34 posts tagged “christian morality”
If you are a Believer in Biblical Morality as opposed to the moral relativism touted as the moral compass of Secular Humanism in America then you are in for a treat of knowledge.
A group of 140 signatories ranging across evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Churches in America have become fed up with Leftists of the Democratic Party, RINO’s, MSM, the Hollywood pattern (which includes television), the homosexual agenda and anyone I missed encompassing the Secular Humanist agenda.
These 140 signatories have produced a document which could be deemed a manifesto for American Christians. It is called the Manhattan Declaration.
The essence of the Manhattan Declaration can be found in these words on its home page:
A Call of Christian Conscience
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Friend there is a war on Christianity. Because the Leftists have successfully enticed the Supreme Court over the years to provide an incorrect interpretation of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution, the Left has made America’s Christian foundation for the rule of law a bull’s eye for target practice. America’s reluctance to mix any kind of faith within government has led the government to the ability of extracting Christian Moral principles from our public thought processes.
Let’s face it. When State ordained prayer was forcefully removed from schools most of stalwart Christians in the back of their American mind-set were not repulsed. The First Amendment was designed not to institutionalize a particular Church as the established Church of the Land on the Federal, State or local level. Unfortunately that toe in the door of Pandora’s Box was the beginning of forbidding of anything Christian in public and NOT just our schools.
God have mercy if a graduating public High School Valedictorian wishes to share how her faith in Jesus Christ made a successful person with the best GPA in her class.
God forbid a football coach praying with his team before a game. My GOD! Even if that prayer was forced to be a moment of silence.
God forbid that Christians become upset that public funds go to support overtly religious Muslim public schools even though a Christian or two may wish to embellish in a Christian play or school supported campus Christian club.
God forbid that the Ten Commandments have been forcefully removed from many States or County Court Houses because that might be endorsing a religion when it is actually the symbol of awesome moral principles.
God forbid that cities across America may remove nativity scenes because they don’t have the monetary resources to take on the taxpayer supported ACLU in its agenda of stamping out all things Christian.
God forbid that a Christian or Christian Minister in America is on the cusp of being treated like Canadian and European Christians taking a public stand against ungodly homosexuality.
God have mercy on a Christian, Jew or knowledgeable non-religious person who publicizes how contradictory the principles of Mohammedanism with Judeo-Christian principles as well as America’s Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness embodied in our founding documents which includes the U. S. Constitution.
God forbid a Christian abhors the practice of baby murdering (aka infanticide and abortion) as the primary means of birth control in America. Does “You shall not Murder” sound familiar?
When a Christian gets to the anti-abortion issue, the typical Leftist makes the attempt to obfuscate reality. The Leftist loves to tell of the baby that is confirmed will born as a special needs child. Or perhaps the baby is the product of a horrible gruesome rape. Or perhaps a baby will come into the world of a young pregnant teen that has her future ruined if she takes responsibility for consensual sex or worse was brainwashed and molested into sex at barely emerging teen years. There is also the Leftist accusation of hypocrisy when a rabid pro-lifer becomes as evil as an abortionist by taking the life of the baby killer. Frankly it is a rare time a Leftist and I agree. Rendering evil for evil is NOT a Christian principle.
But let us face reality. When the Leftist tries to blur an acceptance of abortion with other moral issues that is the height of hypocrisy. A whopping majority of women get abortions for the mere purpose of birth control. The Left has so propagandized our society that a woman’s right to manage their body is greater than a separate life growing within a womb which more often than not is there because female hormones for a sex drive was just as strong as a male’s.
Here is Bill O’Reilly taking notice of the Manhattan Declaration.
With polls showing that more than 80 percent of Americans believe in G0d, the question now becomes: Will they rally behind The Manhattan Declaration? So far, the secular media have given it little attention, and that might well continue. But even if the manifesto gets a full airing, are people of faith as upset as some of their leadership with the secularism of America?
At this point, I simply don't know.
My fellow Christians Let’s bring certainty to Bill O’Reilly: SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
JRH 12/1/09
********************************
MANHATTAN DECLARATION
A Summary
http://manhattandeclaration.org/images/content/ManhattanDeclarationSummary.pdf
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Human Life
The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.
