On December 23, 2007 Pastor Joseph Vaillancourt wrote the below denunciation of the six people involved in Ministry being investigated by Senator Charles Grassley as heretics. I personally think these Six are innocent of wrong doing legally; however I have been wrong before. I had to take some time on how to answer the Pastor. Thus directly below is the Pastor’s comment followed directly by my response.
Joseph Vaillancourt wrote:
Once a long time ago, in Europe shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire to Barbarians and Pagans. Europe was surronded by Muslims to the South and Pagans to the North. It was a drastic time, the Catholic church was a shameful organization only after money. Charlamagne (sorry if I spelled it wrong) managed to becaome king of a country which pretty much ruled all of Western Europe and included the lands of France and Germany. History now calls this empire the HOly Roman Empire manly because the Benzatines were losing a war to the Muslims...but thats besides the point.
I decided at 8 pm Sunday, to mention what the Emporer of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID to greedy people who made money off of the gospel. AFter all he had the first and probably the only real attempt at Christian and State union. He was a submissive Christian and accepted doctrines, forced Mulsim nation to give religious freedom to Christians in their lands. He demanded those in power not rob blind the poor. In fact, some believe he and hid kingdom are represented in the symbolic kingdom of Camelot.
Well, in his day, Priest were often charging huge amounts of money to recieve blessings, education, and the like...he out lawed that. He foreced Nuns to not sleep around and go figure, he would well with 1500s' reformation of Martin Luther. He was a student of the Word of GOd...if ever, there was a Christian king similar to King David, it was he.
We've been discussing the Grassley 6 and the implications of what is happening as of late in regards to their apparent appearance of wrong doing in their finances. I made some strong statements but in the process, I had to ask, what would have Charlamagne had done in Grassley's place.
Well, I have to admit my research on this king is limited to what can be found. I made this connection, he would have not given the Grassley 6 as much freedom to say "no" to the enquiry into their finances. He would have held them accountable. If he found wrong doing each would face considerable penalties. More importantly, he would never allow some of their teachings to continue.
truly we live in an age when it is said, that church and state ought to be seperated...ok...oh! In ancient times, this was not the case. Are we better off with having the two seperated? Yes! Because I can only find in history one time when a king was powerful enough to keep the church from using him and yet humble enough to accept correction and maintain morality as best as he could. Government can not be trusted to lead the church - (example: the Church of England - lets not open this up! I must confess I like this church but see their weakness). However, in the same way, the church can not be trusted to rule a nation, because with absolute power Satan will currupt.
So, I like a more balance of shared power, civil authoritiest govern over law making, the people daily needs, defence, enforcement of the laws. The church governs over the daily spiritual needs of people and equally keeps the governement accountable. Scritpure tells us that Government has been given a sword by authority of GOD to enflict judgement.
I am not sure how to explain this better than I have...but, regardless of who Charlamagne is and I am sure the Catholic church sees him in a rose coloured picture of seeing him the best they can. Yet, let us realize, state has a role to play in ensuring churches remain humble with finances and accountability is the rule of the day.
Just a babbling thought.
Below is my rebuttal:
Pastor, Charlemagne was a virtuous King/Emperor for his day; however he was hardly the man you are painting a portrait of. For one thing, to solidify the power of his empire he made sure the Pope (he did not ask permission) anointed him Holy Roman Emperor.
Also since the days of a solid Roman bureaucratic infrastructure had long ceased to exist; Charlemagne strengthened the principle of Feudalism. That is Charlemagne continued the development a vassal system in which nobles of lower rank paid obeisance to a higher ranking noble and onward to the top dog Charlemagne himself. At the lowest rung were the serfs who paid obeisance to their Noble Lord. People became tied to the land almost to the degree of slaves to the nobility class of Feudalism. The only recourse the peasant class had was the intervention of the Roman Church. Then as today there was corruption and there was faithfulness, the corruption did not make the whole Church corrupt. It is man that corrupts power and so there were corrupt pockets within the Church.
