re-define marriage in Washington State have taken several steps that pro-marriage citizens should know about.

Following the roll out in Bellevue earlier this week, the Seattle Times has followed up with their part of the campaign. Much more will follow. The news media is deeply committed to re-defining marriage.

The Times has written the "model" editorial that you will see in local newspapers across the state.

KING 5 TV has done their part by covering a very important part of the campaign to re-define marriage. The personal part. They call it a "different approach".

And details and locations for the "conversation" meetings in local communities "outside Seattle" have been published.

It's important that all pro-marriage citizens are aware of what is happening statewide and in your local community--including the local meetings in your area.

Here are the details.

The Seattle Times most often sets the tone and even content for the editorial boards in most all newspapers in the state. Particularly on social issues. Please read it, then watch for the same message in your local newspaper and be prepared to discuss the issues with friends and family.

KING 5 TV has reported another and very important part of the strategy to re-define marriage. They ran a story this week covering the emotional stress and difficulty of families who have a homosexual son or daughter.

The story features Stephan and Robin Boehler from Mercer Island who have a homosexual daughter. They were deeply involved in the opposition to Referendum 71 and will now be taking a visible roll in the push for homosexual "marriage."

This is a difficult and tragic situation for any family. My heart is touched by the visible anguish of these parents, especially Robin, the mother. She says in the piece, I just want her to "have everything her sisters have."

Then says of those who oppose re-defining marriage, she doesn't understand why they "don't think she deserves it. They don't even know her."

Rod Hearne, with Equal Rights Washington, then explains why he and other leaders are using this very emotional family situation in their appeal to both voters and legislators. "We are giving them the levers" he says in regard to this most emotional appeal.

What parent doesn't love their child and want them to be happy? This will be a reoccurring theme in the local meetings and in the news media during the next several months.

However, we must remember and communicate, Compassion and Conviction are not mutually exclusive.

You can love a child or someone else with all your heart and still stand on the conviction that homosexual behavior and so-called homosexual "marriage" is wrong.

Finally, I have listed their scheduled meetings below. If one is in your area, and you decide to attend and observe, please give me your perspective on the meeting. You can email me.

These are the meetings they have presently scheduled:

Tuesday, November 15
6:30 p.m.-8 p.m.
Clover Park Tech College
4500 Steilacoom Blvd. SW Vancouver
Thursday, November 17
6 p.m.-8 p.m.
YWCA Clark County
3609 Main St.

Gig Harbor
Thursday, November 17
6:30 p.m.-8 p.m.
United Methodist Church
7400 Pioneer Way

Sunday, November 20
3p.m.-5 p.m.
St. Mark's Cathedral Bloedel Hall
1245 10th Ave. E

Monday, November 21
7 p.m.-9 p.m.
East Shore Unitarian Church
12700 Southeast 32nd St.

Richland (Tri-Cities)
Monday, November 21
6:30 p.m.-8 p.m.
Shalom United Church of Christ
505 McMurray St.

Tuesday, November 22
6:30 p.m.-8 p.m.
Spokane Falls Community College; Bldg. 24, Rm. 110
3410 W Fort George Wright Drive

Tuesday, November 29
6:30 p.m.-8 p.m.
Fairhaven College Auditorium
516 High St.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful.

Thank you for your support.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Redefining Marriage "Is About Erasing The Stigma"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
As the campaign to redefine marriage in Washington State rolled out yesterday in Bellevue, we learned that is about making people feel good about their behavior.

The Associated Press reported, "Supporters said the effort is about erasing the stigma."

Erasing the stigma?

Homosexual behavior has a stigma because every major religion in the world condemns it. The Bible clearly condemns the behavior, but unlike other religions, Christianity provides love, deliverance and redemption through Jesus Christ, from all sin, including homosexual behavior. While the behavior is condemned, the person is not.

Gene Johnson, writing for the AP seemed to suggest that Washington's Domestic Partnership law---the one McKenna supported and we opposed with R-71, already gives homosexuals all the benefits saying, "The measure [Murray's new bill] would not grant same-sex couples any significant new rights" in that they are provided in the "everything but marriage" bill. They already have the benefits, giving credence to the idea that there are other reasons for redefining marriage.