Marriage
The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.
Religious Liberty
Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in antidiscrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.
Unjust Laws
As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.
Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.
Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.
Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.
We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
I am not sure when or if Dr. David Barton actually spoke this speech; nonetheless the insights are of an American-Christian historian that I think are consistent with the information herein.
Yes I am posting a chain letter. This is the reason I am uncertain of its actual authorship.
JRH 10/30/09
******************************
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
First Known Forward: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:15 PM
Next Know Forward: Fri 10/16/2009 2:56 PM
Previous Forward: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 7:49 AM
This email sent: Wed 10/28/2009 4:54 PM
Intro:
On Dr. Charles Stanley's Sunday program "In Touch", the guest speaker was more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but he is very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton is his name. He is an expert on the subject of whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian Nation.
Fri 10/16/2009 2:56 PM
++++++++++++++
David Barton:
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT
uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend
and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system
in America;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms,
the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never! ! !
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! ! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
++++++++++++++++
Forwarder plea:
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country! ! !
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe. "In GOD We Trust"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another Forwarder plea:
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
I WANT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE BACK.....
In GOD We Trust! ! ! ! ! !
_______________
Dr. Stanley’s In Touch
About Dr. David Barton
I was directed to a YouTube video by a person that keeps me up to date on the evil wiles of the participants in the homosexual agenda. The video was an excerpted C-Span broadcast showing Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) castigating the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009.
I was delighted to see a Congressman simultaneously taking homosexuality to task followed by the criticism of the Bill’s potential to lead to a Persecute Christian Free Speech Act. Evidently the Bill was attached to a military appropriation Bill no doubt to coerce Republics to pass the whole package.
Gohmert did not hold back not failing to use the whole gamut of sexual perversions the Bill is to protect into the public record:
“A preacher preaching from the Bible, a rabbi preaching from the Torah, an Imam teaching from the Koran says, in his opinion, homosexuality is wrong. Some nut hears 'em, goes out commits commits an act of violence, and when arrested says "Well I was induced to do this by the preacher, or the Imam, or the rabbi.” (From Pam’s House Blend – an appalled transgender oriented blog)
AND
“If you're oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that's not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that [under the new law]”. (The Hill)
Now here’s the thing. After watching and silently giving Gohmert an “‘at a boy,” I decided to check into the nature of the poster. The YouTube post refers those to a blog entitled Inside, Looking Out. It turns out the Inside, Looking Out is a homosexual agenda blog. AND the post was intended to show Gohmert as a homophobic racist rather than as a defender of free speech and Christianity. The blog even writes that that they left out the Biblical Scripture part of the speech to spare his (her or shem) fellow homosexual readers from the horror of anti-homosexual speech.
This was not unexpected regarding that is the agenda of homosexuals. I decided to Google the speech to read or hear a Conservative or Biblical Christian view is a bit more supportive of Gohmert. I was astonished to discover an overwhelming majority of the Google citations represented the anti-Christian Leftist and homosexual position on the Gohmert speech. Hopefully as time proceeds a better Google update will arise.
How far has morality degenerated in America when the defenders of Christian Morality are denigrated as prejudiced racists and the castigators of Christianity are hailed as progressive heroes of normalcy? I see media both written and televised instilling propaganda that it is bigotry to decry homosexuality as an immoral practice and not only should it be allowed but legally protected. I have seen those same media sources castigating Biblical minded Christians as either backwards or arrogant menaces to society.
Friends, this is CRAZY.
For clarity’s sake here is a post of Rep. Gohmert’s position and reasoning for being against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009:
JRH 10/8/09 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
******************************
Hate Crimes Bill Infringes First Amendment Rights
By Rep. Louie Gohmert
04/27/2009
The new Federal Hate Crimes bill, which is about to pass the House, intrudes on First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. It’s another great leap forward on the “gay rights” agenda.
We’ve been sliding down this slope for too long.
