Category Archives: Commentary

CLIPPED-WINGS CHICKENS STILL FLY!


CLIPPED-WINGS CHICKENS STILL FLY!
Parson to Person

From the memory vaults of decades long gone comes a story of a lesson learned in country, childhood life. As most families back then, ours had all the trappings of basic life support, including a large number of chickens. Breakfast and Sunday dinner table were completed with their contribution and sacrifice. One day several of the chickens began to fly up and over the six-foot fence of their large, penned area. Mom gave a pair of scissors to older brother with instructions to clip a small amount of feather from their wing. Later, she noticed the chickens still flying out of the pen, and asked if he had done as she instructed. He answered in the affirmative, but upon questioning it was learned that he had clipped both wings of each chicken instead of just one. Of course, that did not work. The whole idea of keeping the chickens earthbound was to create imbalance by clipping only one wing. Thus came the old saying of someone deemed to be too haughty or “uppity” he or she needed their wing clipped. My brother’s action failed to achieve the objective because it allowed the chickens to maintain the necessary balance to fly.
It is also true that to fly in spiritual matters one must also have balance. Such balance is denied the natural man due to his sinful nature which does not harmonize or balance with the spiritual things of God and His righteousness. So, he remains “earthbound” by his sinful condition even while he seeks to be spiritual in religious affairs. He is desperately in need of the balance to fly, but it is beyond his ability or reach naturally. So, what, if anything, can be done to achieve spiritual balance and flying status? The answer is not complicated. The ancient prophet said it in a verse of scripture that has become the favorite to many: “ Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.” Isaiah 40:30-31. Here then is God’s way for mankind: wait upon the Lord. Such waiting denotes looking to; trusting, depending upon. Those who are tired of being “earthbound” by a nature that is not spiritual should allow God to clip the fleshly wings, imparting the spiritual balance of a right relationship with Him; spiritual knowledge by which he may mount up with wings as eagles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Scientists Prove Creationists Right–Again!


Scientists Prove Creationists Right–Again!

Well, we creationists have been vindicated–again by evolutionary scientists. This week in Australia’s Herald Sun scientists reported on “new” evidence regarding the human appendix: “Its removal is one of the most common surgical procedures in Australia, with more than 70,000 operations each year. However, we may wish to rethink whether the appendix is so irrelevant for our health.”

The article continued to relate that the appendix harbors “good” bacteria and when the intestines are emptied during a bout of diarrhea, the appendix “reseeds” the intestines with “good” bacteria and restores the body back to good digestive health.

Creationists have known the benefit of the appendix and tonsils for decades! I wrote in the 1994 edition ofEvolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? (new, expanded edition to be published this month by Barbwire Books) the following:

“Another major error made by evolutionists is that of allegedly useless organs in man that are supposed to be withered memorials of man’s past evolution. As late as the 1960s, evolutionary textbooks listed over 200 ‘useless’ organs, but later information has proved that almost all ‘vestigial organs’ have some function during our lifetime. The tonsils, appendix, and thymus gland are known to protect us against infections, especially during our younger years, but until recent years, they were thought to be unnecessary.”

So there! That qualifies as an “I told you so” event.

Atheist David Mills asserted that the human appendix is harmful to our well-being! However, he is wrong because scientists have finally discovered that the appendix serves an important function in the human immune system. If evolutionists had declared these organs as having an “unknown purpose” rather than being unnecessary (there is a difference, you know) I would have agreed; however, now we know that those organs are necessary for proper functioning of the immune system, etc.

Because of their ignorance, for a hundred years doctors took out those “unnecessary” healthy organs to the detriment of their patients. If those scientists had not been controlled by an atheistic worldview, they could have done an enormous amount of research, but since they did not believe God designed those organs with a purpose in mind, the “experts” perpetrated crimes upon children and adults and furthered their crimes by not researching those organs for a hundred years.

Irreparable harm has resulted from this teaching as hundreds of thousands of tonsils, adenoids, appendixes, etc., were removed from children and adults in the past hundred years. How much research has not been done on various “useless” organs because scientists taught other scientists that many organs and glands were useless? We should pity the distraught evolutionists who had all their “vestigial” organs removed only to discover, post-surgery, that they were all important! Not essential but important. I have been told that some of the more desperate, dogmatic, and depressed evolutionists/atheists had their brains removed, but that hasn’t been confirmed!