Erasing the stigma. Affirming the behavior.

We also learned that homosexual advocates decided to try to push this bill through the legislature rather than allowing it to go to a vote of the people.

Rod Hearne, with Equal Rights Washington, explained that many people dislike the notion of allowing people to vote on fundamental rights.

When did homosexual "marriage" become a fundamental right?

Is re-defining marriage a fundamental right?

Could there be some doubt as to whether Washington voters would actually approve redefining marriage?

Those who seek to re-define marriage show great optimism, often quoting polls, including one done by Faith and Freedom, as proof that society has changed and will support them, but there is ample information in our poll, particularly with those who vote consistently, that redefining marriage is not a given.

I think there is doubt, maybe serious doubt, that they can win a vote by the people.

And we learned something about some, but not all, of the candidates running for governor.

AP said the group got an instant boost from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee. His spokesman said, "For him it's an equal rights issue." He is on board with redefining marriage.

Rob McKenna, a GOP candidate said, well... his spokesman said he supports the Domestic Partnership, "everything but marriage" but not marriage. However, his spokesman said, "Rob believes that this is an issue that is going to be decided by the people."

Not a resounding note of support.

The Olympian published a story yesterday after the Bellevue press conference, casting Inslee on one side of the issue and McKenna on the other side.

I hope they are right. I'm not convinced.

Neither AP nor the Olympian, or any other newspaper or news service I read last night mentioned a third gubernatorial candidate. I understand he does not have the visibility that the other two have, however, he is running, he is articulate and he strongly defends natural marriage.

Shahram Hadian, a former Muslim converted to Christianity some years ago, now a Christian pastor, is running for governor. I have met him twice. You should be aware of him. This is his web site: . He is definitely on our side on social issues.

And finally. Rod Hearne at ERW said, "This is an opportunity to help families in tough times. It doesn't cost anything."

Mr. Hearne, you have no idea of the cost involved in rebellion against the Creator, affirming and celebrating behavior that He Himself has condemned and called "sin," while redefining the institution of marriage, which He Himself created, bringing one man and one woman together for special purposes. A model as old as the human race.

God help us.

You may also help us by donating here if you want to defend marriage. Or send a check to Box 399, Bellevue, WA. 98009.

God bless you and thanks.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Re-Definition Of Marriage Campaign Begins Today In Bellevue

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The assault on marriage and a crusade to re-define it begins in Bellevue today. It will then be exported to suburban areas across the state.

"We're going to push it," homosexual Senator Ed Murray told the Seattle Times this weekend.

Following today's news conference in Bellevue, Murray says he and other lawmakers who support his effort to redefine marriage, will hold suburban type town hall meetings in Vancouver, Puyallup, Lakewood and Gig Harbor---then all across the state, having a "conversation" with the people of Washington, asking for their support in re-defining marriage.

Murray and those who are advocating to re-define marriage feel they have Seattle wrapped up. Now they are campaigning for the rest of the state.

How did we get to this place?

Jim Brunner at the Seattle Times, correctly reports that Murray's campaign is the culmination of "decades of slow steady work for Murray and other backers." All part of the ultimate effort to re-define marriage.

We have, for the past 5 years, called it deceptive incrementalism. We were mocked by homosexual activists and shamed for our lack of compassion by some left leaning and confused religious leaders. Now those folks are declaring that homosexual "'marriage' has always been the goal."

Discernment and compassion are not mutually exclusive.

Each time Murray and his supporters advanced one more little piece of legislation created to further undermine marriage, we have called it "an incremental step to redefine marriage." Murray and his supporters have vigorously denied that it was linked to redefining marriage, but merely an expression of fairness to "homosexual families." Benevolence. Christian benevolence. Equality. Fairness. A biblical act celebrating diversity.

Murray has created a coalition of like minded lawmakers who are committed to organizing, advancing and funding this effort.