When I joined the American Bar Association, I understood it was about making better laws and lawyers. It wasn’t supposed to have a social agenda, left or right. For example, the ABA offered model codes regarding appropriate objectivity and fairness from judges and lawyers that the attorneys in each state were to consider as the most appropriate rules for governing their professional actions.
In the 1980's lawyers with a social agenda began filling the ranks of the ABA. It began to show itself in the resolutions being made and passed. By 1988, the Association adopted a policy urging its members not to hold business or professional functions at clubs that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1989, the ABA adopted a policy of urging the federal government, state governments and local governments to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. I recall seeing in the ABA Journal that states should be encouraged to send more homosexual delegates to the convention around that same time. Also, the ABA passed a controversial resolution in support of keeping abortion legal. Even some members who were pro-choice felt that the ABA was not the place to be pushing social issues. But the bar association had become the place to get social engineering done.
The model code of conduct for judges, called the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, actually was improved in a number of ways by the early 1990's. One of the changes for judges, though, was that "A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice . . ." followed by a list of things most would agree on including "race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age . . ." The laundry list then added a surprise to many in attorneys as it inserted the words "sexual orientation" as well as "socioeconomic status."
This created concern in some circles that the ABA was now into social engineering and trying to move an agenda with vague language that created problems for judges. Some writers following the new model code expressed concern that it would prevent a judge from even mentioning that a lazy, able-bodied defendant being put on probation should get a job and start making something of himself rather than being a burden.
States were pushed to adopt the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct and come out, as the social engineers felt, of the dark ages. Some states' legal elites did not want to be considered intellectually inferior, so they began to give in. Even in Texas, where the Texas Supreme Court decides on such changes to its own code for all judges, the court was mostly composed of quite conservative jurists at the time. However, they too did not want to be accused of intellectual inferiority, so they quickly moved to adopt it. Chief Justice Tom Phillips and Justice Nathan Hecht were both considered very conservative, socially and politically. But, all nine signed on to the new provisions to make it the guiding ethical rule for all state judges in Texas.
When Judge Cynthia Kent and I with other Smith County judges expressed concern to our friend, Justice Hecht, he felt we were over-reacting. I said that this new change will ultimately prevent a child custody judge from considering that one of the spouses practices homosexual conduct in front of the child. He said, "It will never come to mean that on my watch." He was wrong.
As I pointed out then and continue to point out in the hate crimes debate, words have meaning. And although right now "sexual orientation" may be said by some to include only heterosexual and homosexual preferences, someday some judges will begin to say that "sexual orientation" means exactly what it says. It means whatever you are oriented toward sexually cannot be held against you. So, if you are oriented sexually toward children, or toward animals, or corpses, or shoes, or whatever, that's ok. Who are we to judge?
In the Hate Crimes hearings last week, the Democratic proponents made immensely clear they did not want any definition in the bill to restrict its application. It was mentioned during debate that there was a definition of the term in another law that restricted its meaning to heterosexuality and homosexuality, but there was no reference allowed in our bill to that definition, so it does not control the Hate Crimes bill.
We pointed out that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV had at least 30 different types of sexual orientation. Surely, we felt, the majority would allow at least some restriction to keep the new law from being too offensive. So, Steve King offered an amendment to at least exclude pedophiles from the special class of extra protection. However, this was voted down on party lines.
Every Democrat voted against excluding pedophilia from heightened protection, and each Republican voted to exclude pedophiles from any more protection than anyone else in America gets. As I pointed out at the hearing, other types of sexual orientation could be included if the term is given its plain meaning and even listed in the current DSM, including exhibitionism, voyeurism, or even necrophilia.
So far, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have been coerced into basically adopting the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct for judges. Under it, no state judge can say anything about sexual practices without risking grievances being filed and potentially being sanctioned or even removed from office. Iowa is not one of the thirty-seven who adopted it for judges, but they did adopt the prohibition for all lawyers. Since all of the higher level court judges have to be lawyers, the judges are actually governed. And isn’t the single most numerous profession in any legislature in the country the lawyers? What does that tell you about the laws they can make without violating their own cannons of ethics?