Monastic Orders such as Benedictines and Franciscans (to name a few) came into existence to combat the pockets of the priesthood that degenerated into carnal pleasures. These monks lived by strict rules that are doubtfully observed on a wide scale today.
Back to Charlemagne: part of the way he shored up the linkage of feudal vassalage is that he travelled his Empire extensively. He did not hang out at a Capitol city a primary amount of his time. Each lower vassal he visited it was required that they service the Royal entourage with food, blessings, etc out of the vassal’s pocket. Thus Charlemagne maintained a tight nit empire that would not survive him in expanse because later rulers were less vigorous.
Frankly if the Grassley Six’s teaching were around in Charlemagne’s day, the Emperor would have made it the law of the land because prosperity teaching reaches beyond a clerical/lay relationship. It would have encouraged a prosperity that would have enriched Charlemagne via his vassal tours keeping the Holy Roman Empire as an entity. It would have been the greedy side of the Roman Church’s day that would have tried to put a Grassley Six group out of commission because it would have threatened the Roman Church’s influence over both the peasantry and the nobility. Thus poverty became emphasized as humility.
Although I do not agree with all the teachings or maybe I should say the teachings that have led human followers rather than god followers to exchange holy prosperity for material prosperity; I regard most the “Faith” teachings of the Grassley Six to be Bible centered. That which I find disagreement with is no more heretical than a Roman Catholic believing that the Communion Elements are the actual Body and Blood of Christ or the Protestant belief that the Communion Elements are symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ.
However Pastor if indeed it is discovered that Ministers such as the Grassley Six used donated money for personal conspicuous consumption rather than the purpose of donation, then shame should be pronounced until hubris leaves and repentance turns the soul the other direction because of a contrite hearty. If a salary is commensurate with the level of work of other non-profit organizations, that salary may be used as legally and morally to fit a personal disposition. I have no problem with that and those that do are operating under jealousy.
Remember to vote for Fred in ’08. That being said and knowing the current polls in Iowa seem to favor Huckabee, Romney and McCain and not my man Fred; I have to talk about the political war between Romney and Huckabee.
Do you recall at the end of one the Republican Debates Huckabee came up to Romney to apologize about an interview that would appear in the NYT Magazine that be construed as publicly criticizing Mormonism yet that was not the intent? And that Romney accepted that apology with a brandishment that one’s religion should not be an issue among legitimate issues in the electoral process.
Now Huckabee is saying that Romney owes him an apology for the negative campaign ads that blatantly are lying about Huckabee and making claims for Romney that are outrageously untrue.
JRH 12/31/07
You know I am not really a Michael Savage fan. He is kind of a Conservative shock jock that makes Ann Coulter (a person I admire) seem tame. I have even had rumors that allege Savage is not a real Conservative as much as he is an entrepreneur marketing himself as a shock Conservative jock as a living. Thus based on what second hand knowledge and not direct hearing or reading I have not taken Savage seriously.
Now here is the thing that has got my attention about Savage: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been running an active PR campaign to get Savage fired by talking his sponsors into dropping him.
If CAIR feels threatened by Savage, then regardless of Savage’s motives, he has become a person of favorable interest to me. CAIR is an evil organization that publicly passes itself off as a moderate Islamic human rights watch dog for American Muslims; however the twist is CAIR has had members and leaders convicted for ties to Islamist Terrorists of which Hamas seems to be the primary benefactor. Friends that is neither moderate nor American to support psycho-Islamist terrorist suicidal and homicidal murdering terrorists. O and I forgot to mention racist, for Hamas where it controls education in schools or Mosques incessantly teaches hatred of Jews that would warm the corpse of Adolf Hitler with glee.
Apparently Savage has talking up the CAIR mud and CAIR has decided to throw its money into silencing Savage. In which case Savage responded with a civil suit of copy right infringement in CAIR using skewed editing radio snippets of Savage to make him look bad.