One’s worldview changes everything. If a person is convinced that he evolved from the animals, then it is understandable when he acts like an animal. If he thinks life is accidental, then he will face each day without purpose to life. It surprises no one that he will live a hedonistic, selfish life. Since he assumes that he and others are not made in the image of God, he has no obligation to treat others in a kind, gracious, and friendly manner.

Evolution is supposed to be an advance from the simple to the complex; however the vestigial organ argument militates against that position! After all, if many human organs were needed and worked well in the past but are now useless and unnecessary, that is not evolution! Evolution would be the appearance of new organs not the degeneration of old ones.

Only four or five organs are now believed, by some evolutionists, to be unnecessary and those are questionable. And of course, just because an organ may not be necessary does not mean that it is useless. A thumb is not really essential, but it is surely handy when you have to grasp or pick up an object.

Zoologist S. R. Scadding asserted: “The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically….I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” That means none, zero, zilch, and nil evidence for evolution based on vestigial organs.

Those human organs may not be necessary for life, but non-thinking evolutionists are unnecessary and should be unemployed.

If evolutionists had followed their much touted scientific method, they would not have made fools of themselves so many times. An honest scientist will keep an open mind so that he will not “jump to conclusions” (often wrong conclusions) until he has made many observations with the same results. He must be very careful to base any conclusion on what he has actually seen, rather than what he wanted to see. And he must always be willing to change his mind. To the credit of most evolutionists, they have done that regarding the recapitulation theory and vestigial organs; however, there are some poorly trained scientists (or scientific fanatics) hanging to those silly, discredited theories like an insecure kid clutches a security blanket. It has been over 65 years since the Recapitulation theory was shown to be a fraud but still being taught; so, how long will it take for doctors to stop removing healthy “vestigial” organs?

No, there are no vestigial organs. God provided man with an incredible body that has the astounding ability to not only reproduce itself, but also to repair itself! But before the body can repair itself, it must review the injury (or illness), report on the problem, then resolve the problem before repair begins. What machine can doanything similar to that? Only fools would suggest that no design was involved!

While I don’t believe in vestigial organs, maybe, just maybe, the atheists/evolutionists have encased inside their skulls a vestigial organ that is shrunken and stunted from disuse for decades.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIN GOES FROM SHOCKING TO AMUSING?


Weekend News Today – Nov 12, 2015

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIN GOES FROM SHOCKING TO AMUSING?

“Remember ever, and always, that your country was founded by the stern old Puritans whose first act on touching the soil of the new world was to offer on bended knees thanksgiving to Almighty God” (paraphrase of Henry Wilson; 18th U.S. Vice President).

Weekend News Today – Nov 12, 2015 — Unlike today, many early political leaders were not ashamed to admit the true source of America’s strength—they were biblically correct, rather than politically correct. They were statesmen, not politicians. A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.
You may say, “Times change.” And you are correct, but God’s standards do not. The sin that once amazed us now amuses us; just look at what is considered “entertainment” today. When sin begins to amuse us, we are dangerously close to the edge—”Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
Darwin is praised and curriculum that removes God is applauded. Boys can be girls, and girls boys. Men can marry men—women marry women. Chaplains can no longer look to the true source of truth and comfort. Up is down and down is up. America, wake up—we are a nation void of understanding … void of truth.
No matter how many laws are passed in favor of same-sex marriage or how many Facebook users update their profiles to self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (800,000 in the last year), it will not change God’s mind. “I am the Lord thy God—I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
We must extend compassion but without compromise. Warning, confronting, challenging, advising, and admonishing are all characteristic of speaking the truth in love, not hate. Parents warn, confront, challenge, and admonish daily. Truly misled or self-serving individuals would wrongly attribute these traits to “hate-speech.”
The culture around us simply reflects who and what we value. As things stand, the future of America will be an atmosphere of even greater intolerance toward those committed to God’s ways, absolute truth, and traditional values. Ironically, groups that promote “tolerance” often lack tolerance for those who hold opposing views.
With a culture saturated by political correctness and relativism, we are inclined to ask if there is any hope for America. If we continue down this slippery slope, there is little hope. Apart from a national spiritual awakening, it will be difficult to turn the Titanic around—the vessel has been struck; what’s inside is spilling out. But if God brings revival—if we once again set our hearts and minds on Him—there is tremendous hope.
In churches across America, crowd appeal and pleasing the masses tends to be the goal rather than calling out destructive lifestyles, which can result in revival and renewal. If judgment will start in the house of God, so must revival.
A deathlike, deep slumber, has overtaken the church: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1). The beacon of light has faded, the salt has lost its savor, and the message of the cross has been edited out of most sermons. We have lost our fervor for the truth. Have we considered that we may have offended God?
Let us not forget: America did not produce the blessings of liberty and freedom—God produced the blessings of America. Nearly 400 years ago, many sacrificed their lives and their families to promote religious freedom, and America was born. Many of those early Americans understood God’s design for a prosperous life—they were not found in government, but in God alone—it was on this foundation that America was built. Some may be offended by America’s Christian heritage, but that does not give them the right to remove God from America’s history.
Fortunately, God will continue to call from each generation those who will support His principles. I believe that many today are called to support these truths. John Chalfant, a member of the Council for National Policy, said, “If we participate in dragging down our country by refusing to become involved when we are commanded to be virtuous and to let our convictions be known, do we deserve to be free?” The price of freedom is never free. The moral state of our nation cannot be left to chance. We must keep the roots alive. I vote for God!
I make no apologies for the controversial content of this article. When we fail to confront, we confirm. When we fail to confront destructive ideas and philosophies, we are, in essence, confirming them. To state the obvious, we become part of the problem … we cannot change what we will not confront.
A large majority of the churches in America have been desensitized one generation at a time, one court decision at a time, one compromise at a time, and we are drowning in a cesspool of relativism. “The wicked freely parade and prance about while evil is praised throughout the land” (Psalm 12:8). I vote for God—He is our only hope. “Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” (Psalm 85:6).