The battle in Texas to insert the "sexual orientation" language into the model codes for all attorneys was probably typical of some other states as well. Some lawyers objected to being muzzled permanently, but narrowly the new change passed the vote of the State Bar, thus becoming the rule for attorneys. In debate over whether lawyers’ religious beliefs about sexual orientation should be stymied by the new lawyers’ ethical cannons, a major argument was that the judges had to comply so why shouldn’t the lawyers, too. So the first step was to control the judges; then parlay that to prevent all lawyers from expressing their religious beliefs on sexuality if it differed from those who had overtaken the ABA.
After the model codes for all judges and lawyers prevented them from saying or doing anything to reflect the belief that such conduct was inappropriate, things could move more smoothly for anyone pushing a gay rights agenda. How could it not? Any judge or lawyer who said there were any orientations that were not appropriate risked then be skewered and deemed unethical. Unsuspecting litigants wanting to uphold traditional values of marriage or heterosexuality were walking into courts with the decks completely stacked against them. If a judge supported their position, he was unethical. So, should we be surprised by the judicial holdings in states like tradition-oriented Iowa regarding gay marriage when no lawyer there can ethically claim that homosexuality is inappropriate?
Overlapping that period, there has been a noble fight to finally diminish and defeat unfair prejudice based on race, creed, color, or gender. In that battle, those seeking to overcome unfair racial or gender bias have welcomed help from all sources. As the civil rights advocates were joined by those with a homosexual agenda, they were glad for the company. Homosexual advocates hitched their wagon to the racial and gender civil rights movement and attempted to equate all rights movements. Many of the civil rights warriors were driven by their Christian beliefs that all races should be treated equally as we are equal in God's eyes.
Many of those same ministers have seen societal damage to those who have practiced what the ministers saw as sexual immorality. Those ministers never dreamed that after the homosexual rights proponents arrived on the civil rights platform that those same gay rights advocates would someday turn and say, "Now you ministers have no right to say my homosexual conduct is inappropriate." They had no idea that they would now be muzzled by the same people who rode their movement to the capital.
It was a great honor for me to stand with dozens of African-American ministers who understand what sexual immorality can do to the foundation of a nation. Chuck Colson once pointed out that you cannot demand the morals of Woodstock and not expect a Columbine. The truth is that when a society is guided by "If it feels good, do it," then it is deteriorating into the most base of animal instincts. We leave behind the ability to override base animal instincts for the good of society. Animals do not have the ability to override instincts. They can choose between instincts as to which takes priority, but only humans can choose to override all base instincts including self-preservation, fight or flight, or even sexual instincts for a higher good of those around us. For example, if you are hungry as are strangers around you and you find food, you could choose to share with perfect strangers. Animals cannot set aside all instincts for societal good. Humans can.
Hate crimes legislation may bring an end to the ability to advocate that sexual immorality is unhealthy, as propounded in many religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In the legislation before the Judiciary Committee this week, hate crimes proponents claim that religious objections are specifically protected. The bill says that it does not restrict Constitutionally-protected speech, unless it relates to the underlying offense. But that’s clearly untrue: the underlying offense can be religious teaching or even quotes from religious books. There is no protection for religious speech negatively addresses sexual orientation. That, after all, might induce someone to do something violent.
The hate crimes legislation purports to address only crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code: "Whoever . . . aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" a crime's commission, is punishable just as if he is the principal.
Here is one scenario about which every minister, rabbi, and imam would have to worry. A minister, rabbi, or imam preaches that homosexuality is wrong and leads to the ultimate destruction of moral society. Perhaps one might even quote language in sacred writing saying homosexuality is an "abomination." Then some nut who hears such preaching goes out and shoots a homosexual. When arrested, the mental defective says that the teaching of the minister/rabbi/imam is what "induced" him into committing the act. The minister/rabbi/imam could be argued to have induced the shooter. It raises a fact question that a prosecutor could demand be submitted to the jury at the religious leader's trial.
It also would follow that someone reading scripture that indicates homosexuality is wrong might be attempting to induce a Hate Crime. Criminal attempts can get someone arrested as well. Even if a minister were not convicted, arrests alone have a way of sending chills throughout the religious communities.
Any atheist might say he could care less about the foregoing arguments. But, if he is honest, he cannot disagree with the facts. The facts are that hate crimes are not an epidemic as some claim. There are horrible case scenarios which proponents of the bill say justify federal legislation. One such case is the horrible dragging death in Jasper, Texas. Yet, two of the three defendants in that case received the death penalty under state murder law (not hate crime law), and the third was sentenced to life in prison. No proposed Hate Crimes bill enhances the sentences there.
I, personally, could probably have supported a sentence in that case that allowed the victim's family to choose the method and location by which the defendants would be dragged to death. But, that is not before us in any of the hate crimes proposals, which would do nothing to alter the cases that are most often touted as reasons to have hate crimes legislation. I even offered a death penalty provision for the federal Hate Crimes bill so that would at least be an option in some states that did not have it. That too was voted down in committee on a party line vote.
There was the tragic case of Nicholas West in my home county where the young man was clearly targeted for being a homosexual, was kidnapped, and brutally killed. The defendants were charged with Capital Murder, convicted and have had the death penalty already inflicted. There is no proposed hate crime law anywhere that would have meted out a tougher penalty or had any affect on that case.
FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has declined over the last ten years for which we have available data. The FBI statistics show that the number of crimes alleged (many self-reported) to have involved some type of bias or prejudice in 2007 is actually lower than it was in 1997.
Alleged “hate crimes” comprise a fraction of one per cent of the actual violent crimes in America. There is no epidemic, yet proponents keep saying the evidence is clear that the instances require action. They won’t cite evidence to support their idea, but they will say it is out there and everyone just knows. Instead they constantly site terribly egregious cases in which hate crime legislation would have made no difference.
Every potential victim deserves protection. Every victim deserves help. Who one sleeps with should not be a reason to give that person heightened protection over any other victim. Hate Crime laws do. We even offered amendments to say that if you are determined to set up these special classes of people who deserve more protection than others, let’s include the military in there too. That was voted down on party lines as well. Every Democrat felt it was more important to protect someone because of whom he or she sleeps with than those who protect our very freedoms.
It just seems insane to this former judge that a defendant charged with a federal Hate Crime could literally come into court having committed a heinous attack on someone and his defense could be that he randomly selected his victim. He just wanted to hurt somebody, anybody. Therefore, if he convinced the jury of his random selection for his brutality, he would have to be acquitted of all federal hate crime charges. According to the Hate Crime bill, we just don’t think randomly select victims deserve as much protection.
The bottom-line message of all Hate Crimes legislation is this: If you are going to hurt me, shoot me, brutalize me, but please don't hate me. Make it a random, senseless crime of violence instead. You’ll walk free from the federal charges under the new Hate Crimes bill if you do.
______________________
See Also:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96595
http://www.papastors.net/news/read/247
A few days ago I posted some rather generous (for a Conservative) thoughts about Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing entitled, “Senator Kennedy: What if …?” SlantRight.com is the flagship blog which I post at mostly because my son owns the domain name and he created the site for his Dad – me. I post often at other social blogging networks including a Blogger blog which is a mirror to the flagship.
On some of the social networks I received some pretty harsh language of which some of those utilize very descriptive objections to my generosity. I have attempted to take a stand of not speaking wickedly of the dead even when he was an evil Leftist.
The epithets I read really did not change my mind on Senator Ted Kennedy. As a Christian I thought it better to find something nice to say in this life and that God Almighty would be the Judge in the next life.
I have to tell you though. I was pointed to the Human Life International (HLI) statement release on Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing. The statement was written by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer who is also the organizations President. I actually know little about HLI except that is pro-life and very Roman Catholic.
Fr. Euteneuer actually delivers a very eloquent statement yet also a very harsh statement about the Senator’s passing.
The reasoning utilized by Fr. Euteneuer has me wondering why the heck my thoughts of Ted Kennedy were generous at all. Read the statement.
JRH 8/29/09 (Hat Tip: Jim: Eye of the Culture Wars)
Here is further evidence of the erosive attack on Biblical Christianity: President Barack Hussein Obama has vowed to be a friend of homosexual activism in changing the hearts and minds of Americans from traditional Christian views on homosexuality to the perverse acceptance of the alternate lifestyle. He made the promise to homosexual activists invited to the White House.
JRH 6/30/09
Below are a couple of comments left by Ellie (of Vox social network) concerning one of my many cross posts: “The Immorality of Homosexuality.”
Thank you for the link, I will have a look.
With all due respect, the parades are not proof of anything. It makes me sad (and a bit crazy, to be honest with you) that we liberals and secularists are painted as perverts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I, like many liberals, am pro-military, and pro-authority.
It makes me sick to see thongs in public. I don't want to see people's private parts - whether someone's gay or straight. But gays don't have a monopoly on perversion - not at all. It's the bad stereotype of gay parades that makes all sorts feel free to act like they're porn stars. My gay friends hate it even more than I do. They are perfectly proper citizens.
I'm not touching the Bible - I have no interest in reinterpreting it. I respect other's wishes, I just wish you guys would speak to us liberals before you judge us.
…
Way2K, are you kidding me? Craigslist? That is not a scientifc study.
The article says, "One study says this...and one study says that....". They are not mentioning what studies they refer to. That must be convenient to say the study is out there in the ether but to not actually reference which study it is.
Here is an example of a scientific study:
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men
And to explain why such published studies are important references, here is my favorite scientist discussing evolution vs creationism.
Thank you for listening to me rant, I can't think of a better thing than for our polarized citizens to talk to one another.
So because a person finds some statistics and posts them to a Craig's List link, the statistics are invalid? Hmm...
Besides it was only a cursory Google search that I found this link. I did not realize you were going to use the statistics as a scientific reference. Probably Googling those statistics will lead to the origination.
I do appreciate genial dialogue as opposed to the epithets that I receive for my stand with Christian morality.
Incidentally, contrary to probably most of my fellow Conservatives (and probably a significant portion of my fellow Christian Right brethren) I am not closed minded about many Slanted Left concepts. However, I do filter everything through the Bible as it is viewed via Charismatic, Pentecostal and Word of Faith views. I am also aware that many Christians both toward the Left (i.e. more relativist than Biblical) and toward the Right (intolerant Protestant traditional view points often equated with fundamentalism) would consider me archaic (Left) or heretical (Right). Nonetheless, the Bible is everything for me.
In saying that I have to say there is a good argument for both Socialism and Capitalism in the New Testament:
· Socialism – Acts 2:40-47.
· Capitalism – Matthew 13:44-52; 25:14-29.
I personally could find more of the Scripture supporting Capitalism than Socialism but the point is both concepts are in the New Testament. I also realize that theologians would not view these Scriptures in economic terms; rather the Biblical scholar or student would find the spiritual Truth that is the direct meaning. Nonetheless, the spiritual Truth may be the point; however the principle can be surmised.
There is evil in Socialism. When all the altruistic good of the collective is looked at through who decides what is the greater good for the collective, then abuse begins to occur. Hence Socialism too often leads to godless authoritarian Communism in which the one human (or ruling human group) decides the good for the many.
There is evil in Capitalism. When the individual (or the influential group of wealth) places greedy gain to the detriment of the mass of individuals then people are exploited for the benefit of a few.
The key for either the Socialist Left or the Capitalist Right to be beneficial for humanity is the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Or love humanity as God loved humanity enough to give His one and only Son, that all humanity may have the God-Kind (Zoe) life. I am ashamed to say too many Christians fall short of the Christian ideal which does include me. I do have a tendency to get steamed over social issues like homosexuality and abortion because they definitely are not in line with the Bible. I become so steamed that I sometimes fall into the ditch of harshness.
So Ellie the biggest problem I have with the Left and alternate lifestyles is the anti-Biblical Christian path they tend to take.
Ellie now I will try the “scientific” data to which you refer.
The link to the research of Dr. Simon LeVay is fascinating stuff. LeVay’s hypothalamic studies have led to the speculation of a “gay gene.” LeVay’s thinking seems to be if there is a “gay gene” than the lifestyle of homosexuality is a normal biological part of human life.
It is the old “genetics versus environment” argument with those believing homosexuality developing due to one’s social environment is a learned lifestyle and thus reversible and not normal.
As you can expect the “science” that is in the tank to validate homosexuality has been initially excited about LeVay’s research. And those scientists (although a minority) who are Christian or social traditionalists seem to be big on proving the environmental hypothesis.
When it has looked like LeVay and/or other like minded scientists was very close to identifying a “gay gene” the social traditionalists are quick to point out it has not been proven. (SA this narth.com article) Then someone woke up among the homosexual activists. If homosexual friendly LeVay indeed discovers a “gay gene” proving biology over environment, then heterosexual parents might take advantage with a little genetic social engineering to remove any possibility of a “gay gene” to exist via abortion or other methods. This would effectively bring the modern termination of homosexuals as their so-called genetic brethren (and sistren) would slowly decrease.
Of course the American Psychiatric Association admits there is no “gay gene”. Many on the Right believe this APA reversal was due to regain a better reputation of objectivity. I believe the APA reversal was due to the headaches that genetic engineering would cause for the homosexual community.
Let me end by saying that I do appreciate dialogue without profanity. My experience is that my intransient stand with the Bible irritates the Slanted Left, homosexual activists, the pro-choice crowd and other such ideologies. That is okay as long as the Left understands that their views are often offensive to me. But hey, we all live in America. We all have Constitutional Rights of Free Speech as long as it does not cause immediate harm (e.g. falsely yelling fire in crowded area).
Thanks for your time Ellie.
I am a bit surprised to find this kind of post on the ChristianNewsWire. CNW has published an article that calls for a Christian Revolution to end the influence of Secularism Humanism in the U.S. Government.
The call for the governed to rise up and overthrow the virus of Secular Humanism heavily implanted in the U.S. Government is from Gregory Thompson founder of America ASLEEP kNOw More. Thompson has correctly identified the path that has allowed a Secular Humanistic agenda transform America.
The Despotic Federal Government in the United States has betrayed the people and is not legitimate, causing more grievous injury to the people today, than was caused by the tyrants in England that precipitated the separation and signing of the original Declaration of Independence. …
… A return to Christian principles that are protected by a Constitution with the consent of the people is all that can save our country from total ruin, and Traitorous Tyrants are in place working to keep that from happening. A Communistic Secular Humanism has infiltrated the government, pulpits, education, courts, media, and Hollywood, and it puts our posterity at risk of slavery, death, and eternal damnation.
I basically agree with the tough language Thompson employs here. On the other hand a fighting revolution comparable to what America’s Founding Fathers went through is something Americans could not unite behind. I doubt that America’s Christians that strongly believe in Biblical Morality could even comprehend the thought of Revolution other than through the election process.
Frankly there is a difference between a secular nation abiding by Christian principles in its rule of law and a nation that forces the governed as a Christian nation. Face it Christianity in America is diverse and a Christian national government threatens Freedom of Religious thought and practice. This is not to mention the various religions that have a moral foundation that supports peace above violence or force a Christian moral pattern that may be diverse yet essentially identical to Christianity. I am thinking Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other “isms” other than Christianity. The one “ism” that is contrary to the others is Mohammedanism. Human Beings may have fought in the cause of their belief in Christianity and many of the other religious “isms,” but Mohammedanism’s whole deal is a monolithic take-over by first offering a peaceful conversion followed by force if peace does not work. Mohammedanism is systemically violent and violently intolerant of thought counter to Mohammedanism. This is in Mohammedanism’s so-called holy writings.
Christian Holy Writings and many other religious “isms” rely on the conversion of the conscience to accept the Creator or the other “isms.” (I say other “isms” for I understand that Buddhism or some practitioners of Buddhism do not believe in a personal God/Creator.)
The best revolution for America to get back on track with a moral balance is what many Conservatives fear: a Constitutional Convention. The fear is based on Leftists getting the upper hand at a Constitutional Convention forever abandoning Christian Foundations for Secular Humanism.