Savage is taking the legal war between himself and CAIR to the next level. Savage is amending his law suit:
The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida. (WND)
Although I am not a Michael Savage fan I say, “SICK’EM BOY!”
Thompson has the best Conservative plan to lead America's future as opposed to the Democrats of tax and spend and moral socialism. Or Ron Paul who will cause America to go down in flames as he disable the military.
By The Associated Press
December 28, 2007 3:38 PM ET
A transcript released by the Pakistani government Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is referred to as Emir Sahib, and another man identified as a Maulvi Sahib, or Mr. Cleric. The government alleges the intercepted conversation proves al-Qaida was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
Maulvi Sahib: Peace be on you.
Mehsud: Peace be on you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: How are you Emir Sahib?
Mehsud: Fine.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations. I arrived now tonight.
Mehsud: Congratulations to you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: They were our men there.
Mehsud: Who were they?
Maulvi Sahib: There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.
Mehsud: The three did it?
Maulvi Sahib: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
Mehsud: Then congratulations to you again.
Maulvi: Where are you? I want to meet with you?
Mehsud: I am in Makin. Come I am at Anwar Shah's home.
Maulvi Sahib: OK I will come.
Mehsud: Do not inform their family presently.
Maulvi Sahib: Right.
Mehsud: It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her.
Maulvi Sahib: Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come.
Mehsud: I will wait for you. Congratulation once again.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations to you as well.
Mehsud: Any service?
Mauvliv: Thank you very much?
Mehsud: Peace be on you.
Maulvi: Same to you.
_____________________
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
The Musharraf government says it has proof that al Qaeda assassinated Benazir Bhutto. Pakistan has released to the public an alleged communication interception of al Qaeda operatives speaking about the “who done its” and includes conversational back slapping of congratulations of a job well done. (I will post the transcript because of Yahoo’s rep of removing links or updating content with the same link)
Terrorist organizations are usually hot to claim the glory of a perceived victory. Here I am reading the government knows who did the assassination and is going after the surviving assassination cell. It may be true, but something just reads as to convenient and tidy of an explanation from a nation that has not controlled al Qaeda and the Taliban that have blatantly operated from the sovereign nation of Pakistan.
I still think there was collusion within the Pakistan military and their Intelligence modus operandi in the assassination of Bhutto.
Here is the Yahoo News account of the Musharraf government findings: as posted at SlantRight.
I just finished reading a Symposium on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the National Review Online. Those invited to write an analysis about the assassination were Jonathan Foreman, Sumit Ganguly, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Victor Davis Hanson, Mansoor Ijaz, Stanley Kurtz, James S. Robbins, Bill Roggio and Henry Sokolski.
As of this writing there is only guessing who is directly responsible for the assassination from the region of the world in which the Religion of Peace is the dominant religion.
The consensus of the Symposium was really mixed. The mentioned culprits: al Qaeda and allied Islamists, Taliban and allied Islamists, Infiltrating terrorist Islamists in the Pakistan Military, Infiltrating terrorist Islamist in the Pakistan version of a Secret Service, sympathizing Pakistan Secret Service of Islamists itself, Pervez Musharraf and a sympathetic element of the Pakistan military.
The only agreeing link is Islamism, the apparent dominant voice of Mohammedanism of the modern Mohammedan dominated lands.
My guess is that Bhutto caused a temporary alliance of all of the above to cause Bhutto’s death.
Despite a checkered past in past Pakistani politics, her current presence was rallying an opposition that rejected both Islamism and the pro-Western ruling oligarch dictatorship within the Pakistani military. A successful Bhutto would be a huge challenge to the death cult idealism of the Islamist terrorists and a huge challenge to ruling by semi-military fiat by the later.
In essence all Pakistani factions opposing Bhutto’s rise stood to gain with her death.
America is in the uncomfortable Machiavellian position of being forced to choose between two repressive elements in Pakistan: The Pakistan military and Islamist terrorists. Of course it would be global suicide to choose America’s primary enemies thus America will be forced to put its strength behind Musharraf and the military.
I have the impression that Musharraf and the pro-Western elements of the military are becoming more and more unpopular with the Pakistani people. Thus the people that are not happy with Musharraf are being driven to the Islamists even though they may not be Islamists themselves.
This portends a Sunni version of the Shia inspired Iranian Revolution. If an Islamist revolution triumphs over a pro-Western Pakistani military, then Islamists would control Pakistan’s already established nuclear arsenal.
The Shah of Iran overthrown by Khomeini was extremely solid behind America. The Shah even tried to Westernize Iran with a bit of success even though the regime was repressive. The Shah was deserted by a deluded President Carter who felt the end of the Shah would bring democracy to Iran. Oops! Selling out the Shah brought Sharia Law and a repressive regime that made the Shah look like a Western Saint.
Bhutto’s death sets America up for the dreaded repetition of history. Oh yes, a Democratic Party Presidential victory will guarantee handing a nuclear arsenal over to Islamist terrorists just as Carter did in the ‘70’s.
My man Fred Thompson is the best man to lead America in the next Administration. As a Republican, Fred does have some baggage; however way less than any other candidate that is electable except John McCain. On McCain, I think he would be a great leader in war (that the Democrats are trying to lose); however I believe McCain’s Conservative bona fides is unpredictable. I sense McCain would sacrifice social issues in compromise to push an agenda through to his liking. McCain may line with the Democratic Party Christophobes to move things along in a McCain Administration. I do not like that thought.
I really like Huckabee’s stand to vocally utilize Christianity as a political forum. Way too many Republicans are too concerned about being Politically Correct in addressing Christian Conservative social issues. On the other hand is Huckabee stumping for votes that he may later abandon due to the pressures of Presidential politics? Huckabee’s history makes him a Conservative gamble in trustworthiness; however fighting for Christian Conservative social issues is something I believe could reverse the moral darkness that the moral relativity of Secular Humanism (err … Democratic Party) has infected America’s culture.
Here is the latest update email I have received from the Fred Thompson’s Fred08 Blog:
Great news this morning from the Iowa bus tour. An important Iowa newspaper endorses Fred for President!
"Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter," writes the Ottumwa Courier. Read why this Iowa newspaper say Thompson is the best man to lead America... http://www.ottumwacourier.com/opinion/local_story_360221446.html?keyword=secondarystory
· "...Thompson believes work must continue in Iraq despite growing concerns American troops should return home. We have to 'finish what we're doing,' he said, adding the United States must continue the fight there and in Afghanistan."
· "On economic issues, Thompson is blunt. The time is now to reform the American economy. He says the country needs 'market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes.'"
· "Thompson said 'it is a moral imperative that requires action now' and he wants a full account of the government's fiscal books for 'all to see and understand.'"
· "The man from Tennessee is no-nonsense, speaks plainly and believes action is needed now, not later.... Fred Thompson will do just that."
Fred is back in Iowa this week, where he continues the final push to the caucus on January 3rd. And he has a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
Fred needs your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
As of this morning, we've raised more than $70,000. With your help, we can reach our goal for Fred! You can be part of the momentum by making a contribution today.
In 1996, more than 40% of Republican caucus voters said they made their decision of who to vote for in the final week. Click here to watch video of a couple from Creston, IA. 5 Republican presidential candidates have come through their town, but after hearing Fred last night, they believe he's the right man to lead America and take the GOP to victory in 2008! Together, we can move votes to Fred if we get his TV ad on the air!
Show your support today by donating or signing up to make phone calls into Iowa to encourage people to vote for Fred on January 3rd.
The part you should notice is the insightful endorsement of Fred Thompson for President by the Ottumwa Courier. If you are convinced Fred is the man as I am you may wish to consider to help in some way with the links for donations or leg work.
Huckabee’s defense of his Merry Christmas ads in a Church Sermon is the kind of thing that will endear him to the Christian Right.
It is a huge step for a politician to do something so Politically Incorrect in this election’s atmosphere. Huckabee has a dump truck load political dirt from his past to overcome; however putting the Christ back into Christmas is a blinder that devout Christian voters might look askew to the dirt and see a social Conservative light that has been dimming over the years.
It is a smart move by Huckabee. Romney could not dare to inject such Christian symbolism into his campaign for it would re-awaken Mormon theological doubts by Christian big dog supporters who lined up behind him.
For my man Fred to get his poll numbers up, he will have to roll some dice on some sensitive political issues.
Let’s face it, although the Paleocons in the Republican may deplore the actual influence of mobilized Christian Right voters, they are still the king makers in the Republican Party. For a GOP nominee to win, he is going to have to sway a chunk of those Christian Right voters to their side. Now it might be a little different in the big dog November 2008 election in which the Christian becomes a faction of American voters, but even then the Christian Right’s ability to get people out to vote is remarkable if the Christian Right operates on inspiration rather than disappointment.
Let us read the bed rock of civil rights in America today:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
The problem the Christian Right and many Conservatives have with Liberal Activist Judges and Justices is the interpretation of “Establishment Clause.” The Left and/or Progressives believe the implication of the clause is that religion can have zero association with anything taxpayer supported on all levels of government. The Christian Right and many Conservatives believe the clause merely prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION as the religion of the land or nation. Thus the Christian Right believes the symbols of the moral foundations of America (i.e. Judeo-Christianity) are inclusive on public lands as long as the Federal Government does not establish the symbolism as representative of a particular Christian Denomination.
Now let’s look at the next clause of the First Amendment: [Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).
Everybody from the fringe Left to the fringe Right pretty much understands this to mean the Federal Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, in other words – Freedom of Religion.
Unfortunately the Leftist interpretation of the Establishment Clause has become a weapon aimed at Christianity’s free exercise of Religion in recent years. Since the Leftists in the Judiciary have become firm on the non-existent Constitutional term “Separation of Church and State,” the Christian religion has slowly been exorcised from a public forum (particularly in public schools) with the unconstitutional promotion of non-Christian religions in public schools.
The primary case in point is that schools are prohibited from allowing Bible reading or Christian cultural history to be taught yet alternative religions and the humanist religion of Secular Humanism are becoming mandated norms in our public schools.
Religions such as Mohammedanism, Hinduism and Buddhism (to name a few) are required as practicing role models to instill a counter Christian cultural understanding of other religions. The worst example is the forcing of students to recite the Quran and pray toward Mecca with the weak explanation of teaching the understanding of alternative cultures and religions. Hello! Christianity is prohibited in the class room.
Another religion being foistered among the young are the various New Age cultic religions propagated into schools and public forums as an alternative to Christianity.
I don’t have a problem of stacking various religions equally in the class room comparatively; however Christianity is not part of that comparison. Leftists whine of “Separation of Church and State” and thus prohibit the equal ground of Christian ethos and morality to be taught equally with the alternative religions. This directly breaks the second clause of the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity and establishing the study of other religions as an alternative to Christianity.
Some might say, “Did you see the word ‘Secular’ in Secular Humanism?” The very word “secular” denotes something other than religion. The reality of course is that the tenets of Secular Humanism have taken on a cultic value. Thus all that defines a religion such as setting values and tenets and mindsets that compete with other religions have transformed Secular Humanism into a religion. The only difference from Secular Humanism from other Religions is that the god of Secular Humanism is the relative terms of human philosophy; ergo humanity collectively is god.
Now let’s bring this discussion home about Presidential Candidate Barak Obama running for the Democratic Party nomination.
Obama is an articulate charismatic speaker. This has aided him in catching up in the polls to his adversarial harsh sounding rival Hillary Clinton. Not too long ago Hillary was thought of as the unstoppable Queen of the hill that many felt was a certainty for the Democratic Party nomination.
Enter Oprah Winfrey into the endorsement fray. Oprah not only endorses Obama but is actively campaigning for an Obama nomination. And it is her right to do so.