1 Comment

Filed under Commentary

LATE TERM ABORTION DEPICTS NATURAL MAN


LATE TERM ABORTION DEPICTS NATURAL MAN

William Andrew Dillard
Parson to Person

The depths of depravity in modern man has not achieved a new, low state. Quite the contrary! the depravity of man is complete, and has been since Adam & Eve’s fall. One example of it is late term abortions. They have been around for millenniums, but in a more crude fashion, and just as cruel. God used it to depict the awful, spiritual and moral state of Jerusalem as spoken through the prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary with Daniel. The entire sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel lays it all out in grisly detail.
Jerusalem (City of Peace) had been the object of the tender love and mercies of the Lord including abundant material blessings, but they forsook His ways and denying His blessings upon them, they sunk into the depths of sin in turning away from the holy commandments delivered to them. Wallowing in the fleshly sins of false religion and corrupt morals, God cut them down to size in what must be the most castigating message ever recorded.
Ezekiel begins the message: “Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite [all heathen descendants of Ham]. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou was not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou was cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou was in thy blood, Live: yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.” Here then is a graphic picture of the reality of sin, and its mocking lack of compassion upon all of the offspring of Adam. Here also is the marvelous grace of the Creator-God of Love. By His mercies are His children blessed.
The question remains to each of us as to how we appreciate those blessings and what we are doing to honor our Life-giving, merciful, altogether wonderful, Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. Each of us should do a reality check often! But for the loving mercies and grace of the Lord we should be nothing more than late term abortions cast into a field.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

DON’T MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF ME!


DON’T MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF ME!

Fossils

Romans 1:22-23 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

Scientists who believe in evolution have a faith just as much as any Bible-believing Christian. However, it is a very different faith than Christianity. This fact was illustrated when some secular scientists declared the bones labeled “Piltdown man” an ape-like human ancestor. Only after a couple of generations did they bother to actually study the bones and discover them to be an obvious hoax. They did the same with “Nebraska man,” which turned out to be a pig.

Several years ago, scientists announced the finding of some fossil bones of the very first primate. Naming it E-o-sim-ias or “dawn monkey,” they said that it led to monkeys, apes and finally to us. Eosimias weighed less than an ounce and could have stood on your thumb. Scientists found no complete skeletons. However, after examining foot bones the size of grains of rice and some lower limb bones, they declared it to be our ancestor. They interpreted the foot bones to be primate-like. They concluded that the lower limb bones showed that Eosimias had grasping hands and feet that enabled it to walk on branches like monkeys.

The Bible warns that God will curse those with ever more foolish notions who reject the obvious fact that He is Creator. He does this so that they might see their foolishness and repent for placing the creation over the Creator. In this case they have done that by saying that it was not the Creator, but rather this tiny monkey that led to humanity.