I sense a consensus can be built between the Left, the Right and Christians/isms that take the best of the three and abandoning the worst of three. Make no bones about, all three have a bad perception that will infringe on other individuals’ rights.
If no consensus can be found look to a civil war with the winners transforming government to whims as the rule of law while maintaining the illusion of a Federal Republic. The historical parallel may be the Roman Republic transforming into the Roman Empire.
JRH 3/3/09
Pro-Family Groups are mobilizing to publicize McDonald’s extreme support of the deviant moral lifestyle of homosexuals and transgenders. Expect the Mainstream Media (MSM) to ignore the publicity so watch your inbox or mailbox or paid ads (that might slip through the MSM barrier) to join with the majority of normal Americans in exposing the now anti-family values McDonalds.
JRH 7/19/08
HumanEvents.com became the vehicle for a paid ad representing the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and written by Rick Santorum former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. The ad references the May 15, 2008 California State Supreme Court validating homosexual marriage over turning Proposition 22 from the year 2000. That Proposition in 2000 passed with 68% electorate voting to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Santorum’s paid ad is timely since the same State Supreme Court voted unanimously to allow Proposition 8 to remain on the November 2008 ballot that AGAIN defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The thing I learned from the Santorum ad that I was totally unaware of is that the May 15, 2008 4-3 California State Supreme Court also made homosexuality and transgender oriented people the same as a RACE; ergo the majority of Americans that are people of faith (including Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and so on) could be targeted as breaking the law under discrimination statutes when they preach against homosexuality.
Santorum’s ad is simply to mobilize the will of the majority of Americans against wealthy homosexuals who are an extremely low percentage of Americans utilizing their wealth to transform America into a Secular Humanist anti-religious nation that accepts homosexuality and transgenders as normal rather than deviant as defined by most of globes Faiths. (And my readers know I am no fan of the Muslim religion; however at least Muslims recognize that which is deviant and that which normal.)
YOU CAN READ SANTORUM’S MOBILING AD HERE.
JRH 7/18/08
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision struck down a people’s initiative in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Mystically four State Supreme Justices found that California’s State Constitution made the people’s initiative unconstitutional in 2008.
On July 16, 2008 the California Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a homosexual activist challenge of Proposition 8 appearance on the November 2008 ballot. I am betting the Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected rather than appointed (Really it’s a good bet). The unanimity to shoot down the homosexuals in July is in stark contrast to a close decision for the homosexuals in May.
I am betting Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 will pass thus overturning the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in May. And the homosexual activists KNOW IT.
In Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520 the homosexual activists that had big buck homosexual organizations on the legal team (including the ACLU of course) went down in flaming defeat with the unanimous decision.
This is what Christian influenced OneNewsNow.com says about Bennett v. Bowen:
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.
Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.
Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends.
Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.
"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.
The legal Christian perspective is confident Proposition 8 is something the California Supreme Court can’t touch if passed.
Not so fast though, a blog dedicated to legal reasoning has this to say about Bennett v. Brown:
The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex marriage in a landmark ruling in May, has refused to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state's November ballot.
The state's highest court cleared the way on June 16 for state voters to weigh in on a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriage under the state constitution.
On June 20, LGBT-rights advocates asked the state supreme court to block the vote and pull the measure from the ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that can't be curtailed by popular initiative. Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520.
Under the supreme court's May 15 ruling, the court relied on state constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection to allow equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The suit argues that repeal of those rights requires revision of the state constitution, which can only be done by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature, before going to voters.
Same-sex marriages have been taking place throughout the state since June 16, when the original decision became final. If Proposition 8 is approved by voters and same-sex marriage is outlawed, the California Supreme Court is likely to be faced with the legal question of whether the existing same-sex marriages are valid and a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
The one-page order signed by Chief Justice Ron George, denies, without explanation, the request to pull the measure from the ballot. The order was unanimous. (The National Law Journal Legal Pad LA)
The author of this article (Pamela A. Maclean) speculates that the California Supreme Court will again enter the legal fray of difficulties with a passage of Proposition 8. So it might still be the will of the voters versus the will of judicial system.