Senator Murray told the Times this commitment "was a big deal" and one of the final steps he was waiting on before launching his campaign.

In the past, Murray has publicly accused Faith and Freedom of taking the stand we have taken for marriage as "a good fund raiser."

I have recently helped organize a group of lawmakers who support marriage and are also willing to defend it. We will also have a press release soon. And will be taking our message to the state and then to the legislators as they consider Murray's bill.

To pass his bill, Murray needs a few Republicans to vote with his Democrats. And some of the Democrats will not support re-defining marriage. Some Republicans may cave in on the issue. We will be having our own conversations.

Murray and his colleagues will raise thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-define marriage.

I don't care what Murray or others have said about our efforts, we are in this cultural battle for one reason. I know many of you stand with us for one reason.

We believe in marriage. We are willing to defend it. Despite the scorn sometimes directed at this stand.

If you have ever had any inclination to support the defense of marriage this would be the time.

We will stand against Murray's coalition, which will be well funded---Goliath-like, with the financial resources given to us by people who believe in God ordained natural marriage.

Will you stand with us with a donation today? Click here to donate online or mail a check to Box 399, Bellevue, WA 98009.

Murray told the Times, "This is the time."

Indeed it is.

This is a time for Christians and conservatives in Washington State to decide what they believe. I believe many of you already know you firmly believe in marriage as between one man and one woman. You will not be convinced otherwise.

But will you help us take a public stand in advocating in defense of marriage?

I and the others in our Defense of Marriage "Alliance" are committed to take this all the way. Should Murray get this through the legislature, and that is not a given even though the numbers seem to favor him, we will file an initiative or referendum and take it to the people of the state.

We are moving forward knowing many of you will stand with us financially. We must have it.

Thank you in advance. God bless you.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, November 11, 2011

11.11.11 Praying For Our Military

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Today is Veteran's Day. We thank all those who serve in today's military, their families and the families of those who have served and given their life defending our freedoms.

The following is from the website, "Military Families Pray: A Prayer for our Military."

A Prayer for our Military Troops

Psalm 91 describes the security of the one who trusts in the Lord. Not only was it prayed by the psalmist thousands of years ago, but by countless men and women throughout history. For example, during World War I, the 91st Brigade of the Army prayed Psalm 91 together every day. Although they were engaged in three of the bloodiest battles in the war, these soldiers had no combat-related casualties. Not because the passage was a good luck charm or mantra, but because God’s word has power. When we pray His word, we are paving the way for His grace, power and protection to come in our lives and the lives of those we intercede for.

As Hebrews 4:12 says, “The word of God is living and powerful”—powerful because all the power of God’s inherent nature stands behind His word.

Over and over during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, God has reminded soldiers and chaplains to pray Psalm 91. He has called families and friends back home to pray this psalm for our military troops.

Our men and women in uniform are in harm’s way constantly from combat, car bombings, and rocket-propelled grenade and mortar attacks. Our worst day in America is so much better than their best day. Extremes of cold & heat and uncomfortable conditions to say the least plague these soldiers. They are sacrificing time that could be spent with spouses and children. Yet they continue to faithfully and bravely serve.

Our son LT. Christopher Fuller, Battalion Surgeon for the 1/3 Marines who fought in the Battle of Fallujah and other combat operations in Iraq in the War on Terror, and his unit were deployed since early July, and have just returned to their families at Kanoehoe Bay Marine Base, Hawaii. We are so thankful and continue to pray for all our military troops.

Here are some ways to pray….

A daily prayer:

Here’s how I am praying the living and powerful promises of Psalm 91 today:
  • Lord, your Word says that whoever goes to you for safety, whoever remains under the protection of the Almighty can say to you, “You are my defender and protector, you are my God; in you I trust.” May my son or husband, friends in the military, and all our troops turn to you and find rest in the shadow of your wings.
Keep them safe from all hidden dangers and all deadly diseases. Shield and shelter them with your wings, and let your faithful promises be their armor and protection.