Notes: 

International Herald Tribune, 3/17/00, “Tiny Fossil Fills Gap in Evolutionary Record.” Drawing: Artistic representation of Eosimias. Courtesy of Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Homosexual Men ‘Divorce’ to Become Threesome, Now Plan to Use Sisters as Surrogates


Homosexual Men ‘Divorce’ to Become Threesome, Now Plan to Use Sisters as Surrogates

By Heather Clark on October 18, 2015112 Comments

NOVA SCOTIA — Two homosexual men recently “divorced” under Canadian law so that they could include a third man in their relationship, and now plan to have their sisters serve as surrogates to bear their children.

We just want to say that love is love. It should be multiplied not divided,” Adam Grant told the Daily Mail. “It shouldn’t matter if you’re in a three-way or a four-way relationship.”

Grant and his partner Shayne Curran met Sebastian Tran at a nightclub in 2012, after “tying the knot” the year prior. A year later, they agreed to be open to seeing others.

Adam and I wanted to have a little more fun so we decided to experiment with multiple partners,” Curran stated. “We never intended it to be anything serious, we certainly never planning on taking on a full-time third partner by any means. It was just bit of sexual experimentation.”

When they met Tran, they both had feelings for him, so in discussing how they could include the man in their relationship, they decided to divorce in order to become a threesome.

While polygamy is not legal in Canada, the men state that they have attorneys that can work up paperwork declaring that the three are bound to each other “in the eyes of the law.”

If anything, Sebastian only enhanced our relationship,” Curran said.

Now, in order to have children, the men state that their sisters have agreed to become surrogates. Some have also offered to donate their eggs.

I have two sisters who have both offered to carry our children for us as surrogates and are willing to donate their eggs as well. My sisters actually argue over which one them will carry our baby first,” Curran stated. “Sebastian’s sister will probably donate her eggs too so we can keep it in the family. We want to mix our genes enough so that our kids are as genetically close to us as possible.”

As previously reported, earlier this year, photos of three Thailand men who symbolically “married” each other went viral, garnering societal support for the concept of same-sex “throuples” worldwide, but also generating remarks from Christians about the confirmation of the slippery slope that has long been predicted.

Love occurs unconditionally and is not limited to only two people,” one of the men, only identified as Art, wrote on Facebook. “Love brings peace to the world.”

Following the report, Dr. Michael Brown noted that the situation demonstrates how mankind has made up its own rules along the way in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?

If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Brown explained. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’

He stated that these developments are demonstrating the domino effect that results when the world rebels against God and His Master design for mankind.

Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities,” Brown said, “none of them good.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Christians Need Not Apply


Christians Need Not Apply

Posted: 09 Oct 2015 04:28 PM PDT

no christians

Editor’s Note: This is a well written article. But sadly, like many political commentators on the right, he conflates the whore of Rome with true Christianity.

Written by  Selwyn Duke

 

Haters of humanity” was the charge leveled against Christians in early first-millennium Rome. Thus impugned because they didn’t want to participate in the empire’s pagan festivals, they suffered a plight common to those swimming against their civilization’s tide: persecution. Of course, even in a nation that appreciates freedom of speech and religion, stigmatization of certain groups is inevitable. For as someone once pointed out, stigmas are the corollaries of values: If certain things are to be valued, it follows that their opposites will be devalued. As an example, you cannot value economic freedom highly without devaluing communism. Ergo, stigmas are necessary. And since they’re the flip side of values, what a civilization chooses to value is of utmost importance.

So when Rome valued paganism, it quite naturally devalued Christianity. But this would change. Jesus’ faith was legalized in 313 A.D., and in 380 it would become the empire’s official religion. And it would so infuse and shape the West  that the Occident would become known as Christendom and the United States’ first president would say, “To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” For, in fact, Christian character was once considered integral to everything.

Change in America

But a change has been afoot in America. It has been happening quickly, so quickly that few people, even most astute culture warriors, fully appreciate what’s occurring. It has been hard not to hear of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk jailed for contempt of court after refusing an order to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. She has been cheered by the Right and chided by the Left, portrayed as both a Christian hero and an oath-breaking zero. And not surprisingly, most of the debate has centered on the legality of her stance. Davis is, of course, defying a court order. But while U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who sent the clerk to prison, has said, “Oaths mean things,” what of the Supreme Court justices who, in issuing the unconstitutionalObergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage ruling, clearly violated their oath to uphold the Constitution? Should one submit to a rule of lawyers contrary to the rule of law? Of course, Davis is also defying Kentucky governor Steve Be­shear, who has ordered state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And states do have wide-ranging powers under the Constitution. Yet even a governor doesn’t have the legitimate power to violate his state’s constitution. As to this, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer recently wrote in “Clerk the Only One Obeying the Law” that the courts have no constitutionally granted power to strike down law and then pointed out:

Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:

[“]Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[”]

Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.

Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.

When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.

In the above Fischer is merely echoing Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819 and 1820 that to give “to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres” makes our Constitution “a complete felo de se” (suicide pact) and “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Davis, however, has mainly cited not man’s but moral law in her defense. While her lawyer has appealed her case (and lost) based on freedom of religion, she unabashedly told Judge Bunning, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties,” reported CBSDC/AP. “You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul.”

And whether it’s the rule of lawyers or of law, this reality cannot be ignored. No moral person places statesmen or the Supreme Court before the Supreme Being; this is why while many will emote about “the law” when it serves their ends, Americans have a long history of violating it with the understanding that, as Augustine of Hippo put it, “An unjust law is no law at all.” The antebellum abolitionist and civil-rights movements, for instance, involved defiance of the law. And, in fact, our very nation was founded on resistance to law, on a bold act of nullification — of the law of the British Empire.

 

Height of Hypocrisy

Then there’s the matter of imperious would-be masters who make hypocrisy an art form. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign may be listing because of her illegal use of a private e-mail server to conduct government business, but this didn’t stop her from tweeting about Davis on September 3, “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law — end of story.” And her former boss, Barack Obama, boldly violates federal immigration and other laws he finds inconvenient, as he ignores “sanctuary cities” and localities that violate federal drug laws (which are unconstitutional, though this certainly isn’t a factor for “unconstitutionalists”).

And particularly apropos is the case of openly lesbian Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker, who said in 2012 that “she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex couples can also wed,” reported New York’s Daily News at the time. Of course, given that judges may refuse to perform marriages, Parker’s case wouldn’t involve the kind of “violation of civil duty” of which Davis is accused. Yet it is perfectly analogous to another recent case, that of Marion County, Oregon, Judge Vance Day. Like Parker, Day decided to stop doing weddings altogether — in his case, nearly a year ago — over the faux-marriage issue. Like Parker, his reason is that the current law conflicts with his sense of right and wrong. Unlike Parker, however, his problem is that he didn’t want to feel pressure to “marry” same-sex couples after a 2014 federal court ruling expressing the belief that faux marriage should be government sanctioned in Oregon.

And, unlike Parker, Day is now being investigated by a judicial-fitness commission.

Notable here is that the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct just issued a ruling in August on the very same matter, stating in part, “A judge may not decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or personal, moral, or religious beliefs.” Absolutely striking. A judge can refuse to perform marriages — but not for politically incorrect (e.g., Christian) reasons — and not to avoid performing faux marriages. So when Parker exited the marriage business because she thought such unions should be endorsed by government, it was hardly a blip on the radar screen. When Day does so because he believes such unions shouldn’t be, he’s investigated as unfit for office.

When considering all the above, it’s clear that laws and standards are being applied selectively — but, actually, not all that inconsistently. Just consider another example from the judicial-standards front, when earlier this year the California Supreme Court prohibited state court judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts merely because, at the time, the organization reflected Christianity in banning open homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Or consider the case of former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired early last year after writing a Christian book entitled Who Told You That You Were Naked?, in which he briefly touched on homosexual behavior. Now ponder what Lifesite’s Jonathon van Maren related in February about a trip he had just taken:

In Budapest … our tour guide stopped on the steps of the St. Stephan Cathedral to explain how the Hungarian Communists “dealt with” the Christians. It wasn’t that you couldn’t be a Christian, she said. You could pray at home, worship at home with your family, even get baptized and go to church. However, you had a choice. “You could either be a Christian,” she told us, “or you could be successful.”

So when GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee recently tweeted “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country,” perhaps he wasn’t being literally accurate. After all, churches aren’t yet being shuttered. But implicit in everything that’s occurring, with a wink and a nod, is that old message: You can be Christian — or you can be successful.

And leftists have said this in so many words. Not that long ago a number of stories were in the news about Christian bakers who refused to bake cakes for faux weddings. And if you read Internet comments, you’d observe a common sentiment: “If you can’t do the job, you can’t have the job.” The problem is that any and every “job” is increasingly being defined as requiring absence of Christian principle. The quoted standard tendentiously places the onus on the Christians, but here’s what is really being said: “You’ll conform to our agenda — or we’ll destroy you to the point of pennilessness.”

A good example is couple Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of the bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon. They were forced to shut down their business in 2013 after refusing two lesbians a “wedding” cake and being charged with discrimination. But this wasn’t enough for the sexual storm troopers. Because earlier this year administrative judge Alan McCullough fined them $135,000 and ruled that the funds will go to the lesbians for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering.” The government perhaps wanted to persecute in private, though, because Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian “placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs,” wrote the Daily Signal in July. This apparently is part of Avakian’s attempt to “rehabilitate” the Kleins, which, stated their lawyer, Anna Harmon, he made clear was his goal with “those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas.”

The good news is that, with the help of Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse, far more than the fine amount has been raised for the Kleins’ cause. Yet granting relief to those targeted for “rehabilitation” is becoming a monumental task. As Samaritan’s Purse reported in April in a piece entitled “Persecution Against U.S. Christians On the Rise”:

In Indiana, a small-town pizzeria owned by a Christian family closed its doors after receiving death and firebombing threats after the owner said in a television interview that he would not want to cater a gay wedding because it would conflict with his faith.

In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled that a photographer could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies — even though Elaine Photography owner Elaine Huguenin said that she would happily photograph gay customers, but her faith forbid her from doing so in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage.

In Washington state, a florist was sued for discrimination by the government because she could not in good conscience create custom arrangements for a same-sex ceremony.

It should be noted that this is unprecedented in American history. Government has long trumped freedom of association under the pretext that businesses, though privately owned, are nonetheless “public accommodations.” Yet what we’re seeing now is a huge step beyond: not merely forcing businesses to serve certain classes of people, but forcing them to service certain types of events. The analogy has been drawn, almost to the point of hoariness, that the above examples are akin to compelling a Jewish or black businessman to service a Nazi or KKK affair. The reality is, of course, that no one would even consider such tyranny. Nor did it faze media, politicians, and activists when pundit Steven Crowder produced a video earlier this year of Muslim bakers in Dearborn, Michigan, refusing to provide faux wedding cakes. But when Christians do it, they’re haters.

And this double standard is everywhere. Just consider again the aforementioned ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. Reporting on the consequences for judges “who stop performing all marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples,” CBS News wrote that they “may be interpreted as biased and could be disqualified from any case where sexual orientation is an issue.” Yet who doesn’t have biases? (Note that unlike a “prejudice,” a “bias” can be positive, negative, or neutral.) Did Judge Tonya Parker not exhibit a bias when refusing to perform marriages in the name of homosexual activism? And what of Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan, an open lesbian, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom officiated at faux weddings? Inferring bias, critics such as Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) say they should have recused themselves from the Obergefellcase and suggest they could be impeached for not doing so. Liberals have, of course, scoffed at the notion, but is it substantially different from the Ohio board’s position? Putting their own biases aside when ruling on law — just calling balls and strikes, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it — is a challenge for all judges, not just a subset. It is quite possibly the most important part of their job and one that, as recent history illustrates, too many jurists are failing at miserably. So the scrutiny received by judges such as Vance Day is not due to their having that universal thing called “bias.” It’s due to their having that increasingly unfashionable thing called a Christian worldview.

Putting Christians in Their Place

This is why all the discussion about whether Kim Davis is “breaking the law” misses the deeper and more important point: What does it say about our civilization when laws and standards — or, at least, how the powers-that-be wish to interpret them — preclude authentic Christianity in the halls of government and the marketplace? It says that while Justice David Josiah Brewer could write in an 1892 Supreme Court ruling of “a volume of unofficial declarations” and “mass of organic utterances” stating “that this is a Christian nation,” it can no longer rightly be said. The once stigmatized is now valued, and the once valued is now stigmatized.

This inversion of virtue and vice was predictable — and predicted. In their 1990 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, homosexual activists Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk called for the valuing of homosexuality, prescribing a desensitization of Americans to homosexuality via a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Furthermore, they said that once homosexuality was normalized, those who would “still feel compelled” to oppose it would be “cow[ed] and silence[d] … as far as possible” and that if homosexual activists can “produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, the intransigents (like the racists of twenty years ago) will eventually be effectively silenced by both law and polite society.”

And what do we see today? Christians called haters and bigots, hate-speech laws in most Western lands prohibiting criticism of homosexuality, and the stifling of dissent via economic pressure. And the homosexuality agenda is an ideal vehicle through which to devalue Christianity. Just consider, for instance, that the Catholic Church has defined teaching stating that same-sex attraction is “disordered” and homosexual acts are objectively evil. Moreover and contrary to what some may suppose, this teaching cannot change; even Pope Francis, whom the media has portrayed incorrectly on the matter, has said as much. And, of course, any traditional Protestant will take the same position.