May they not be afraid of the terrors of the night, nor fear the dangers of the day or the disaster that strikes at mid-day. Though a thousand other people may fall at their side, though thousand are dying around them, protect our soldiers from harm.

As they make you, the Lord, their refuge and shelter, let no evil conquer them, no plague come near their tent or dwelling. Order your angels to protect them wherever they go.

The Lord says, “I will rescue those who love me. I will protect those who trust in my name.” May this be true of every man and woman in uniform! When they call on you, Father, answer them, be with them in trouble, rescue them and honor them. Satisfy them with a long life and give them your salvation. In Christ’s name, Amen.

Psalm 91 is what God has put on my heart to pray for our son and the troops. But He may lead you to pray something entirely different. The soldiers are doing their part to serve as medics, in the infantry, engineering, communications, etc. Each of us needs to do our part, and a good place to start is faithfully lifting them up in prayer. Ask God what He wants you to do or pray.

Other ways to pray for the our troops:
  • As the violence in Iraq escalates, it is more important than ever to pray for our soldiers on a daily basis.
  • Consider gathering a group at your church or home to pray for them. For example, a church in Washington state has a prayer time every month for military families to pray for their husbands, sons and daughters who are deployed, and 60-80 people show up monthly. These stateside families are deeply grateful that somebody cares enough to pray and help them carry the burden they feel for their loved one.
  • Pray with your children for the soldiers in war zones.
  • Another wonderful way to pray for a soldier is “five blessings”: Think of the word BLESS, and it will help you cover his or her life with prayer.
  1. The B stands for BODY. For example, you might pray for physical protection, safety and health.

  2. The L stands for LABOR, pray for them to do their job well, with skill and wisdom.

  3. The E stands for EMOTIONAL—pray for their emotional health.

  4. The S stands for SOCIAL—pray for their marriage, the parent-child relationship (deployments are hard on marriages & with parents away for months; the children can feel distant or abandoned and have trouble understanding why dad or mom isn’t there.) Pray for God to fill the gaps of the love needed with His love while the parent is away.

  5. And the last S stands for SPIRITUAL—pray for them to know God, put their trust in God, and experience His unfailing love for them even in the great difficulties they face in a war zone, for spiritual renewal for our troops, for peace in Iraq and Afghanistan—and for all of the soldiers to come home safely to their families.
Think what could happen if every family, every church in America prayed for our soldiers, for victory and peace in Iraq and for them to return safely to their families and jobs.

Even if you don’t entirely support the strategy or operation in Iraq, there is still thousands of servicemen and women who are daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, moms and dads—and they are all in need of encouragement, support and intercession.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Patty Murray Stumbles While Staff Retreats to Lobbying Firm

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The "Mom In Tennis Shoes," as she likes to be known, may not have tightened her laces this week, causing her to stumble.

Late yesterday afternoon, reports surfaced that the Super Committee, which Murray co-chairs, and has been tasked with cutting at least $1.2 Trillion from spending over the next 10 years and saving the country, collapsed. She and her colleagues walked away from the table, unwilling to work with Republicans.

While she was presiding over the committee fiasco, her staff was holding a two-day retreat at a high powered Democratic lobbying firm, raising questions of ethics not only from watchdog groups, but by the Seattle Times. Imagine that.

Yesterday afternoon, Democrats of the Super Committee rejected Republicans' offer to "raise federal tax collections by nearly $300 billion over the next decade."

Senator Rand Paul exclusively told Sean Hannity that not only are Democrats rejecting offers put on the table, but now they won't even continue to negotiate and have "walked away from the table...refusing to talk to the Republicans."

Paul warns the American people that this is all about Obama's reelection, and the taxpayers livelihood is of no concern to Obama and the Democrats.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Murray's staff was being hosted for two days by the Democratic lobbying firm "Strategies 360".

The firm was founded by Democratic political operative Ron Dotzauer. Murray's former deputy state director is now senior vice president at the lobbying firm.

Strategies 360's current client list includes pharmaceutical companies, public utilities and a solar manufacturer.

Some congressional watchdog groups are concerned about the ethics of the firm hosting Murray's staff.

"Not to worry," says Dotzauer, "I don't even know what they're doing."

Yep. Guys who build successful lobbying firms usually don't know what people are doing.

He said we host groups here all the time, "like non-profits, local pizzerias, etc."

Some feel Patty Murray may be a little different than say, a local charity or pizza place.

Patty Murray's office says it's a "non story." They say they checked it out and they are not breaking any rules.

To their credit, the Seattle Times doesn't agree and thinks it is a story.

The Times reports that, "The Senate Ethics Manual prohibits lobbyists from making financial contributions or expenditures 'relating to a conference, retreat or similar event' for members of the Senate of their employees."

The Times quotes Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, a DC watchdog group that monitors such things, expressing concern and saying this certainly raises questions.

"Whether it satisfies the rule or not," he says, "clearly having a lobbying firm host her staff is a benefit she is getting from the lobbying firm."

He says, "It also causes some to shake their head and ask, "Why isn't this against the rules?"

It also causes some to shake their heads and ask, "What are the voters in Washington thinking? Can't we do better?"

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Netanyahu and Private Conversations

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
In a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama, we learn how they really feel about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And likely the nation of Israel.

They would prefer you not have heard what they said. The press also preferred you not hear it.

The remarks between the two were heard via a French translator on an open mic.

They are disappointing and disgusting.

The press' response is concerning, alarming, but not surprising.

On an open mic, Sarkozy told President Obama he "can't stand" Netanyahu. He said he is a "liar."

President Obama said, "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day."

To be sure, Netanyahu is a polarizing leader. He quotes the Old Testament, including the words of the ancient prophets, is loyal to his country and Israel's biblical, historical heritage, and is not timid in expressing his views while standing for and leading the nation of Israel.

With most of the world hostile toward Israel, it's deeply disappointing that the President of the United States has the need to snub and embarrass Netanyahu in DC only a few months ago, and now go to France and agree with Sarkozy's scathing assessment of the man.

President Obama has demonstrated, as did the Clintons and Carters before him, a lack of genuine interest or support for Israel.

This is offensive to most evangelical Christians, my self included, who embrace the biblical teaching of praying for the peace of Jerusalem and blessing Israel.

And the press. Why did they sit on this story for over a week before they ran it? Their explanation is that Sarkozy had asked them to not turn on their headsets prior to the formal talks.

Can you imagine how quickly this would have been dispatched around the world with endless comments, questions and pronouncements had a conservative head of state make similar private comments on an open mic about a liberal leader somewhere in the world?

Associated Press finally carried the story, even though one of their own journalists heard the conversation, only after it was published on a French website.

I noticed in the AP story I have linked above that the AP journalist takes care to quote someone from Israel who is negative toward Netanyahu.

Most all secular, left leaning Jews oppose Netanyahu.

As of last night, Netanyahu, Sarkozy and Obama all had no comment about the matter.

I have a comment. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." "Bless Israel."

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

The Moral Meltdown

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Obama Administration has formally objected to FDR's prayer being displayed at the World War II Memorial in D.C.

You will not believe the reasoning behind the decision.

Sen. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, said last week, "Saying life begins at conception is extreme and radical."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who voted for the passage of DOMA in 1996 now says "much has happened" since DOMA became law. It must now be repealed.

And Sen. Diane Feinstien, D-Cal., who has sponsored the bill to repeal DOMA, says the Defense of Marriage Act is "clearly discriminatory."

A moral meltdown.

Here are the details, some personal thoughts and links.

Although President Obama has often compared himself to FDR, his administration is formally objecting to FDR's prayer be included in the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C.

Rep. Bill Johnson R-Ohio, who is sponsoring a bill to include the prayer over the formal objections of the Obama Administration, says he and others are outraged that this administration would try to exclude FDR's prayer that "gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as they fought against tyranny and oppression."

The prayer asks God to give the allied troops courage and faith saying, "With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy."

Not acceptable. But why? Why the formal objection?

The administration explains it this way: "Any plaque or inscription of the prayer would dilute the memorial's central message and therefore should not be altered."

Dilute the message?

I had family members in that war. FDR's prayer transcended political and even religious preferences. The troop's central message in the snow and mud of Europe was an appeal for God's help. Survival. Not political correctness.

Not so long ago, I was reminded of those realities as I officiated my last Randall uncle's funeral at Evergreen Washelli in Seattle--a veteran of that war.

Rep. Johnson told FOX News, "This should give Americans a great deal of concern...For there to be objections to demonstrating a faith in God at critical points in our nation's history---particularly on D-DAY, boggles my mind."

They are creating an environment where even a past President who embraced invoking God's help and blessing is not acceptable.

Moral Meltdown.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chair of the Democratic National Committee said last week that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is "an extreme and radical step."

She said it is "divisive, dangerous, destructive---an attack on women"--- and "For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme step," suggesting that those who believe life begins at conception are out of sync with the new truth of our times.

Perhaps God Himself is confused and dangerous. His Word says He knew us when we were formed in our mother's womb.

Moral meltdown.

Sen . Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, voted for DOMA in 1996. Now he says "much has happened" since DOMA became law and he says, "The time has come to recognize that all married couples deserve legal rights."

Is he suggesting that polygamous groupings, as well as those who seek to marry, or claim to be "married" to a minor child, an animal, a brother or sister, etc, should also be recognized? If not how does recognizing homosexual "marriage" create "equality?"

Marriage, by definition, is discriminatory. It has always been. The big lie is that legalizing homosexual "marriage" somehow equals "equality". Actually, it equals "special rights," not equality.

Moral meltdown.

Sen. Diane Feinstien, D-Ca., who has sponsored the bill to repeal DOMA, says that DOMA is "clearly discriminatory."

It is. It was designed by God for certain and special purposes. Loving someone or something was not the basis for the institution of marriage, although marriage is the most meaningful relationship that exists between a man and a woman. That relationship model is available to everyone, with some restrictions.

Feinstien's bill is not only discriminating, but it is also deceptive.

It is titled the "Respect for Marriage Act of 2011".

Respect for marriage?

Moral meltdown.

At it's foundation, our country based its values on Scripture and the Decalogue---Francis Schaeffer called it a "Christian consensus." On this foundation, America became the most free, prosperous, blessed, innovative and charitable nation in the history of the world.

Now, there are those obsessed with the idea of eradicating those values from the foundations of the country, in the name of diversity, equality and political correctness. At any spiritual, cultural and personal cost.

In the first century, the Greek city of Corinth was a center of worldwide commerce, and it was also a center of paganism, idolatry and sexual immorality. Many Corinthians had become Christians. The Apostle Paul warned them against the cultural, moral meltdown of their day. He wrote to them, "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" (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). Paul concludes, "You were once like them, but you have been washed, sanctified and justified" referring to the redemption found in Jesus Christ.

Do not be deceived.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Bending Scripture To Affirm Behavior

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Ross Murray, director of religion, faith and values for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), witting for CNN's Belief Blog says, "America is embracing its lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender citizens. Don't believe me? Just look at the progress being made in the faith community."

As our culture stumbles toward Sodom with words such as "tolerance," "diversity," "inclusion," "equality," and even "love" being inverted and revised, let's look at Murray's recent message delivered by CNN.

Let's look at "the progress being made" by revising and bending Scripture---even the Apostle Paul's writings, to affirm a behavior and the belief that homosexuality is both normal and Christian.

Ross Murray writing for CNN says, "For those of us who identify as LGBT, church was a place of fear and secrets. We had to figure out how to hide ourselves or how to find a more welcoming community."

"But that," he says "is changing."

Murray's column is a snapshot of the message being fed into mainline Christian churches today and to this generation through public education and entertainment. A generation that has not, for the most part, been taught a biblical worldview.

Progress is being made. Murray writes, "Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership," identifying Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians.

As the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible has been undermined in these and other church organizations, a more relative, seemingly socially acceptable gospel has replaced the gospel "once delivered."

The mainline churches are dying, while the "Emergent or Emerging" churches are more interested in being cool and friendly than biblical.

Rather than biblical truth molding the culture, the culture has come to mold biblical "truth." Because, to many, truth is relative. You have your truth I have my truth---there are no absolutes.

Both "tolerance" and "love" have been revised to mean only "affirming" or "celebrating" in regard to homosexual behavior, creating a peer pressure against those who disagree. Murray references a Public Religion Research Institute poll that he says finds "71% of Catholics in America support lesbian and gay people," implying that if you disagree or hold a different view for any reason, or even disapprove of their behavior, you are out of touch, outdated and disconnected to the current culture.

He says, "Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others."

Obviously a reference to Christ's teaching to love others as we love ourselves.

The blatant deception in this is the implication that we are unable to love another person while categorically condemning their behavior. Yet it is both biblical truth and concept that God hates sin, yet loved us even in our sin and gave His Son for our redemption. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."

God can hate the sin, yet love the sinner. So can we.

GLAAD has a history of challenging and silencing anyone who disagrees with their agenda and behavior. In January of this year they petitioned CNN to stop inviting "anti-gay" guests on their programs who disagree with the GLAAD message.

Murray gives a clear example of how he and other homosexual activists are deceiving many church members, already devoid of a biblical worldview, by insisting that if you get to know homosexual individuals, you will like them. If you like them, you will no longer be fearful of them and therefore accept them. And acceptance is always predicated on affirming their behavior. Murray and other homosexual activists never allow anyone to accept the person, while rejecting their behavior. This he says fulfills the Scripture in 1 John 4: 18 that says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear," denying that anyone could possibly reject their behavior out of moral conviction, rather than fear.

In Murray's most blatant bending (breaking) of scriptural truth, he contends that affirming homosexual behavior, "Lives out the apostle Paul's wish for the Corinthians that some day we may know fully, even as we are known."

"It is," Murray insists,"a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place."

He is referring to I Corinthians 13:12, which is not a "wish," but a reference to what will happen when Jesus Christ returns. Paul says at that time, "I shall know fully, even as I am known"---as God knows me, contrasting how he, Paul, in earthly human form sees "in a mirror dimly," "knowing in part."

So the glorious hope of knowing God fully at the second coming of Christ is now a "wish that we will get to know LGBT people better," thus making the Apostle Paul, who strongly condemns homosexual behavior, a homosexual advocate.


And some Christian churches are teaching this. While others simply remain silent.
God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Very Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, November 04, 2011

Did Cain Do It?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Herman Cain has been the lead story on most news channels and news programs this week. Not simply because he is leading other GOP candidates in many polls, but because the liberal media sees an opportunity to unleash on him.

You've heard it all week.

But, did he do it?

Ann Coulter used Clarence Thomas' famous phrase calling the Cain story a "high-tech lynching."

Rush Limbaugh said Politico, who first carried the story used, "The ugliest racial stereotypes they can to attack a black conservative."

Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center was the most forceful in his comments saying, "In the eyes of the liberal media, Herman Cain is just another uppity black American who had the audacity to leave the liberal plantation."

But did he do it?

Ben Shapiro is an attorney, a Fellow at the Freedom Center and columnist for Front Page Magazine.

He wrote a column yesterday, exploring what we know at this time about the Cain media event. It is the best look at the controversy as of today---Friday. More information will come out in the coming days.

He also looks at who may have initiated the story in Politico.

If you care about the process of choosing a candidate to challenge President Obama, and I know many of you do, I strongly recommend you read this column. It is relevant and timely.

Have a great weekend. God bless you.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Should "In God We Trust" Be Official Motto of US?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) thinks it should be and sponsored a resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the official motto of the United States.

As the House of Representatives prepared to vote yesterday, he reminded his colleagues that the new Capitol Visitor Center had been "sanitized" with all references to "trusting in God" being eliminated. Only when members of Congress intervened were the deliberate omissions corrected.

He also reminded his colleagues that President Obama, in his speech to the Muslim world last November, had told the Muslim world that the US motto was "E Pluribus Unum". While the Latin message---"from many, one", probably complemented the President's speech to the Muslims, that message is not the motto of the US.

In fact, Forbes said that uncorrected comment is still on the White House website.

President Obama has often compared himself to Abraham Lincoln. A review of the history of Lincoln's time could be helpful.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on US coins during the Civil War in 1864.

It officially became the national motto in 1956, appearing on paper currency the following year.

The vote was taken yesterday afternoon. What was the count? Who voted against it? What did Rep. Forbes tell the other lawmakers after they voted and what did those who voted against it have to say?

CNS News reported late yesterday that the vote was 396 in favor, 9 opposed.

Following the vote, Forbes said, "Today, as in other times of division and difficulty in our nation's history, the House of Representatives again reaffirmed 'In God We Trust' as our official motto and in so doing, provided clarity amidst a cloud of confusion about our nation's spiritual heritage and offered inspiration to an American people that face challenges of historic proportion."

He also said this vote supports and encourages public display in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), one of the 8 Democrats opposing the resolution, defined the secular progressive movement and their obsession to strip God from the heart of this country with his comments.

He called the resolution, "A meaningless distraction from the nation's real problems."

He also said, "No body is threatening the national motto."

Really? The real problem America is facing today is the loss of moral direction. Our problem is spiritual, not political. Or even primarily fiscal. If we could get our beliefs right and our trust in God right, America will truly be blessed. And the elite secularists would likely want to claim the success.

And some feel the President, in his comments to the Muslim world, may have been more calculated than mistaken. If that is true, I would suggest that the motto may well be threatened.

Other Democrats voting against the resolution included Reps. Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Michael Honda (Calif.), Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.), Judy Chu (Calif.), Fortney Stark (Calif.), Robert Scott (Va.), and Henry Johnson (Ga.).

Republican Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) also voted no: "Displaying "In God We Trust" on public property is appropriate in some circumstances," Amash said on his Facebook page. But, he added, "There is no need to push for the phrase to be on all federal, state, and local buildings."

That is certainly a different view than our Founding Fathers held.

And certainly different than President Ronald Reagan held.

He said, regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, "If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

To many Americans put their trust in a man from no where advocating "hope" and "change".

America's future is inseparably linked to our spiritual heritage. May God give us leadership with clarity of where we have come from, so we can have a sense of direction for the future.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Atheists Having Problem With The Truth

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
It has been said it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. I don't know about that, but I do know that atheists have a problem with the truth, and this time it's on a huge billboard at 1545 Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa, California. For all to see.

The billboard reads: "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology." Thomas Jefferson

They may want him to have said that or even believe he could have said that, but the Jefferson Library at Monticello says differently.

Here's the rest of the story, the links, what the atheist group is now saying and who said Jefferson made that statement.

Bruce Gleason, whose atheist group Backyard Skeptics paid to put up this and other similar signs around the country, said he got the quote from John E. Remsberg's 1906 book, "Six Historic Americans" and Jefferson made the comment in a letter to a "Dr. Wood."

However there is a problem.

The Jefferson Library in Monticello says, "As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/her self 'Dr. Wood.' Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity 'one redeeming feature.' One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible."

While Jefferson was not the designated evangelical leader of his time, he apparently never made that statement. Secular progressives have so successfully misrepresented and misquoted Jefferson in regard to separation of church and state, perhaps they now think they can speak for him more effectively the he himself could.

John E. Remsberg not only wrote, "Six Historic Americans," but a better known work titled, "The Christ" in which chapter one is titled, "Christ's Real Existence Impossible." On page one Remsberg states, "...the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Remsberg's life work was to prove there is no God and show Christianity to be mere mythology. With Christianity now numbering a little over 2 billion worldwide, it would appear Remsberg did not make a significant impact. Nor have others before and after Remsberg.

Gleason told the Orange County Register, "I should have done the research before I put my billboard up."

Perhaps atheists should do a little more research before they attempt to throw God under the bus, declare Jesus Christ non existent and seek to lead others into the same lane of traffic.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed. Be Thankful

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.