And the folly of doing otherwise is easily illustrated. What is one supposed to say? Adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, self-gratification is a sin, watching pornography is a sin, but homosexuality is … what? A lifestyle choice, like living on a houseboat? This is why I’ve often noted that the homosexuality activists aren’t asking for equal treatment, but preferential treatment, and it is an untenable position. For accepting homosexual behavior isn’t just accepting homosexual behavior: It’s accepting the complete collapse of the Christian model (and this applies to certain other faiths as well) for man’s sexuality. This is just one reason why no faithful Christian can even consider accepting homosexual behavior.

And this is the reason Christianity cannot be valued if the homosexuality agenda is. Once people accept that calling homosexual behavior sinful is “hateful” and “bigoted,” they will consider Christianity a hateful religion. And “Voila!”: At this point you have successfully placed the faith and its churches in the same category as hate groups, such as the Nazis, Aryan Nations, or the Ku Klux Klan, and made them grist for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s HateWatch page. And this makes clear the economic persecution facing Christians. After all, what prospects does an open and avowed Nazi or Klan member have for getting a high-paying job?

And what else lies ahead? Just as asteroids have a trajectory that enables scientists to accurately predict their future location, a culture also has an observable trajectory. Should we remain on ours — and only powerful applications of energy can alter a great body’s path — a further perversion of the “separation of church and state” myth may be used to completely exclude Christians from serving in government; in this, Kim Davis’ plight is a portent of things to come. On the same basis, Christians may one day even be prohibited from voting or from receiving government benefits (after all, “religion mustn’t influence government,” and public money mustn’t fund religious entities). Far-fetched? Well, if you’d told people in 1954 that in a few generations homosexuality would be celebrated and Christians who opposed it castigated, they’d have called you crazy.

But, of course, the story of man is quite crazy. This is why modern times have seen the murder of priests in 1920s Mexico and during the Spanish Civil War, and why Christians were regularly persecuted under Marxist regimes and suffer in the Mideast and elsewhere today. In accordance with Jesus’ warning, “You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake,” Christian persecution hasn’t been an anomaly in the annals of man but a recurring theme. And what recurs the world over can occur anywhere — even over in our world. For as homosexuality and other un-Christian elements continue to be valued, Christianity will correspondingly be devalued. And, as the communists and Romans proved, when this happens enough, Christians may be thrown into gulags or the mouths of lions. After all, haters of humanity are fair game for most anything.

This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s available only by subscribing to the New American print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Mercy Otis Warren – “Conscience of the American Revolution”


Mercy Otis Warren – “Conscience of the American Revolution”

Mercy Otis WarrenAmerican Minute with Bill Federer

Mercy Otis Warren was called “The Conscience of the American Revolution.”

She was wife of Massachusetts House Speaker James Warren, sister of patriot James Otis, and she corresponded with Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton and John Adams.

In 1805, Mercy Otis Warren published a 3 volume History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution.

In Observations on the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions, 1788, Mercy Otis Warren wrote:

“The immediate gift of the Creator obliges every one…to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave Sons of America have fought…

“Behold the insidious efforts of the partisans of arbitrary power…to lock the strong chains of domestic despotism on a country…”

“Save us from anarchy on the one hand, and the jaws of tyranny on the other…”

“It has been observed…that ‘the virtues and vices of a people’ when a revolution happens in their government, are the measure of the liberty or slavery they ought to expect.”

Mercy Otis Warren continued:

“And when asked, what is become of the rich produce of their farms – they may answer in the hapless style of the Man of La Mancha, ‘The steward of my Lord has seized and sent it to Madrid.’

Or, in the more literal language…Government requires that the collectors of the revenue should transmit it to the Federal City.”

In Observations on the new Constitution, 1788, Mercy Otis Warren stated:

“Monarchy is a species of government fit only for a people too much corrupted by luxury, avarice, and a passion for pleasure, to have any love for their country…

Monarchy is…by no means calculated for a nation that is…tenacious of their liberty — animated with a disgust to tyranny — and inspired with the generous feeling of patriotism.”

Mercy Otis Warren concluded:

“The origin of all power is in the people, and they have an incontestable right to check the creatures of their own creation.”

Mercy Otis Warren and Abigail Adams were two of the most influential women of the Revolutionary War era.

Abigail Adams, wife of the 2nd President and mother of the 6th President, wrote to Mercy Otis Warren on NOVEMBER 5, 1775:

“A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men?”

Abigail Adams continued in her letter to Mercy Otis Warren:

“Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society, corrupting the Morals of Youth, and by his bad example injuring the very Country he professes to patronize more than he can possibly compensate by intrepidity, generosity and honour?…

Scriptures tell us ‘righteousness exalteth a Nation.’”


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

John Adams – first U.S. President in the White House


John Adams – first U.S. President in the White House

White House 1846American Minute with Bill Federer

On NOVEMBER 1, 1800, John Adams became the first U.S. President to move into the White House.

The following day he wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail, in which he composed a beautiful prayer.

A portion of John Adams’ prayer was inscribed on the mantlepiece in the State Dining Room by President Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”

Beginning with Thomas Jefferson and continuing till after the Civil War, church services, attended by sitting Presidents, where held each Sunday in the U.S. Capitol House Chamber, with attendance reaching over 2,000, making it the largest Protestant Sabbath audience in the nation.

After the White House was finished being built, the next building constructed on Lafayette Square was St. John’s Episcopal Church.

Nearly every President since James Madison worshiped there at least once, resulting in Pew 54 being designated for the First Family.

Other historic Washington, D.C. area churches include:

Christ Church in Alexandria, where President Washington attended;

National Presbyterian Church, where Truman attended;

New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, where attended Presidents:

William Henry Harrison, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon, and where Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall was pastor from 1937-1949;

James Monroe donated toward the church bell of All Souls Church, which was attended by John Quincy Adams, and later William Howard Taft;

Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist Church was attended by William McKinley;

Holy Trinity Catholic Church, where John F. Kennedy attended.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt, who was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, stated:

“After a week on perplexing problems…it does so rest my soul to come into the house of The Lord and to sing and mean it, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty’…

(My) great joy and glory that, in occupying an exalted position in the nation, I am enabled, to preach the practical moralities of The Bible to my fellow-countrymen and to hold up Christ as the hope and Savior of the world.”


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

THE HUMBLED STATE HONORS GOD!


William Andrew Dillard
HEBREW HONEYCOMB

THE HUMBLED STATE HONORS GOD!

It is an ironic, but interesting turn of events deserving considerable thought and appreciation. I write about coming to grips with one’s elevated relationship with God in New Covenant discipleship. It is elevation by another that humbles man. Please think with me for a moment.
Natural man, in his hereditarily, sinful condition is most often prideful, in denial of his condemned state, and resistant toward repentance from sin to exercise faith in God. But when he is saved by the grace of God, and embarks on a life of discipleship, he rejoices in his new position as a child of the King, even though he may continue to see himself as low, largely worthless, still plagued by sin, and sometimes rebellious. He may feel this is the proper viewpoint that honors the God of his salvation. Perhaps there is a need to re-examine a couple of things: self imposed humility may not be humility at all, and the highest honor man bestows upon God is to live within the perimeters of His calling while understanding and accepting the position in life that His unspeakable gift brings.
Colossians 2:18 speaks of a voluntary humility while verse 23 speaks of fleshly, will worship and humility. There is such a thing as being proud to be humble, but that is all pride rather than humility. True humility comes through reconciliation of oneself to God. Moreover, if God exalts His obedient children to heights not often considered, then He is honored most by their understanding, acceptance, and proper handling of that exalted state, which excludes fleshly pride.
Just what is this godly exaltation that God’s children may know? First, it is the privilege of being admitted to His Bride through baptism and fellowship in a New Testament church. Secondly, it is occupying the position of mature sons of God who are destined to rule the world with King Jesus at His coming. Thirdly it is being a viable part of the present “Israel of God,” Gal. 6: 16, which is His body, the pillar and ground of the truth, I Timothy 3:15. Additionally, one is exalted to being a god, John 10: 31-36; I Cor. 8:5. Jesus used this very terminology to confound the know-it-all Pharisees about those unto whom the Word of God came, Psalm 82:6. Certainly, the Lord’s church is the recipient of His Word: the faith once delivered to the saints. As gods (little g), they constitute His body, His Bride, His Israel, His representatives and the designated supporters of the truth. Who is it then who could not be humbled by such lofty exaltation? Moreover, who then would not be totally sobered by that responsibility? But more, to the point, who would deny these God-given designations and still claim to honor Him? He is honored in truth, and in our acceptance and obedience of Heaven’s provisions and placements.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary