|
May
we suggest that you make use of the e-mail to
replace the guestbook to correspond with us?
================================
CALENDAR OF
EVENTS
Events of
2005
For
Events After April of 2005,
Click
Here.
April
27, 2005
IRONICALLY, Senate obstructionists entertain an accusation with
respect to the possibility of changing the filibuster rules to
allow a simple up or down vote for President Bush’s appointees
as (and pay attention to the audacity of such resort)
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
Indeed, can it be possibly to twist and distort this
quotation toward the frustration of the minority elite who by
some bizarre mental gymnastics so as actually to
apply the failure to allow the elite minority to
retain absolute veto power that this elite minority may
continue to thwart the will of the majority? Are they really
suggesting majority rule to be
illegitimate? How dare the majority of Americans to
expect that democracy should be other than an antiquated
whim? Haven’t the
courts made plain that the masses cannot be trusted, that they
must be told what to think and what to do from BIG
BROTHER?
AND moral, spiritual and family values, along with the
notion of sanctity of life, must be banned elements from ever
entering the judicial system.
Do we not further know
that religion, especially Christian values, must be absolutely
purged from every branch of government, the legislative, the
executive and the judicial branches?
We are very keenly conscious that
every Christian group, we mean, every
genuinely Christian group, becomes
targeted with contempt and the object of every avenue possible
to discredit and reduce to a class of subhuman viral
infestation of society.
The judges who espouse Christianity and Christian
values thereby fail that demonic litmus test and must
accordingly be rejected with arrogant resolve and ejected from
the human race with the vilest denunciation humanly
possible!
If we, who adhere to Christianity
and every Christian value, could reproduce ourselves such that
society could radiate that same Christian love, concern and
resolve until, if possible, every person of earth would become
a genuine Christian, locks could safely be removed from doors,
law enforcement officers could be reassigned as servants for
human needs, crime would be nonexistent, and love would bathe
the whole world with such joy that heaven would touch earth
and establish a paradise once again.
We challenge those who propose the
culture of death and license to murder innocent,
unborn babies and a multitude of sordid other practices, to
enumerate all the ills that could emerge from reproducing
themselves universally.
Is not the proof in the finished
product?
Think
about that!
April
24, 2005
A report out of Washington through a news
media suggested that Senator Bill Frist must have recently
found religion.
This ugly implication makes of religion a
kind of profanity
of the most emphatic slur. How dare he bring the
tarnish of those religious bigots to smudge the political
process!
The report elaborates that critics (and note the
condescending arrogance toward any hint of religious
expression) declare this Senate majority leader’s misaligned
influence with social
conservative groups on high-profile issues to
pollute the purity of political
separation.
This news source embellishes their conceited
observation with an absurd charge that Senator Frist plays to
religious groups to influence support for political issues,
perhaps looking for a future presidential race.
Well, all the more
power to Senator Frist!
Anyone who comes up against those who hold contempt for
our forefathers and their acknowledgment of God and the moral
and spiritual fiber of the original
United States of
America clearly comes
against the elite minority who disdains any suggestion that
the political process should have moral and spiritual
character even in the minutest speck whatsoever.
This elite minority blurs the vast difference
between license
and rights
or liberty. Their blatant assault
against Christianity regards the Christian's vital respect and
protection for sanctity of human life exercised in the spirit
of decency and love, terms quite beyond the concept of those
who tenaciously cling to the culture of
death.
If we may kindly
point out to these serpentine forgers of darkness the gross
destitution and twisted mentality of their political
ambitions, we may suggest a single point of reference, a
reference not embedded within the circle of the limited,
finite world of self-centered references, but a true compass
whose needle fixes upon an absolute and sure direction. That reference can
never be less than absolute
truth.
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you
free (John 8:32).”
That can be the only reality which vindicates
and liberates.
This also can be the only reality that provides sure,
confident and secure basis for genuine
unity.
Senator Frist must be allowed to pursue what his
own gage of integrity demands. If he indeed is true
to the reality of family values and sanctity of human life, he has our
support!
April
15, 2005
Reflection on
Senators’ Abuse of the
Filibuster
The outrageous storms in the United
States Senate produced by certain Senators’ contentious
demands to subdue the majority by the rule of the elite
minority via the filibuster effectively destroys the
Constitution’s call for advice and consent
by the Senate on the President’s judicial
nominees.
The nominees, constitutionally entitled to a simple up
or down vote by a simple majority of fifty plus one, are in
the process of being violated by usurp of minority veto
power NEVER GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN ANY
FORM, FASHION OR BY IMPLICATION with respect to judicial
nominees! See ACLJ or
LC.
What really constitutes the basis
of this forthright contempt for the Constitution of the
United
States? Unfortunately, even
through many court decisions the Constitution has been
drifting toward irrelevance in favor of the rule of the
minority elite.
The judicial system has erected its own barriers to
constitutional compliance principally through two
avenues. First,
the courts have at times rewritten the Constitution and called
it interpretation. On the other hand, the
judges themselves have rejected the Constitution at times to
supplant it with so-called world
law (which in itself is tantamount to high treason
in outright rejecting the sovereignty of the
United States of
America).
The dangerous and flawed reasoning of certain Supreme
Court Justices defies the very principles upon which our
nation found existence.
Of course, as with
every nation on earth, our nation retains a relationship with
all other countries, evidenced by treaties, agreements,
etc. However,
none of these relationships dispose the
United
States to surrender
sovereignty and renounce internal control. None of these treaties
dictate the nature of our own political and economical
disposition and philosophical approaches. Should we willingly
bow to “world law” to arrive at judicial interpretation? I think we all know
the answer to that!
Furthermore, we may come to understand
clearly that the few Senators, along with the spirit of some
of the judges within the court system, have a demonic drive to
destroy free speech, especially with respect to Christian
values. The
appointees have been rejected by this elite minority simply
because these appointees by and large adhere to Christian
values. From the
perspective of these minority Senators, no one can be allowed
to think for himself or embrace values that these elite
determine to be at odds with their determination to dictate
what values or system everyone MUST
ESPOUSE.
THE VERY DISTINCTIVE
CHARACTER OF OUR NATION originated by
devout forefathers whose faith in the divine
Being and freedom to express that faith in God set the course
of history with a committed determination that our nation
would never stray from the acknowledgement of their God. Now, we are told that
we must divorce ourselves from that distinct character of our
nation and disown the origin of our country in favor of
the rule of the elite
minority!
Within the scope of this emerging
attitude and disposition, everyone must bow and acknowledge
the new god, the elite minority, or suffer dire
consequences. But
some of us would cry with Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death!”
May we ask a provocative
question? Just
what can be the difference between the rule of these minority
dictators in the Senate and within our courts and the
dictators of Hitler’s
Germany,
or even between the elite minority and the rule of the
terrorists around the world?
April
2, 2005
A Tribute to
Pope John Paul II
Few world leaders have commanded the
respect and impacted the course of events as did Pope John
Paul II. Whether
one would agree with his stance or his ideological pursuits,
most would acknowledge that Pope John Paul II left little
doubt where he stood on issues and values.
Evangelical Christians certainly
found a worthy ally in Pope John Paul II with respect to his
unwavering devotion to and relentless fight for the sanctity
of human life and for family values. His opponents on these
issues could not escape his credible criticism and reproof,
whether they invited his comments or not. Indeed, the Pope never
withdrew from the battle front when it came to the innocence
of the unborn or the privation of families ravaged by divorce,
so-called same-sex marriages, or any number of other ills
sweeping the modern landscape.
We can only hope that the courage
and determination of this departed world leader will live on
in those who take up his battle weapons to continue in his
path. We as
Christians pray that the battle to re-establish and expand a
respect for life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness called for in the
Declaration of Independence will enter a new phase of success
in the spirit of the former Pope John Paul II!
April
1, 2005
Reflection on
Rationale for Decisions
As April 1, 2005, opens a new month, many of
us reflect on the events that shocked us. What rationale
provided the justification for the outrageous, radical and
defiant assault against the heritage of our nation?
Well, the
fountainhead for this renegade explosion in our court system
appears certainly and inexorably bonded to survival of the
fittest and might
makes right power ethics originated
and promoted by Friedrich Nietzsche and Niccolo
Machiavelli.
The courts’
infatuation with their own power and their own insensitive
resort to reducing the population to pawns dispensable in
their own scheme and agendas places the courts’ judges along
side such notorious characters as Adolph Hitler and the
contemporary rise of terrorist themselves, each thriving upon
these power ethics under different guises.
Indeed, the one
common bond between the courts, Hitler’s
Germany and the terrorists themselves may
be easily seen in the arrogant attitude that truly might (power)
unquestionably makes them right. The other
aspect remains equally true. Because each has
bulldozed his way to the top, subduing all who oppose, each is
a survivor, and simply by virtue of that fact, makes each
right in his own eyes.
This analysis
provides us a real basis to understand the origin of the cruel
and unconscionable acts of terror against humanity. In other words, each
can billow, “I make MY decision because I
have the power to do so, no matter who dies, who hurts or what
other consequences may
arise!”
March
31, 2005
Another
Memorial!
Terri Schievo’s
name has been added along with the forty-million plus
babies, most of them nameless, who have been sacrificed upon
the altar of egomania and demonic obsession with the culture
of death. The
curtain has not fallen, nor will these acts of tyranny fade
into oblivion.
The infamous policies of our courts in decisions and
actions resulting in atrocities against humanity in which
destruction of human dignity makes a mockery of the right to
life and snuffs out those lives of
selected groups by arbitrary and senseless prejudicial
decisions can never escape the awareness of decent
and caring people who deeply hurt at the loss of our nation’s
conscience!
May our nation some day return to the
land of the living and cry anew with the shouts of our
forefathers that we indeed have been provided by our Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness!
March
29, 2005
Where do we go
from here?
Beyond abortion, Terri Schievo
and filibustering of appointees by liberal senators, what course need
we or can we pursue?
All these factors have surfaced through
rule of the minority over which the rest of us have no input
or voice in any way.
The courts have all but sealed us into a totalitarian
rule by the elite judges and justices through the assistance
of the filibustering iron fist of a few senators who demand to
cease the democratic process. Thus, the Constitution
of the United
States has suffered a death
blow by the impudent contempt of the few who render it
irrelevant, restrictive
and out of step with their personal agendas.
It’s a very sad time when we as a
people must be forced to bow to the reign of terror and
dictated what we must do and think, how we must bow and resign
to the ideology of the few.
Yet, there’s one thing of which the
Hitlers of our society cannot rob us. We can continue to
pray and work to shed the Light into the dark corners of our
communities in hopes of bringing about a revival that can
purge our country of the anti-constitutional, religiously
hostile and unyielding dictators who oppress us and seek to
make us dance to the alien forces destroying the uniqueness of
our United States which our forefathers
established.
March
20, 2005
Some
Highlights of the Past Week
Terri Schievo:
Efforts in the United States
Congress and elsewhere to save the life of Terri Schievo,
though commendable, have caused howling among the carnivorous
and vicious elements of darkness throughout our
nation.
“It’s a state matter and the state courts
have spoken. The
Republicans use the event as a political ploy to secure the
blessings of the religious right (oh,
there’s that dirty word again). The Constitution
protects state rights.”
Perhaps a little exercise in uncovering
duplicity may be in order here. Were not the states
that advocated segregation a few decades ago allowed to
venture endlessly down the road of non-interference? Huh? Oh, but is Terri
Schievo’s case a little different? What about her
civil rights? Must she be sentenced
to death because she’s in a vegetative state? Wait a minute! She breathes on her
own, expresses emotion (weeps, laughs and shows responsive eye
contact). I guess
some are suggesting we redefine what is meant by vegetative state as
the courts have arbitrarily redefined what life is as applied
to infanticide (so called abortion)!
Anyway, her husband claims that
Terri told him that she would never want to live under the
physical and mental restraints she now finds herself forced by
brain damage to endure.
Two things:
It’s easy to say something that cannot be proven. Second, since
obviously she could not have suggested to him this notion
under her inability to speak while in her present condition,
no one could know her desire as it relates to her present
condition. Even
if she referred to a vegetative state and
actually told her husband much earlier that she would not want
a life support system, such a vegetative state does
not
currently exist for her.
And currently, she has no life support system, only a
feeding tube because of her inability to swallow.
Terri Schievo has become a test case for
this culture of death
terror promoted through our courts. Human life becomes
cheap and expendable.
The lines may be drawn as to the kind of people who
would have any usefulness to survive in our society as
determined by the elite ruling body of our society, the
unelected judges and justices of our court system, vested with
the absolute, unlimited authority and power within our
nation!
Ashley
Smith:
When Brian
Nichols allegedly sprayed the courtroom in
Atlanta
Georgia
with bullets, leaving a judge and others of the court dead, he
fled and managed to evade the police net.
However, he found opportunity to
abduct a young lady by the name of Ashley Smith and held her
captive for hours in her own apartment.
As it turned out, Ashley proved to stand
up well under the duress and pressure of the situation because
of her faith. The
expression of her faith and confidence in the God in Whom she
placed her hope afforded her the courage to share her faith
with Brian Nichols.
She spoke to him of the death of her husband and the
struggles she had gone through. God had sustained her,
but she pleaded for the cause of her daughter, that without
her the daughter would have no one to care for her in the
loving manner she, as her mother, could do.
The man who had apparently killed others
melted and allowed Ashley to go free. Thus, Brian Nichols
surrendered to the police after Ashley called 911.
Quite naturally, we of the religious right see
herein God’s Hand move in the circumstances of difficulty to
forge His purpose.
It bothers us none that the skeptical, snobbish critics
write such an incident as this off as a mere anomaly on the
accidental, random and coincidental conglomerate merging of
events. As
someone has noted quite appropriately, “When one has no god,
the god he doesn’t have becomes his obsession to disprove,
thus making that obsession his own god.” But hatred of the
Christians has become a hallmark of the genuine Christian
movement.
If the world hates you,
you know that it hated Me (Jesus) before it hated you (John
15:18
NKJV).
March
18, 2005
The act of torturous murder has
begun with the removal of the feeding tube from Terri
Schievo, an act of savagery
demanded by the order of Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer. Such legislative
enacting allowing murder by the judicial branch of the
government shows just how far we have come in destroying the
rule by the people through the former power of the
ballot.
We
may certainly wonder, and rightfully so, just what motivates
the sinister contempt for constitutional rights of citizens of
the United
States. How can any bona fide
official of any branch of our government usurp the position to
pronounce the death penalty on a person never convicted of any crime? Do not even criminals
have a greater right, for they have traditionally been given
the guarantee of a trial before sentencing to any kind of
punishment? Does
this mean that innocence places the rest of us at risk? Need we commit
crimes to insure our right not to be singled out for the death
penalty, if and when we find ourselves in circumstances that
judges by arbitration decide to dispose of us?
Indeed,
just what does motivate a judge to snub even Congress with
utter contempt, or ignore the many thousands of Americans who
protest Hitler-like behavior on the part of our courts? Is it really that some
of these defiant, arrogant and subversive judges search for
opportunities to satisfy deeply ingrained sadistic tendencies
such that they gloat in extended suffering of others and find
satanic glee in torture of such victims? Quite true, this
analysis could be a sure way to account for the decisions and
actions of some of the courts. However, should this
conclusion be incorrect, we would be hard pressed to find a
way to account for the rampage against decency and human worth
within our nation.
March
17, 2005
In spite of the fact that a blaze
of desperate moves designed to save the life of Terri Schievo swept
through
Florida’s State
legislature, we may
once more witness the iron fist of the ruling courts to demand
death by starvation.
Yet, the court system which has often ignored the
wishes and the demands of the vast majority of Americans and
has ushered our nation into the post-democratic era may again
snub any efforts of civilized citizens to thwart this rule of
terror in order to move our society back toward decency.
While it can scarcely be a surprise that Terri Schievo
is being sacrificed to support the egomania of the courts and
others involved in the culture of death, we need to show
support for those who wage a war through the legal system in
hopes of controlling the run-away judicial branch of our
government. But
this court system which initiated legalization of infanticide
has long ago showed its true colors. We certainly praise
the minority of judges and justices who have gallantly opposed
this move toward barbarianism.
Of
course, we certainly pray that somehow God will
intervene. While
governments (more accurately, the courts) rule, God can and
sometimes does overrule!
March 5, 2005
Week in
Review
Perhaps this
week has set the tone for much of the year of 2005. At least, court cases
hold center stage in the news, especially news from a
Christian perspective.
Possibility of
protecting the display of the Ten Commandments appears headed
toward a positive conclusion. While
it is far too early to draw absolute conclusions one way or
the other, at least we are encouraged by these early signals
coming from the High Court Justices. (See the ACLJ link
or Liberty
Council for briefs and an update).
Yet, another
matter, one regarding the right to life, has suffered setback
after setback.
Abortion remains a blight upon our society reminiscent
of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi regime. This escalating
culture of death has ruthlessly added another chapter in the
atrocities perpetrated against humanity by disallowing the
right to life for Terri Schievo. To add insult to
injury, her murder by order of the courts follows the torture
chamber method of cruel starvation, not unlike Hitler’s Nazi
Germany!
At best,
indicators this past week have been a mixed basket; however,
we who believe God and are guided by His absolute truth may
pray that His Almighty Hand may intervene.
February, 2005, uncovers a serious
flaw!
A
court decision paves the way for the porn industry to exploit
society with total impunity. This decision has
provided a safe haven for those who otherwise could be
prosecuted for violations on the internet. The court decision
magnifies so-called right of privacy to
the degree that it overshadows every other right and
flagrantly defies reason, constitutional intent and places at
risk every protection established by law.
A
person’s right to
privacy was never intended to legalize criminal activity
under the shield of its boundaries. Quite the contrary,
such privacy had a basic purpose to afford protection of
legitimate pursuits free from interference or intimidation
from government or individual persons or organized hostile
groups.
But illegal
pornography could have never been intended to find protection
from prosecution under the flimsy invention of the
courts!
January 30,
2005
DEFYING THE SKEPTICS: In the spirit of Patrick
Henry, who cried with the voices of the American Statesmen, “Give me
liberty or give me death!”, the Iraqi people braved the
threats of suffering and death to measure the depth of their
desire to have a voice in government and break the chains of
tyranny by flocking to the poles to vote.
This kind of action and this
dedication presents a language foreign to many of the liberal
elements within our country. Absolutely, the
radical liberal language has no tolerance for the vital,
vibrant world of the statesmen who not only elevate truth and
justice, but push the boundaries of human inquiry into realms
of challenging ideas and absolute values.
May we take note to the deprived,
suppressed people as those souls in
Iraq
who know what freedom means to the degree to die for the
privilege!
January 28, 2005
The past few days have produced
definite and aggressive shock waves indicating the
insensitivity and harsh, even radical, dispositions of courts
with respect to the value and dignity of human life. This outgrowth from
our courts’ general departure from Constitutional government
based on democracy uncovers a cruelly treacherous intent
toward disbanding any remaining semblance of democratic
process.
As for example, in the
Cobb
County School
District case, the court
arbitrarily dictated what the staff, teachers and children
are never even allowed to
think.
In South Carolina every notation on the State license
plate can be allowed (such as wild life support,
which is good), but choose life
immediately provokes the most egregious discrimination from
the courts that barely falls short of placing religious
leaders up against the firing squad! And Terri Schievo
becomes a test of total disrespect and disdain for life
that fails to meet whatever standards the courts wish to
demand.
We could go on and on, but the
point has been made.
Many of us felt that the previous election elevated
hope that things would change, but all the devious forces
of hell do not roll over and
play dead. Evil
never ceases to be the outrageous opponent of
truth and
light!!
Just because people of moral fiber helped win
the election does not mean our task has ended. Indeed not. We must never shy away
from our opportunities and responsibilities to beam the light
into the darkest corners of our nation, namely the
courts. Yet, we
still do have some judges who truly identify with
righteousness and justice. May we pray and work
to increase their tribe.
January
24, 2005
A
sad day indeed: The Supreme Court Has
let stand the ruling on the Florida law to
protect the life of Terri Schievo, the lady on feeding
tubes. That law had been
struck down in the appeals process. Again, this
reaffirmation for the culture of death shows how our country
has been forced down the road by the courts toward
obliterating civilization in favor of savagery!
January
17, 2005
Georgia’s
Cobb
County stickers
case has been appealed.
Right now, at least, there remains hope that sense and
reason can prevail over bigoted, arrogant and arbitrary
judge’s ruling.
January 13, 2005
The Bigoted, Arrogant, Arbitrary Assault of
the Court in the Georgia School District
Case
T he
inflammatory decision, destitute of any reasoning or
consideration of relevant facts in the case, ravaged the
airways like a tsunami intent on destroying any semblance of
liberty to express other than what the court
dictates without any authority other than their own
biased, god-role obsession requiring no justification
whatsoever.
It all arose from the school district’s placing a
disclaimer on the textbooks teaching evolution that
were to be used in the schools. The disclaimer simply
stated that evolution would be taught as a theory, not as
established fact. Of course, such a statement would relate to
reality, but the court (under Judge Clarence Cooper) obviously
disdains reality and willingly shows contempt for reasoning.
Too many scientists have in recent years
uncovered significant inconsistencies and problems in the
theory of evolution (Philip Johnson’s two books, Darwin
on Trial and Wedge of Truth, provide a
scientifically reliable look at some of the basic problems in
evolution; also, Lee Strobel’s, Case for a
Creator, gives a reasonable case for the work of the
Creator).
The Georgia case gave ample opportunity for the court to
denounce the school district’s course of action as violation
of the so-called separation of church and state
phantom. However, the court totally ignored the
fact that it observed absolutely no neutrality in the matter.
It simply chose to embrace atheism over creationism, each a
religion. The school had been willing to teach each as theory,
infinitely a more feasible approach than the demented court
would allow. What does the Constitution of the United
States really mean in that Congress shall make no law
respecting religion or the free exercise thereof? Does that
sound like atheism becomes the default religion of our
nation? Evidently, the court cares nothing in
reality about the Constitution; else, it would have shown no
such contempt for the Constitution,
Furthermore, the court refuses to consider other than what
it purposes to believe, no matter who says what or how much
compelling evidence can be presented. The court in this case
assumes the disposition of a spoiled bully slapping everybody
around to get its own slimy way!
Thank God that not every court tries to drag us all into
the stinky, slimy filth of its own self-infatuation.
The Indian Ocean Tragedy: Sadly, the year of 2005 entered the scene amidst
the most devastating catastrophe in the known history of
humanity. More than 150,000 people perished in the tsunami
onslaught in the area of the Indian Ocean.
How and why does such numbers of people perish? Could not
God have prevented this tragedy?
While we do not presume to understand all the ways
God’s hand moves through history, we have every assurance that
He always has a purpose. He is in the business of bringing
good out of evil.
Therefore, we can be drawn to the understanding that the
kind of world we live in here on earth does not represent the
final reason, that God Himself has a better world beyond this
one (Revelation, chapter 21).
Having thus reflected upon this historic event, we may
focus upon a multitude of reasons for this black day, but none
of them can completely restore hope and confidence to all
those who suffered great personal loss. Nevertheless, we may
provide a few handles to gather some direction within
this intrusion.
- Such crashes into human experiences loudly call us to
the God of the universe. It is His communication that we
are not in control. It speaks of God’s unwillingness to
allow us to turn from Him to ways that will bring us to far
greater destruction.
- Such events also reveal the faulty foundation of the
physical world. Our foundation needs to be spiritual in
nature. From a spiritual reality for those who know the
Lord, physical death must only be an instant transitional
move beyond this realm to a far greater world.
- For Christians, God uses events such as the Indian Ocean
area catastrophe to prod us to reach out to people where
they are and seek to minister to them and reach them for
Christ before it is too late.
- This event proves the temporal existence of all things.
Life must one day end. The world will one day be consumed by
fire. For we look for a new heaven and a new earth
(Revelation, chapter 21).
- Such events of this magnitude reflect satanic
influence in the created order. Original Creation had
no dark side. The fall
introduced the created order to death,
suffering, loneliness and every evil within our
world.
These few reasons set forth either a course further away
from God or an opportunity to reach out to God in earnest
prayer and dedication. Our decisions must play a vital role in
how the new year will be shaped and molded.
A Preface to Focus on Events for 2004
We may well indulge ourselves with blinders and allow the
system to run its course. We may seek to hide behind all sorts
of justifications and rationalizations, but the sordid forces
will never grant us immunity. We cannot console
ourselves that somehow we’ll find a haven and retreat into the
security of some corner in which we hope to find solace and
safety.
Hear the wake up call! Issues do not go away. The
forces find no mercy to spare us. Examine the following
Events of
2004 carefully. Consider the statistics
on one important issue that reveals the thunderous threat
pounding at our future. Over many years about seventy percent
of the American people surveyed from time to time strongly
support traditional marriage. An even larger
percent disapprove partial birth abortion. Yet,
who calls the shots? Right. The minority
continues to gain momentum to thrust their philosophy down our
throats, and what blasts the majority just as seriously
roars from decisions by some of our courts that hold
neither accountability nor responsibility for their actions.
Never mind the truth that the vast majority disapprove
strongly, the courts continue to act with impunity to destroy
genuine democracy.
If such facts do not arouse us from our sleep, we must
already be dead, for all practical purposes!
Election Year
Reflections
Thank you for impacting our society by casting your
votes.
Never before in the history of our nation has the very
nature of our society and, yes, even our survival been
determined so much by our votes. We had
been teetering on the brink of becoming a
post
democratic society! Nevertheless, our real work has
just only begun!
The courts have wrested control from the legislative branch
of our government and created laws
rather than interpreting laws according to the United States Constitution.
Although seventy percent to eighty percent of American
citizens, from recent surveys, approve only traditional
marriage, some courts seek to destroy genuine traditional
marriage, cramming down the throats of the American people a
tyranny never before experienced in our nation (see the
Massachusetts black
day).
The only way we have to defend ourselves and correct this
anti-democracy from destroying our country rests in our
elections, for we can change judges through appointment when
we have a decent United States Senate duly elected to
affirm the appointment of good judges.
Events of
2004
Assessment
of 2004
The year 2004 has passed from stage to become history,
leaving a multiplicity of conflicts, contradictions, lapses
and a preponderance of issues and influences too vast to
enumerate. Out of this intrusion of chaotic shock waves
bathing our society almost daily, perhaps the greatest and
most serious threat regards the apathy created by
the credibility
gap
which seems to rob our destiny of security and
hope.
May we even dare reflect upon the occasional favorable
decisions strengthening Christian liberties and family values?
For example, the Supreme Court has declared constitutional a
student’s right to give free expression to his religious
values. He does not shed his rights as soon as he enters the
campus of his school.
We may rightly expect that every public school and every
public institution fall in line with the Supreme Court’s
authoritative decision. But that is not the case! Hundreds of
violations continue to end up in litigation. Efforts to settle
out of court do succeed in many cases where a misunderstanding
of the law can easily be corrected. Yet, there remain a
significant number of public school districts that seek to
exercise control in defiance of every law and create a sense
of Supreme Court irrelevance in the issue. This disposition
smacks of insurrection and anarchy.
November 12, 2004
The Bigoted Bias of the News
Media
By and large, many associated
with the news media not only project a distinct slant in
reporting news but also at the same time handily disparage
every other perspective on events and issues. Yet, we do need
to commend those few members of the media who obviously seek
to give fair and equitable representation to every position on
every event or issue. But at the same time, we should never
fail to address the subterfuge and arrogance of those in
the media who disdain so flagrantly the full light—the
truth alone.
A case in
point:
NBC made a presentation with respect to public
schools receiving pressure to teach evolution as a
theory rather than scientifically based fact, specifically a
school district in Georgia as an example. According to this
NBC report the religious right extremists sought
to give equal consideration to teaching creationism as
a possible alternative theory along side the evolutionary
theory.
NBC
interviewed a
select person who claimed that creationism (or
evidence of design) constituted a breach of
separation of church and state. This same arrogant,
smug proponent had the audacity to call evolution
science and creationism
religion. Evolution cannot be
science any more than the theory that the earth is flat can be
science—each is a theory (see Phillip Johnson’s
Darwin on Trial and Wedge of Truth; also, Lee
Strobel’s Case for a Creator). With all the gaps in the
theory of evolution, much greater faith must be expressed to
believe in preposterous claims that random chance alone could
have given rise to intricate designs and communications
through DNA and the commission through RNA to
establish the excessively complex emergence of highly
intelligent life forms.
Incredibly, not even a whisper
from the highly intelligent religious corner came during the
newscast. Why? Of course, does it not seem rather obvious that
the news media has no interest in considering scholarly
pursuits that undermine their own bias? What else are we to
think?
Furthermore, do we Christians present
such an obscure and unrealistic claim when we suggest that the
philosophical conclusions and fantastic imaginations of the
evolutionists to connect dots that do not lend themselves to
connection reflects a commitment to religious concoctions
rather than genuine scientific pursuits? Indeed, to force
facts into a preconceived scheme in such fashion as to distort
the picture speaks more of religious fervor than scientific
openness!
Therefore, if evolution can be taught
in public schools, why arbitrarily select that religion at the exclusion of all other
religions, including the more
compelling intelligent design theory? …Just thinking and just
curious!
November 2,
2004
Congratulations to those who won in the
2004 elections! We expect great advancements in FAMILY
VALUES and PRO-LIFE
ISSUES! May God bless your efforts toward
those ends.
October 16, 2004
The Cry of a Con
Artist
We do not generally point out
candidates and their issues, but we do not hesitate to
deal with issues no matter where the ball
bounces.
However,
I, personally, (and I feel that I could almost use the word
we) cannot turn my head the other
way and blur the reality of utter deception and callused,
flagrant, brazen and arrogant flaunting and malicious
misrepresentation of the Constitution of the United States as
to rant "Pro-choice [pro-murder] is a
constitutional right."
No one has ever been able to
show me any provision, amendment or implication anywhere
within the total Constitution of the United States that comes
anywhere nearly close to being the slightest hint that such
could possibly be the case! I dare challenge any nitwit who
makes such a claim that the Constitution of the
United States declares a mother’s right to murder her
child, born or unborn, to point it out to
me.
Right. I know. I am one of
those right wing radical Christians who believes there
remains such as right and truth. I will never bow to the
satanic demands to acknowledge that it can ever be deemed
right (or even necessary) to destroy another human being to
pad the arrogant demands of women to exercise authority over
life or death of a child.
Oh, I am well aware of the flimsy reference to the
right to privacy claim underlying the audacious
abuse of terminology to suggest a right to torture and
murder for the mother. Why, under that ridiculous
invention would fall all sorts of atrocities. Murder of a
police officer, robbing of a bank, indulgence in controlled
substance abuse could just as easily find a case on the merits
of privacy. Within the Constitution of the United States
privacy has never been declared a haven to commit
criminal acts.
Another tragedy equally as severe
regards Senator Edward Kennedy’s notorious arrogance to
initiate his flimsy, malicious and destructive litigation to
rewrite the
Constitution of the United States with respect to the
President’s constitutionally granted right to make recess
appointments. The most dangerous aspect of this brazen attempt
is not so much that it happened but that it even
can happen! Where total
contempt for respect and honor toward the Constitution of the
United States discredits its relevance and very existence, we
find ourselves in grave danger of complete disintegration as a
nation.
Thank you for joining with
us to vote many of these audacious con artists and proponents
of evil from the public
arena!
October 5, 2004
Death Rattles of a
Democracy!
The Supreme Court refused Monday to review a ruling that
forces some California religious organizations to pay for
workers' contraceptive health insurance benefits in violation
of their sincerely held religious convictions.
Does religion operate by license—license of the United
States Supreme Court to overrule the convictions and practices
of religion? Obviously, the courts have determined that they
have the authority above religious liberty established by our
forefathers. Are we next to be required to fall down on
our faces and worship this shrine vested with almighty power?
Moreover, even the claim to the death of our democracy
finds strong supporting evidence in Judge William
Morvant’s striking down what 78% of the citizens of Louisiana
voted to define marriage as only between one man and one
woman. If the
courts have usurped the role to micromanage our lives and take
away our voices, what sense does it make to vote anymore?
Indeed, the future
begins to look quite hopeless and dismal. It appears that the
America we knew has been disdained and courts seek to flush it
down the drain!
May we pray for a bloodless revolution to rein in the
out-of-control court system (see How Did Our
Courts Get This Way?). The only way to do this
bloodless revolution can be found in appointment of decent and
caring Judges and Justices by the President and approved by
the Senate. Thus, thank you for electing many who
can make the difference during this crucial
time!
September 11, 2004
Have we too soon
forgotten?
We come to reflect on 911 and place into perspective
that very defining moment in American history. Yet, the
question looms unavoidably in the minds of those patriotic
souls who respectfully recall the horror, the numbness and the
struggle to cope with the growing realization of the tragedy:
Have we too soon forgotten?
Oh, everyone readily admits the fact of the event.
But many have neatly filed it away as a remote fog of bygone
days. Comparatively few Americans were directly touched by the
event, though at the time most of us felt outrage that such
grossly evil acts could have afflicted our nation and our
sanctity, perhaps more aghast that such senseles murders
could happen than that they actually did
happen. Most of us even sensed the pain of those who
suffered loss.
Notwithstanding, hoards of propagandists, politically
motivated inventors and others who despise our American values
have ganged to create a sense that the United States
itself caused the attacks. Many of us have caught wind
that places almost full responsibility for the attacks against
us on America’s failure to appease the terrorists and
leave them alone (though the word appease was never
used, the meaning of their accusations remains
clear).
Even so, by and large, the majority of us who support
genuine, constitutional Americanism have failed to exercise
our responsibility to make our voices heard in the maze of
claims and counterclaims by a relatively small minority. We
have allowed this radical minority to blister conservative
values in a relentless attempt to undermine our country.
Therefore, as we reflect on the aftermath of that tragedy,
may we more than ever value and appreciate those military
forces who place their lives on line abroad to protect our
homeland, to secure our America against a repeat of 911.
Freedom is valuable, but never cheap. Even one life lost
in that horrible war can never be replaced. Yet, many of those
who sacrifice themselves value freedom more than life
itself.
May God move the darkness from our nation and bless us. May
God bless America.
August 26,
2004
Another Nail in the
Coffin!
We had attached much hope to the sensitivity Judge Richard
Casey in New York appeared to have shown toward the plight of
the partially born infant. However, in the light of his
betrayal of confidence through his heartless decision to
sacrifice the child’s rights, we can scarcely repress our
wonder about his integrity.
The line concerning the risk to women rests
on very shaky ground. No compelling evidence that any person’s
life or welfare can be at risk from the perspective of the
medical profession at that stage of pregnancy adds greater
indictment to the radical resort to declare partial birth
abortion a protected right.
But how about the emotional affliction to the pregnant
woman? Would that per se not be a health risk? Under the
conditions set forth, that must be a vital consideration.
Hence, the ban would mean nothing, for that claim can cover
any and every partial birth abortion whatsoever. Is not
the child’s suffering and death to have no weight at all? The
inconvenience and discomfort of the pregnant woman can be a
small price to pay for the life and welfare of the child, can
it not?
Obviously Judge Casey threw out his former considerations
and compromised all his sensitivity to appease
the feminist’s demand to retain their positions as gods and
continue to flaunt their authority by exercising the choice to
end the lives of their unborn children.
We may make a prediction: Judge Casey, as well as all other
judges and agencies who smugly dictate the license to murder
the unborn, will one day hear the haunting echo of wails
rising from the tortured unborn children; i.e., if any
semblance of conscience remains in their callused, unyielding
hearts, they will!
Should this assessment seem unusually harsh,
be assured we stand ready to receive correction. We
challenge anyone to set us straight. Nothing would please us
greater than to determine that we had inadequate information
or misinformation. Should that be the case, perhaps we do
have a glimmer of hope after all!
However, we base our conclusions on the best light that we
do have. We do feel justified to extricate ourselves based
upon what light presents itself. Hopefully, such information
will spur decent and honest people to pray
earnestly and band together to oppose the darkness seeking to
destroy all light within our nation.
July 14, 2004
A Message to Congress
May we pause a moment to remove our hats to the gallant
warriors who stood steadfastly for the survival of our
society, those uncompromising congresspersons who defended the
foundation of our society by supporting to the very end the
case for a marriage amendment.
Yet, too many succumbed to forces bent on bringing the dark
ages into realization within our nation, to cast aside the
glue that binds society together and provides decency and
honor. Now, these bigoted, arrogant and defiant traitors gloat
in their triumph in forcing our society toward the
beastly, unstable anarchy ready to sweep viciously across the
landscape. Civilization has started its degeneration into the
abyss of that chaos which mocks with contempt the liberties
and structure that we have taken for granted too long. Only
those who value the darkness of forced, unnatural and
beastly sexuality and who show disdain for the bonds of
marriage delude themselves that such will spell liberty
to act irresponsibly without restraints and with impunity.
Over the years polls have consistently revealed that about
seventy percent of all Americans reject the idea of marriage
being defined to include other than one man and one woman
(husband and wife).
It matters little to some of these senators that the
majority would desire and benefit from the continued
security of the home our nation held dear ever
since the founding fathers promoted home values. To
these smug and arrogant legislative warlords, it may seem a
time to gloat over the destruction of the home, marriage and
society to open a wide range of beastly sexuality with
bogus marriage licenses, but the time of harvest is yet to
come!
When our society falls completely apart, the time for
remedy will have faded into futility!!!!
HOPEFULLY , this will
not be the final word, but no thanks to those
who seek to make our efforts impossible. We should be all the
more inflamed to fight for truth, righteousness, justice and
the constitutional government representative of the
genuine
United States of America founded by our
forefathers.
Indeed, what has happened in the Senate and our court
systems has prompted many of us to qualify
ourselves when we declare ourselves to be
true
Americans. We must
distinguish ourselves from the
one-hundred-and-eighty-degree turn around from what our
forefathers founded. We must specify that we are Americans of
the original Constitutional
America. We can never in good conscience identify with
the blatant traitors of our genuine America.
May we pray earnestly for the restoration of our country
once more to embrace high principles and dedicated integrity
such that we again become a nation of the people, by the
people and for the people.
[Some would spring to defense of those who bitterly assault
family values on the pretext of tolerance for all
groups. Do
they not have a right to express their own views?
We seek to address this
concern under the topic We Fight for
Everyone’s Right to Speak.]
June 28, 2004
The majority of Justices on the Supreme Court elevated
terrorists to a status placing at high risk the very security
of our nation. So-called rights of terrorists that diminish
the right of our society to survive scorn our liberties by
dumping into the laps of the courts every terrorist who wishes
to destroy us such that now they possess power to
short-circuit our very judicial system to promote their sordid
ends.
Ironically, the High Court offered a laughable, transparent
and utterly senseless pretext to neutralize the executive
branch of government, declaring that even during time of war
the President must not be given a blank check
that could be used to abuse detainees and suspects.
By the way, speaking of blank checks, who
actually has the blank check? Does not the High
Court itself have the only blank check? Who controls
absolutely with accountability and responsibility to no
one—not even to the Constitution of the United States, as we
have seen so frequently and flagrantly demonstrated during the
times the Constitution has been ignored or misconstrued?
But does the President actually have a blank check? Is he
not and has he not always been accountable to Congress
(they hold the purse strings!) and to the voters
who place him in office? We can never say that about the
Supreme Court, can we?
We could laugh about this fierce farce if it were not so
very devastating and gravely irreparable!
Indeed, the High Court can pick and choose its agenda
divorced from all principles, restraints, constitutional
basis, even the will of the overwhelming majority of
American people. The people cannot be amiss to demand
what grounds the High Court acts upon. Can there be any way to
amend the gross miscarriage of justice open to the whims of
the majority of the Justices? Is it even possible
to act in some way to change the nature of the Supreme
Court?
To wit, the High Court displays an arrogance and smug
posture defiant of all the peons under its absolute and
insulated tyranny, for the majority of Justices often tell
others what to think, what to do, what to embrace by
philosophical and politically predigested and stamped images
of themselves. After all, the peons have not the expertise of
the Justices and must be spoon-fed. In the scheme of the High
Court’s view, democracy, genuine democracy, must never be
allowed to flourish. The voice of the people must be quelled
in favor of the rule of the perceived expertise of the High
Court.
Hence, the Supreme Court in its present structure and
disposition has no vulnerability. Since the Justices are
appointed for life, it would take a generation of replacement
by persons of the highest, noblest character and decent
disposition with a focus on genuine
constitutional government
to correct the tragedy of the current High Court’s tyranny.
This can be the only recourse short of a violent insurrection.
June 13, 2004
A Tribute to Our Fortieth
President,
Ronald Reagon
Whether we all agree with his political perspective or not
(and many of us did), President Reagon’s life and devotion to
his God, family and his country commands honor and respect. He
left little doubt with reference to his allegiance to God,
family and country, which, unfortunately, cannot be said
in all honesty about some of our leaders.
We are fortunate to have people like President Reagon who
courageously uphold family, national and religious values. Our
country would be much better to have more such uncompromising
soldiers of righteousness, justice and dignity to serve the
ends of our nation in the spirit of our
forefathers.
June 2, 2004
But it has happened to them according to the true proverb:
"A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed,
to her wallowing in the mire."
II Peter 2:22
(NKJV)
By declaring flagrantly that the pain of the partial
birth infant to be irrelevant in partial birth
abortions, the judge in California trivialized the human race.
Then, why should we be surprised? Consider the Scripture
introducing this action.
Do we show contempt for the judge? While many of us
respect the office of judgeship, most of us would never
apologize in the least and go even further to show much more
than contempt! That decision reflects horrendous abuse of that
position in exuding slime upon decency and humane
compassion, to throw away any human segment of society for the
gory gratification of sadistic women willing to
allow unthinkable mutilation of their babies.
Destitution of conscience and moral fabric can never be a
point of tolerance, much less approval. The distance that
separates our nation from Hitler’s Germany and the atrocities
promoted there has obviously vanished in the minds of some
judges, including the judge in California who incorporated
some of the same brutal philosophies in that infamous
decision. Our forefathers would turn over in their graves to
be aware of that demonic twist in a so-called democracy! And
to add insult to injury is to declare arbitrarily without the
least, even flimsy, reason, that the partial birth abortion
ban to be
unconstitutional.
Beg tell us, what alien constitution of some distant galaxy
sporting savagery did the so-called judge refer to?
It’s sad to have dogs in the office of judgeship, is it
not? Most of us do not call them dogs, but the Bible already
has, and some judges move heaven and earth to prove they are
no more than that. This does not in any wise discredit the
role of decent and honorable judges, but it does say something
with respect to the depths our nation can fall.
Neither do most of us personally imply that we detest the
judge in California, but we more than detest that decision
against humanity. We can show compassion even upon a hostile,
belligerent and bigoted judge, deeply desiring that such a
person would cease closing out all light and cease clinging to
the arrogant, intransigent and untenable position that
promotes the culture of death.
Even more than that, many of us grieve for all the innocent
babies who must be sacrificed upon the altar of egotistical
mania to promote the power struggle to defy Christian values
and create an illusion of liberty in so doing.
Unfathomable, the declaration that pain is irrelevant
applied universally
across the board would relieve any accountability and
responsibility for using cruel and inhumane punishment
of prisoners. Pain becomes a major consideration there.
Yet, this judge in California has limited the so-called
irrelevance of pain only to the infant child,
making a bigoted, class-action judgment which defies the rules
of justice and fairness! The child did not choose to come into
this world, but the mother and her partner (or husband)
definitely had choices in the matter. Why should the mother’s
liberty go beyond the boundaries to eradicate any and all
rights of the infant child? The so-called legal definition of
life flies in the face of scientific and logical
reasoning. As Hitler did with the Jews, the High Court
declared the unborn child to be a non-entity
in Roe vs. Wade. That legal definition
is born out of bigoted intolerance of truth to please the
whims of women who don’t wish to be fettered by the very
normal and natural role they came into the world to fulfill.
Thankfully, such radical extremists as those women who
insist on the option to choose partial birth abortion
constitute only a minute percentage of women in our
society. Yet, even that number remains far too many and
does wield a powerful influence on our courts. This kind
of radical influence shows that people have
become the only creatures on the face of the earth which
defy the natural and decent order and thus prove themselves
totally accountable for savagery.
May 17, 2004
This black day in
infamy has the
potential to initiate devastation far greater than the sum
total of all wars, including the war on terrorism and
9/11 to our nation and ultimately to our
world!
The Massachusetts legislators and people
have been repressed and forced to accept the bogus, absolutely
unconstitutional, dictates of four so-called justices
on the State Supreme Court to issue invalid marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. Although the court redefined
marriage (over-stepping its bounds and usurping the
legislative authority to redefine marriage), every recourse to
stay the heavy hand of the tyrannical judicial rule failed.
Indeed, the efforts to affect a stay lacked no
legitimate and constitutional
clout, but the judicial systems (including the Supreme Court
of the United States that refused a stay) belligerently and
arbitrarily dismissed constitutional objections and separation of powers
concerns and defiantly forged
their own illegitimate agenda.
The ramifications of this obliteration of marriage
from the traditional and biblical perspective seem endless.
When marriage is redefined, this precedence effectively
destroys any definition of marriage. The
right to polygamy will rise to demand legal
recognition, one man with more than one wife. Then, women will
demand the right to more than one husband.
Beyond that, the demand for any combination of
mixtures (such as one man with several wives and among
the wives, one or more wives with more than one husband) would
surface. Then, to show the absurd extent, same sex couples
could extend to include any combination, with other same sex
partners, or other partners included from the opposite
sex.
It takes no genius to conclude that the boundaries of the
home would fade into obscurity, leaving responsibilities and
accountability for family roles, duties toward offspring, etc.
in the clutches of ambiguity (see Open Letter to
ABC). Total chaos and anarchy could easily sweep
our nation, effectively destroying our society.
BUT WHERE DO CHRISTIANS GO FROM
HERE?
While the breach appears absolutely impossible to reverse,
we as Christians do not meet with defeat.
True, our liberties have been shattered, with an impetus
toward persecution beyond imagination. True, also, we may
never again in our country enjoy many of the latitudes in
worship, witness and services we have heretofore taken for
granted. Many added restrictions on religious expression seem
inevitable in the light of the hostilities leading to the
ominous, infamous and dastardly court actions and decisions.
Especially with the court's flagrant trashing of our United
States Constitution, as well as the Constitution of
Massachusetts, and the arrogant repudiation of our forefathers
and the contempt for the foundation of our democracy, the
future seems bleak indeed.
However, we may well take comfort in what one of my
colleagues, the late Dr. George Jones, used to say a number of
years ago, "Governments rule, but God overrules!" Certainly we
as devotees of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords and
the King of kings, take comfort, even in persecution, knowing
that His grace is sufficient and that His Kingdom will come.
We may lose more than a few battles, but He will win
our war in due season.
May 10,
2004
The International Red Cross released a report alleging that
widespread abuse has been noted in Iraq and earlier reported
to officials.
Certainly, any genuine abuse should definitely be exposed
and dealt with very promptly.
However, some of us feel very cautious about accepting
without question every recorded abuse the International Red
Cross brings to the world. Consider this, for example,
interpretation of situations and treatment
reported by some of the members of the
International Red Cross who reflect alignment with those
hostile to our country especially and some hostile to a number
of our allies arouse in us questions of credibility.
Many of us feel that psychological stress inflicted
upon the minds of certain known terrorists or hostile
extremists may have truly been necessary. Such procedure could
have served the purpose of extracting vital information that
could save many lives of both Iraqi people and the coalition
forces! In that light, that treatment of the terrorists could
have become, not only justified, but also by decency
demanded to protect those lives and property.
This must never be considered that we whitewash or cover up
any procedures whatsoever. Some things, such as the photos
revealed, could never be justified. However, to distort
reporting and draw unwarranted conclusions with the intention
of undermining the role of the coalition can be no less than
exercising terror tactics through willful and damaging
actions which could result in the eventual loss of many more
lives and destruction of much more property!
What we seek to establish is absolute and
complete truth, no more, no less. Let the truth
be known no matter who or what may fall because of that truth,
but never let us be blinded by those who have an agenda to
promote and seek the destruction of our nation!
However, to interpret abuse of prisoners as the
slightest deviation from absolutely ideal environment,
embellished with all imaginable amenities and hospitality,
etc. would create a sense of added rewards for the terror and
insult those continuing to struggle to liberate Iraq from
terror. It would also rob the intelligence efforts to place
pressure on the terrorists to cooperate in providing
information helpful in saving lives and property.
On the other hand, should wide spread genuine abuses
be uncovered, such unimaginable tragedy must also be
addressed in the harshest of terms and actions. Could
such widespread abuses be confirmed, many of us would be
disillusioned at the underlying strong educational bases
for relativism creating even greater havoc than could have
ever been in the very least expected.
Either way, let the complete, unqualified
truth prevail! And God have mercy on us who become
victimized by the system leading to such dastardly departure
from the principles of our forefathers.
May 2, 2004
An abomination of incomparable measure
reported from Baghdad involving despicable treatment of
prisoners of war by (of all people) the Americans,
shocked the people in the United States perhaps more than any
other nation. Could it be that these specific so-called
Americans who resorted to some of Iraq’s former
regime tactics sought to sell out our country and its
values? Even if the soldiers thought their
crimes would never be discovered, what they did was
unthinkable. Yet, to top it all, they surely knew the
high risk their crime could impact and endanger many
lives of the Iraqi citizens and lives of the
coalition. The discovery of the prisoner
treatment certainly placed many lives at risk by
displaying for the world an image of the United States as a
tyrant in war-time situations. We decent Americans can
scarcely imagine such malicious and brutal behavior,
especially among our soldiers!
Only that tiny handful of soldiers were sufficient to drag
all others of the coalition forces into suspicion, no matter
how impeccable and dedicated most of the others probably have
always been! Such a credibility gap will take a long time to
bridge.
Much of the world stood by and cared
little what the Iraqi tyrants did to their own prisoners and
to their people before the coalotion moved into Iraq. But
let the Americans be guilty of some of those tactics
and, behold, shocking! Intolerable! Reprehensible! And on and
on.
To be sure, what the American military
personnel did in such a case may
truly be described as that and, without doubt, even
more. Emphatically, these brutal soldiers should be
prosecuted to the fullest possible measure of the law. They
sold out our country and supported our enemies in the process.
But does American action need to
be abhorred infinitely more than what the former Iraqi regime
did to their very own people and to their prisoners to a far
greater degree? Did they not even go further to include
greater torture and murder?
Surely, we as Americans here detest
what those American soldiers did. Just because the Iraqi's
engaged those tactics can never excuse what the American
soldiers did. On the other hand, why are many
in the world willing to allow the former Iraqi tyranny to get
off the hook, but turn on the Americans with red hot anger for
what only a small fraction of
them did? Is not
that a duplicitous and bigoted disposition? Such outcry
by the hostile countries of the world provides a classic
example of blatant hypocrisy, does it
not?
May we take stock of events. Do we not
see how our nation has begun to unravel? How could this have happened? What can be the
root of this trauma?
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man
sows, that he will also
reap.
–Galatians 6:7 (NKJV)
Paul hits the nail on the head. How far
we have dared come in our defiance of God within our own
nation! The courts have often sought to remove any reminders
of Him from our landscape. Through court actions God has been
relegated to irrelevance! Many times political or
governmental decisions cannot give expression to the
convictions of our forefathers with respect to doing anything
which could remotely be associated with religion. Religion
must be kept secluded within the homes or the private domain
or simply personal thought processes that should never be
given public expression, except in restricted and designed
fashion.
We may think to ourselves, "it isn’t
quite that bad yet!" Perhaps not fully yet, and let us
hope it will never be completely realized. However, such seed
has begun to sprout and will sooner or later be affirmed by
the courts, unless a change in direction takes
place.
Consequently, have we not begun to
realize the movement of God by His allowing us to be defeated
from within? In all likelihood what happened in Iraqi
would have never taken place had we as a nation fought
under the banner of our forefathers and acknowledged the
source of our genuine strength, God Almighty
Himself!
Is not this something to think
about?
April 25, 2004
Word from Massachusetts that
justices of the peace and all other officials who
refuse to keep the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
must resign!
Does it not seem to us very ludicrous
at the audacity and arrogance flaunted by the demand to
keep the law or resign?
What law, indeed? Does this not refer
to illegitimate legislation of the Massachusetts Supreme
Court? Isn’t this so-called law
really a bogus law?
Gives us something to think about, does it
not?
April 20, 2004
Coup d’e tat!
"If we
fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we
will eventually live under judicial
tyranny." - Patrick Henry
April 20, 2004: Highly disturbing
news sifting from the Supreme Court suggests a
strong tendency to place the final nail into the coffin of our
democracy. The court is deciding whether effectively to ban
the office of the President through reducing it to a mere
perfunctory office without any significant authority. The
President, according to the Constitution of the United States,
has a duty and right to protect our nation through executive
orders and actions during time of war.
But what serves as a great danger before the
Supreme Court regards arbitrary violation of the Separation of
Powers to rob the President’s authority to hold detainees as
combatants, to make the Executive branch of our government
subservient to the Supreme Court (see the story
at ACLJ Website).
The courts of our country have already been moving
toward assuming legislative authority to supplant also the
legislative branch of our government (see what happened in
Massachusetts with respect to the redefinition
of marriage). In such manner the
courts have also been moving toward making the
legislative branch of government as irrelevant as they now
seem inclined to do with the executive branch.
Should the Supreme Court majority Justices continue
their leaning effectively to decide against the executive
branch of our government regarding the President’s position
and duties in this war on terrorism, that decision alone would
have disastrous consequences. It would effectively reverse
what the Constitution grants by way of Separation of
Powers. Then, our government would have all power vested
in the judicial branch alone. In the early history of
our nation such decision would without doubt been considered
an outright coup.
If this decision of the Supreme Court does go
against the Constitutional Separation of Powers,
we’ll move into the era of total and unquestionable judicial
tyranny, under the sole dictatorial powers of the courts.
Personally, in my opinion, such a dastardly,
unconstitutional, unconscionable act would have in our early
history been considered no less than high treason. As I personally see it,
there can be no justification for effectively destroying our
legislative and executive branches of our government to create
sole judicial rule.
Some of the Justices of the Supreme Court have set forth a
very weak argument; that is, the decisions and actions of the
executive branch, specifically the President and decisions
related to war and the detainees, should fall under the
scrutiny of the courts. Such a role for the courts would serve
to keep check on actions and procedures that could conceivably
curtail the rights of those combatants and other war captives
incarcerated during time of war.
This unsubstantiated claim has absolutely no credibility
whatsoever! Checks and balances have already been built into
the system. Consider the Congress of the Unite States of
America. They must support and be in agreement. They hold the
purse strings and could effectively refuse to finance war,
should questions concerning crimes against humanity come into
play. Beyond that, the voters hold power to express
disapproval through election decisions.
Conversely, the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court,
have no accountability to the voters. Their arbitrary
decisions have no recourse with the voters. They desire to
rule and to overrule the voters’ rights and to slap the
citizens with judicial rule that goes totally against the
majority of voters. They effectively kill the democratic
process by such decisions.
In addition, Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of
terrorists incarcerated during the war by granted them inroads
to place our nation at great risk, we as citizens have no way
of defending ourselves. Terrorists gaining hearing before the
courts could possibly be released (sometimes on a flimsy
technicality) to take up arms once more against us or to
become suicide bombers within our nation! In addition, the
courts could effective kill war efforts to protect our
nation.
How could our nation have ever come to this
all-pervasive crisis (see How did our
courts get this way?)? Thomas Jefferson’s
reservation with respect to the Supreme Court’s lack of
adequate checks and balances appears to have been a legitimate
concern in the light of our courts today. Just to review: The
Supreme Court constitutionally owes its allegiance to uphold
the Constitution of the United States. However, many of the
decisions of that high court evade the United States
Constitution through the trap door called
interpretation or brazenly defy such allegiance and
refer to world law, thereby effectively surrendering
the sovereignty of our nation to the phantom world
government.
By way of semantics, interpretation will
mean anything the majority in the court decide that fits into
their own agenda. Who is to tell them that they rewrite parts
of the United States Constitution and call such
interpretation? They cannot be held accountable to
anyone, for they are the final word!
Someone has noted that power corrupts and
ultimate power
corrupts ultimately!
"Take all the robes of all the good
judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth, and they
would not be large enough to cover the iniquities of one
corrupt judge." - Henry Ward Beecher (1887)
The same observation may be made with respect to
the court’s defying outright and altogether the United States
Constitution by referring to world law. Who is to tell
them what they can and cannot do?
Moreover, what about collateral fallout beyond the
immediate change in our national form of government from a
democracy to a judicial tyranny?
Let us reflect upon some of the rigid complications
possibly leading to chaos. Think of the courts having the role
of micromanaging the war, deciding what crimes may have been
committed in our armed forces' defense of themselves resulting
in accidental death of innocent civilians. Think of having to
clear the courts even before going into each battle or
the courts having to grant permission to strike back when we
are attacked by another nation or group. Think of cases moving
at a snail’s pace through an overcrowded court system and
often appealed to higher courts along the way. Visualize the
masses of criminals and other litigation cases having to wait
for years to be decided. Imagine the cost to the taxpayers. We
could go on and on.
But now let us see how this Supreme Court decision in favor
of the detainees can become a mighty weapon in the hands of
terrorists that could be of greater destructive power than
nuclear weapons. These terrorists have trained for such an
opportunity and could make optimal use of such occasions.
Do we not understand that our very survival as a people
and a nation is at risk?
"We have long suffered under base
prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the
imbecility of another." - Thomas Jefferson (To Governor Tyler,
May 26, 1810).
Nevertheless, thank God for some of the Supreme
Court’s decisions that have at times put on the breaks a bit
down the slopes toward total reign of terror. And thank
God for the minority who have continued to hold to truth in
spite of the corruption in the ranks. But now is the crucial
moment of decision. Let us bring the whole matter to the Lord
in prayer.
Every decent, caring American should pray for the
intervention of the Almighty so that such a decision from the
Supreme Court would become a favorable one to sustain our
national constitutional integrity and grant the survivability
of our country as we know
it.
February 25, 2004
In a crucial and
overwhelming 7 to 2 decision the Supreme Court, with only
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting,
allowed absolute
discrimination against religion. Joshua Davis
regrettably lost his appeal that ended in the infamous
discriminatory action against religious
pursuits.
Joshua Davis had
been awarded the scholarship grant along with other qualified
students in the state of Washington, but Joshua Davis had his
scholarship revoked because he decided to pursue theological
courses in preparation for the ministry.
Allow us to focus on
this transparent segregation of all
religious-orientated students from the ranks of all other
students who have received their government scholarships to
pursue anything else under the sun. Does this not arbitrarily
attach a stigma to
religious students seeking to study in their field of choice,
religion? What does separation
of church and state have to do with it? Does that
become a pretext to remove religion from exercising any kind
of public or political influence? Jefferson and others who
used the notion of separation of church
and state held firmly that the state had
no right to abridge the free exercise of religion,
and definitely did not support purging religious pursuits from
any possible influence upon our nation or upon
governments.
What does this
do to the principle of an equal and level playing field in the
promotion of diversified ideas and
beliefs?
The court obviously made religion an
off-limits consideration. If the same criterion were applied
across the board for all scholarships, no ideas, no
institutions, no philosophical approaches could be allowed
expression, for such would employ the spending of tax payer’s
money, which could be viewed to establish government support
for those ideas.
Since many different religious
pursuits can be initiated under the umbrella of religion,
how can the use of tax funds be construed to establish a
violation of the principle that the government cannot support
only one expression of religion, unless qualified to include
only
the Baptists, Muslims, or Catholics, etc.? PLEASE, TELL
US; WE’RE WAITING FOR AN ANSWER!
To their endearing
credit Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas could see
beneath the flimsy façade to uncover the real issue here. We
who cherish our liberties praise and support their stand. We
need more honest and unwavering Justices of the Supreme Court
to fall in line with the truth
and hopefully, more appointees with the same integrity can
one day sit on the benches.
We do not suggest that every Justice of
the Supreme Court relinquish his right to an opinion of his
own. Notwithstanding, opinions of the Justices of the Supreme
Court should conform to the United States Constitutional
principles. Furthermore, the right to exercise opinions should
not be manipulated to espouse arbitrary rewriting of the
Constitution of the United States or rejecting it altogether.
Thus, we do yearn that each one could have an
opinion grounded in the Constitution of the United States and
established in reason and honesty, devoid of a preset agenda
foreign to the principles of our forefathers and the
foundation of our beloved United
States!
Mel
Gibson's The Passion of the
Christ Controversy
The controversy
perpetuated principally through much of the news media
primarily reflects a bias not unlike arrogance of some radical
Muslims who struck terror into the heart of our nation during
9-11, simply because Americans would not stoop to their level
and sink into their slime with them, or what is even worse,
what a city in California did by placing blame squarely
upon the United States for provoking that attack.
In the same spirit some news reporters seek to drag us
into the slime and shoot their heavy cannons of distortions in
an effort to destroy the very foundation upon which our nation
found its reason to exist.
We have some stinging questions for
those who move heaven and earth to make the movie
appear anti-Semitic. First, what about the biblical
historic accounting? Did Mel Gibson fail in his
effort faithfully to represent the recorded biblical
account? Is it not likely that many of the Jewish
religious elite indeed took an active part in making sure that
Jesus came to trial and would be crucified? But did
these religious elite represent all the Jewish people?
If they did not act on behalf of all the people, then how
on earth can anyone conclude that the Jewish people as a whole
are being accused of crucifying Jesus?
But Christ gave Himself up to be
crucified (Mark 10:45). He willingly became a sacrifice
for everyone. Who really crucified Jesus? No
human being could have succceeded had not Christ
willingly given Himself into the hands of those who sought to
crucify Him. He died for us all so that we could live
forever. Our sins nailed Him to the tree! We are
all guilty of His crucifixion!
Another onslaught by some newspersons within the media
needs addressing. The indictment that the movie displays
harsh, gory and violent scenes discredits it, in their view,
and at best makes it questionable viewing. What?
First, it is possible to find
multitudes of movies that have gotten a thumbs up, in spite of
severe violence! Second, when we look at sin and rebellion
against God Almighty, can we clean up the act and make sin
look a bit nice? Is that not humanism for us? Hitler would
have to be polished into a glittering saint to be accepted for
the film industry on the basis of this criterion!
The Bible does not whitewash any scene to conform to the
rules of niceness, making the narration palatable and
enjoyable. Sin rails against God; yet, God bears it out of
love for the sinner in the crucifixion! Indeed, God loves
the sinner while despising the sin which separates the sinner
from God and ultimately will destroy the sinner who does not
accept what God did at Calvary! See the
What is Salvation
Page.
But much of the news media will continue
to be obsessed with their love affair regarding their
hatred of Christian. They know how to distort everything
to fit their agenda. They remind us of the words of
Jesus Himself, "Blind guides who
strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matthew
23:24)!"
I would personally like to add a footnote to this issue. I
have actually seen the movie and can vouch for authenticity
and reliability in principle with respect to the biblical
disclosures. The license taken by Mel Gibson did not run
counter to these biblical principles.
But I also can address the ignoble rendering on NBC
eliciting the cooperation of certain so-called
theologians who disputed the reliability of the movie. The
onslaught sought to discredit the biblical account, imposing
their theories that the biblical records simply reflected the
bias of early Christians seeking to justify the life and
ministry of Christ.
Please excuse me, but are we begging the issue? Do we
possess omniscience within the finite realm? Is reality only
what we choose to define it to be, arbitrarily within our own
limited world, supported only by the tangible and ever
changing, degenerating and fleeting moments of discovery,
discovery that must forever be updated and reevaluated as
hitches develop? And, oh yes, what do these revisions attest
to if not the flimsy human efforts to make everything fit into
the morbid maze, forcing the image of humanity’s efforts to be
etched as a memorial to his egocentric infatuation?
On the other side of the scale, do not the pursuits of
Christian concerns validate reality? Genuine Christian efforts
do not center in self, but in revelation; these commitments
rise above the special interest to reduce truth to the
ignoble human search to find release from responsibility and
accountability by denying moral and spiritual dimensions
altogether.
But why should we be surprised. Revelation cannot be
redesigned to fit into the finite exploits of human efforts to
understand within the human frame of reference. The
finite can never contain the infinite! The natural human mind
does not reside on the wavelength to perceive and to
comprehend the spiritual realities (I Corinthians
2:12-16). The predisposition of the human mind affords the
thinking that nothing can exist beyond the tangible, visible
world subject to the analytical prowess of the investigators.
But if God is God, His Word rings true to His own character
and reflects the truth!
February 20, 2004
San Francisco mayor continues to defy the state laws of
California and shows no sign of backing away from the
dastardly, unconscionable act of issuing marriage licenses to
homosexual couples. While marriage cannot be justified nor
supported by the California laws for other than one man to one
woman, the mayor is but one among many who now move our nation
toward anarchy. The same arrogant disposition resonated in
Massachusetts when the court defied the State Constitution and
legislated a new definition of marriage. More and more our
nation edges closer and closer toward complete anarchy as our
laws can be ignored with such ease.
February 5, 2004
Carlie Brucia, a young lady of eleven, was
abducted and the brutal act filmed by a surveillance camera.
Her body soon turned up near a church and a man, Joseph Smith,
arrested for the kidnapping and murder of Carlie
Brucia.
This disturbing news concerning the brutal
incident became exponentially intensified when we learned that
this senseless crime could have easily been prevented. Joseph
Smith had been constantly in trouble with the law, but , from
all indications through the news media, had just as often
been sent back to the streets to repeat his life of crime.
Evidently, radically liberal judges and/or courts found
incredibly horrid ways to assure once more that the public be
placed at high risk through this criminal’s all but automatic
release each time. At least once, another woman managed to
escape Joseph Smith in his failed effort to slice her with a
knife, but such behavior apparently added up to very little to
prompt the courts (or the judges) to take any remedial
actions.
Once again the
excessive rights and
preferred treatment of the
victimizer far outweigh the rights of society to be
secure from outrageous
assaults!
Events of
2003
FLASH
This just in as of
November 18, 2003! While we
as a nation still have some very good judges and justices, it
seems that, more and more, we suffer under the edicts of bad
judges and justices. Take for example, the State Supreme
Court of Massachusetts has redefined marriage as a willing
union between two persons irrespective of gender. In other
words, no discrimination can be made against those of the same
sex who seek all the same rights and privileges of
all married couples.
Up to this point in time, what
makes this state's court decision different from and far more
serious than other state decisions allowing same sex
association lies in the total redifinition of
marriage itself. The State Supreme Court
of Massachusetts defines same sex decisions to join lives
together as marriage and subject to issuance
of marriage licenses under the state's same authority and
action in the same manner as with heterosexual
marriages.
But just in case we get the notion this announcement of
news reveals a predisposition against gay or lesbian people,
please read the article which follows this message,Open Letter to ABC.
What strikes us as creating a shock waive with this
unprecedented and boldly aggressive decision regards the total
contempt for judicial roles as interpreting the Constitution
as a basis to determine the validity of laws and legislation.
Rather, the court ceased its role and usurped legislative
authority to create a law, thus acting in a dual role as both
judges and legislators. Heretofore, some judges and justices
have feigned a degree of respect for the Constitution even
though they rewrote the Constitution’s meaning and refer to
that deception as interpretation. In contrast, the four justices at the State Supreme
Court of Massachusetts who provided the majority support for
the court’s decision brazenly acknowledged their intent to
bypass the state constitution. At least one boasted of using
international laws, such as Canadian law, to weigh in on that
decision.
This, however, has become an insurrection against our
nation itself. The character and nature of a nation rests upon
its constitution. The same goes for states. When the
Constitution loses credibility and relevance, the nation can
be shaped and molded into anything through judicial tyranny.
Hence, we are no longer a democracy. The minority, the elite,
by the act of declaring themselves accountable to nothing or
to no one can rule over us to any degree that they deem
necessary to forge their own agendas.
Pray for the future of our nation, which faces a bleak
struggle, at best.
This just in as of
November 19,
2003!
Rports
from Massachusetts suggests
movement in the state congress to ignore the State Supreme
Court of Massachusetts with respect to the infamous
redefinition of marriage. There is some indication that
the governor and the legislature may opt to seek a state
constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union
between one man and one woman. The majority of the
Massachusetts citizens would back such a move
according to a survey.
OPEN LETTER
TO ABC
This relates to the above article. This open
letter was sent a few years back to ABC. The e-mail
attachment mentioned in the script does not appear for obvious
reasons. It was only included with the
original.
OPEN LETTER TO ABC
I received an e-mail originally sent from Jim Neugent. He
had sent an on-line message to ABC regarding a program
entitled The Practice. (Please see that e-mail
herein forwarded.)
He expressed outrage at the Gay Rights agenda
implicit in The Practice, a weekly program being
aired over ABC. ABC's response is also included
in the aforementioned forwarded e-mail. Hence, I desire to
address this issue from a perspective which embraces, among
other documents, the Declaration of Independence;
indeed, "All men are created equal."
My foremost question: What does
equality within this context refer to? If one
subscribes to the notion that equality means that everyone
should be on the same level of value, I wholeheartedly agree.
Ideally this should happen, but can never completely be
achieved in this world, though it is a noble goal and should
continuously be pursued and implemented as much as is humanly
possible. Of course, every person should be treated with the
dignity of having worth that cannot be measured, value that
cannot be denied him or her. Yes, I do believe that our
forefathers considered this aspect when they acknowledged that
such has always been the Creator's intention.
However, does respect for and promotion of a deep, abiding
sense of immeasurable worth regarding every person
automatically reflect tolerance for attitudes, dispositions
and acceptance of every belief and philosophy reflected by
every person?
Allow me to simplify the principle. A physician may well
love, respect and greatly value one of his patients who has
been diagnosed with a fatal disease. Does his love for the
patient compel him to accept the disease, which will
ultimately destroy that patient? Of course not. Such a
question seems foolish, does it not? Quite the contrary, the
doctor not only refuses to tolerate it, but he will command
every resource at his disposal to fight that disease.
While we readily recognize the concern for those suffering
physically, how do we address the issue of those who suffer
from more subtle and insidious ailments invading their
mentality, behavior and character? Ailments which may well
have an even greater devastating import than mere physical
onslaughts?
Some speak glibly and entertain arrogant disdain and
unyielding judgment against those who fail to tolerate certain
life styles or beliefs. Furthermore, many of these critics
refuse to examine records readily available, records which may
not support the agenda pursued. To exercise political
correctness may well lead toward dire consequences through the
sacrifice of truth.
If space and time permitted me at this juncture, myriads of
documentation and references could be presented to support the
authenticity and credibility of the position I seek to foster.
For instance, Chuck Colson's Breakpoint message, Something
about Gnats and Camels: Polygamy in the Age of Same-Sex
Marriage, and his message, Numbers Don't Lie:
Continuing Erosion of the Family, masterfully set forth
unavoidable issues which the honest searcher must confront.
Numerous other sources could be mentioned, such as Marlin
Maddoux's Point of View; Dr. James Dobson's Focus on
the Family; Rovi Zacharias', Ravi Zacharias
International Ministries, and on and on, all of which
contain relevant messages in support of the value of the
traditional family in our society.
Notwithstanding, activists sometimes indulge themselves
with rhetoric to establish a pretext to tolerate certain
groups. They demonstrate acceptance of those who buck
traditional values. Heaven and earth would be moved to avoid
offending these certain groups. Yet, an outright endorsement
of differing life styles does not eradicate offense. It simply
appeases selected groups to create an offense to other groups.
The only way offenses can absolutely be eliminated from earth
would be to neutralize all living people of earth through
annihilation. Therefore, rather than actually eliminating
offenses through tolerance, certain groups are chosen at the
exclusion of other groups.
Furthermore, these same activists often extend tolerance
toward every belief, philosophy, religion, cults and the
occult, etc. with the one exception, the so-called radical
right wing Christian activists. Because these Christians
do not perform within the perimeters of the politically
correct agenda, they must be classified as intolerant
bigots promoting hatred, which can lead to hate crimes.
Since labels often serve to mislead and promote
misconceptions, the Gay agenda's causes are well
served. Those who promote open choices of life styles tend to
incite disdain by their use of such labels. The illusion
generated by such distorted and orchestrated efforts
continuously eclipses the truth such that black appears white
and white appears black, truth appears false and falsehood
appears to be truth.
In this manner the counterfeit has been elevated to
discredit the genuine. Isn't it often transparent how the very
dedicated Christian becomes the bunt of harsh criticism by
identifying him with those counterfeits who give a bad name to
Christianity? It's as though one would draw the adverse
conclusion with glee should one bad example be dug up. That
alone would be sufficient to conclude the whole Christian
movement to be corrupt.
This brings me to endorse what Jim Neugent expressed to
ABC.
I set forth these seven basic principles which tie together
my disposition on this important matter:
- The age of documents does not per se measure the
reliability, credibility or relevance of such documents.
The point that the Bible necessarily reflects
inaccuracies and folk tales simply because of its antiquity
does not necessarily hold true. The contents determine its
validity. The true Author, God Himself, breathed life into
its pages. However, the presupposition that Divine
intervention and revelation must be relegated to the level
of fairy tales and fables testifies to humanity's inability
to reach the heavens and not to the absence of the Creator's
reality and presence. Humanism declares the universe to be
its own reason for existence, thereby sealing out all
external light from beyond the universe.
Behind this mirage to foster deception lies an entangled
human dilemma. If one may cut the ties to a Creator, then he
envisions himself to be his own god to rule his own destiny,
to establish his own liberty. He does not realize that he
has become like the captain of a ship with only a toy
compass with its fixed needle pointing always to the dot
marked north on that compass, only fixed to
its own reference. With no external reference the ship can
wander endlessly through the fog. If the universe alone is
its own reason for existing, where is the reference to
provide direction? That is to say, the endless quest to
discover something other than what is obvious, simply
because all that is known can never suffice, presupposes
some unknown factor or the missing link which will tie
everything together. Hence, the movement through cycles and
disillusionment leaves the pointer eternally indicating some
missing key that transcends the universe itself. Evidently,
something other than what is at hand is always left
begging.
This does not suggest that people do not strive to fill
the void. Some delve into a frenzy to discover fulfillment
through pleasure or other sensory pursuits, such as drugs,
illicit sexual behavior or perversions, including
homosexuality. Soren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher and
theologian, gave us an insight into his earlier years and in
essence described his pursuit of pleasure as life's prime
goal. He described the experiences as a ship continuously
moving across a sea with no end in sight and waters so deep
that he could not cast an anchor which would grant him a
respite and a sense of security.
This brings us to the second basic principle.
- The illusion that genuine liberty can exist without any
moral or ethical restraints creates a dangerous time bomb,
which can eventually destroy a society.
To discard the bonds of traditional marriage in pursuit of
perverted expressions can be compared to the detonation of
high explosives. Its effects can be measured in terms of
destruction.
Take, however, that explosion placed in proper restraints
and we have a mighty rocket thrust skyward, providing an
expedition into outer space. Purpose has been introduced and
the explosion is governed to realize that purpose.
Chuck Coleson proposes that a society can not survive
without the security and stability forged by genuine marriage
bonds, marriage being defined in the traditional sense. Once
same-sex couples have broken the traditional sense of
marriage, then the redefinition of marriage can be expanded to
comply with any ideas, such as polygamy. One man may have
several wives. Then women may well demand the right to have
several husbands. Why not? If marriage must be redefined, who
is to set limits on that redefinition and by what measuring
stick? Same sex partners can expand in like manner, even to
the degree to include both same sex partners and at the same
time have partners of the opposite gender. An enveloping
anarchy can extinguish any sense of order and responsibility.
How will children be cared for in the ambiguity of
relationships? How can our society any more recognize what a
family truly is? Where can anyone find the security of a home
environment when the home has been virtually expanded into
oblivion?
- Christian validity and credibility can not legitimately
be dismissed on the basis of unsupported claims by those who
are either ignorant to genuine Christian principles, or who
are misinformed, or who deliberately misrepresent those
principles.
Perk your ears to the wind of the times. Do you hear the
roar of those who seek to reduce Christians to mere
simpletons, or naïve, misinformed and out-of-touch people?
Or charlatans? Or mental cases?
It amazes me that much of the media and programming of
television (yes, and many radio, newspapers, magazines and
even movies) smugly take lightly Christian concerns and
Christian issues, often to the extent of open mockery, by
innuendoes, or even resorting to brazen repudiation. One
speaker even laughed at the reference made to a Christian
and jeered, "They're ancient history. We're living in modern
times."
If people who build these towers as monuments to their
self-infatuation would awaken and become aware of the
reality surrounding them, they might began to emerge from
the fog.
Christianity embraces a wide scope. The ocean has its
shallow shores, but it also has its great depths.
Christianity speaks to the simpleton with purpose, but
provides the deepest challenges for the most cultured and
cultivated minds. Great people have awakened to its unique
and stimulating call.
Some Christians and even Christian scientists have dared
to come to the insight that science cannot provide the basis
to understand Christianity, but Christianity clearly
provides the basis to understand science and all other
avenues of investigation.
The great mind of C. S. Lewis awakened from the
entrenched skeptical, atheistic bent and C. S. Lewis became
one of the great Christian apologists of the ages. Among his
well-known writings, Mere Christianity reflects a
fresh look at Christianity and has become a well-known
book. Lou Wallis, a newspaper reporter, embarked on
research to write a novel. His research led him to explore
the Bible and cultures of biblical times. His research and
study of Scriptures led him to turn from his atheistic
disposition and to accept Christ. His well-known novel
reflects his new perspective on life. Ben Hur has
captured the imaginations of millions and his novel reached
the movie screens. Sir Henry Stanley accepted a newspaper
assignment to search for David Livingstone in Africa. After
months against almost impossible odds, he found David
Livingstone in very ill health with scanty supplies. A short
time after his introduction he informed David Livingstone
that his purpose was to write a report concerning him and
his expedition. Henry quickly informed David further that he
himself respected David and admired his spirit, but did not
wish David to proselyte him, for he himself was an avowed
atheist. David Livingstone honored that request, but during
the days that followed as Henry observed the sacrificial and
self-giving love David expressed with great physical
struggle against his weakness and pain, Henry's heart melted
and he confessed Christ as his Lord.
Indeed, suffering and pain most frequently uncover and
measure the depth of dedication among Christians. Consider
the basis for the writing of He Giveth More Grace by
Annie Johnson Flint:
HE GIVETH MORE
GRACE
by
Annie Johnson Flint, 1866-1932
Annie Johnson Flint’s life on earth could
never be measured in any degree by comfort and ease; quite
the contrary, from childhood her body endured the onslaught
of Rheumatoid Arthritis until she could no longer rise from
bed. Over the years the affliction took a great toll,
leaving her with no choice but to seek some comfort from
sleeping and resting on soft pillows. Her body developed
serious bedsores and finally she suffered the ravages of
cancer.
Yet her attitude through all the struggles
with pain and confinement may best be expressed through one
of her great Christian poems that has been set to music in
many hymnals. Her faith in God and His purpose, reflected
through these words, portray her deep commitment and
disposition of hope and peace:
He giveth more grace when
the burdens grow greater;
He sendeth more strength when the labors
increase.
To added
affliction He addeth His mercy;
To
multiplied trials, His multiplied peace.
His love has no limit;
His grace has no
measure.
His power has no
boundary known unto men.
For
out of His infinite riches in Jesus, He giveth and giveth
and giveth again.
When we have exhausted our
store of endurance,
When our
strength has failed ere the day is half
done,
When we reach the end
of our hoarded resources,
Our
Father’s full giving is only begun.
His love has no limit;
His grace has no
measure.
His power has no
boundary known unto men.
For
out of His infinite riches in Jesus, He giveth and giveth
and giveth again.
End
The life and times of other Christians who
suffered beyond ordinary endurance would include such names
as Corrie Ten Boom, who suffered great abuse at the hands of
the Nazis during World War II, but her faith and dedication
never wavered. Jim Elliot, a determined missionary, set out
to take the gospel to South America into Ecuador in an
effort to reach the Auca Indians, known to be dangerous.
Friends sought to dissuade him for fear that he could lose
his life. Jim Elliot's classic reply revealed his true
courage, "He is no fool to give up that which he cannot keep
to gain that which he cannot lose." He did gain through the
loss of his life. Numerous others could be listed, but space
and time would not permit me to continue through many pages.
Many are the true stories of very intelligent,
honest people who came to Christ. Christianity embraces the
widest range of people and cannot be relegated only to the
lowest and least intelligent people as some would imply.
Equality for all does not negate different
roles.
One of the most pronounced fallacies that has
gained a broad acceptance regards the concept that different
roles between men and women represent inequities. Of course,
nature determines differences. Men cannot give birth to
children. Different hormones and hormone levels between male
and female have been documented to color perspectives and
dispositions. Based on the natural order males and females
play different roles. Yet, this fact does not suggest that
males and females cannot be equal in value nor treated on
parity. In the work force equal pay for equal work should be
the norm for both males and females.
Moreover, role equality cannot justly be forged. While
roles remain forever equal in value, they are never exactly
the same. Many blur these differences in roles in search for
self-identity. The Gay movement tends to ignore this
basic difference in roles such that men often play the role
of wife and women play the role of husband, yet with the
same gender partner.
To ignore roles would be of the same essence as the
manufacturer of pianos would be to ignore the principle of
differences and for the sake of parity to make every key on
the piano to produce the exact same sound. Irrespective of
what key is struck, the same sound as all the other keys is
always reproduced. Music would be impossible, for music by
its very nature is the harmony of different sounds.
Different roles in harmony can produce great music. It
takes differences to produce the whole, the union, the
symphony, if you will.
Every person has a choice so that no person is by birth
bound irrevocably to his or her own tendencies or
habits.
The argument that a person cannot break the chains
binding him or her to the nature of inherited genetic traits
has some merit. If a person has a disease associated with
genetic origins, he may be locked in to that disease.
However, medical research and medical treatment continue to
seek means of relief and even cures.
Let us suppose for a moment that homosexual tendencies
have a genetic basis. While there has been no conclusive,
established evidence that this can be the case,
nevertheless, we consider the remote possibility for such a
link. Rather than surrendering to that unnatural condition
which can give rise to complex and distorted, perverted and
unfulfilling expressions, a choice to seek help, which can
open new avenues of expression, would be the greater
alternative. Examples of successful efforts are well
documented.
I have personally heard testimonies of converted
homosexual people, people who had felt hopelessly trapped in
their life style. Yet, when they found loving people who
cared, people who were able and well qualified to counsel
with them, they found the light and the courage to take the
necessary steps. They overcame what seemed to be an
impossible barrier. Now, their lives radiate the joy of
purpose and meaning.
It may well be demonstrated that many people feel such
urge to explore the unnatural that the thought of exercising
restraint never crosses their minds, or if it does by prick
of conscience, it is immediately repressed. These people
find themselves hopelessly enslaved to the addiction to
venture more and more into unnatural sexual exploits.
Since the problem often looms far more enormous than can
ever be successfully dealt with, the person has no recourse
within himself. He cannot assess the situation, much less
control it. For this reason people need the expertise that
only others who are well qualified can provide.
That fact embraces sound and urgent reason for Christian
love, prayer and deep concern to start building bridges that
reach out with deep love to help these people to discover
the true way, the light which can dissipate the darkness.
With this deep love and concern, Christians can reach some
of these misguided and confused people to come to a point
where decisions are possible. Our whole society's security
depends on our action.
Divine revelation unlocks the mystery of life and
underscores the coherence of all things through Christ.
Mainstream Christianity respects, reverences and relies
upon the Bible as God's infallible revelation of Himself.
The Bible is God's Word, His communication to humanity, not
because of the Bible, but because of God. This perspective
must be stated as an important, indispensable distinction.
Never does the Bible precede God, as though God were the end
product of the Bible, for the Bible could have no authority
except for the fact that God spoke. Most frequently that
communication took the form of the proclaimed Word and then
inspired writers preserved that communication through the
written Word, the Bible. Finally, that communication, that
Divine Word spoken and written down, became the living
reality in human flesh, the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ
Himself.
To say that the Bible precedes God either makes idolatry
of the Scriptures or provides a tactic to dismiss God as an
invention. At that point the Bible is center, rather than
God. God becomes the product of human efforts and god
remains a phantom relic of ancient people. The biblical
writers themselves created such a god through their
writings, if such were the case. This perspective reflects
the onus of the writers from human efforts to determine the
kind of god they would indeed create. Modern philosophies
critical of the claim to genuine biblical revelation and any
significant biblical authenticity dismiss the Scriptures as
simply a product of the times and cultures of the
writers.
Based on this presupposition our modern culture has
produced "enlightened" approaches to the analytical scrutiny
of all the Scriptures, such that human error,
inconsistencies and even contradictions are quickly found
and exposed. Yet, these conclusions are flawed. Not all
avenues of light have been brought to bear upon these
ancient writings, the Bible. Some so-called errors simply
arise from inaccurate translations. When the oldest known
and most reliable manuscripts are used, fewer errors appear
likely as compared to the later manuscript copies; however,
copies were known to be meticulously matched to the master
manuscript for accuracy. Such practice insured the
preservation of important essentials of God's revelation.
Even then, some errors no doubt resulted. That can be good
in that God did not intend to allow the Bible to take the
place of Himself, but He preserved its message throughout
the ages sufficient to communicate Himself through its
pages. Other so-called errors occur from an inadequate
attention to specific cultural or linguistic elements
forming idioms or idiosyncratic expressions. Many other
explanations can be delineated and examples offered.
However, it does not serve my purpose to do other than
suggest but a scanty few examples since the nature of this
message must be as brief as feasible.
Moreover, as noted, such skepticism might have some basis
were it true that God had not literally intersected the
plane of human affairs and revealed Himself. But this Mighty
God has most assuredly done just that! Only God makes the
Bible eternally relevant. Therefore, only a genuine
relationship with the Author, God Himself, makes possible
for one to open the depths of the Bible's Spiritual
Realities! New spiritual dimensions flood the soul
of one in tune with the Author.
Hence, even through witness of the Bible itself, the
natural man (one who does not have the interpretation of
God's Holy Spirit as the key to understanding spiritual
realities) can not receive the things of God, because those
things are foolish to him (I Corinthians 2:13-14). It is not
surprising to elicit snubs and ridicule from those who
haven't a clue concerning true Christian issues.
The ultimate acid test for the authenticity and
relevance of Christianity lies within an inherent
life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ. Another way of
stating this truth--the proof is in the pudding.
The cry for unlimited liberties has impacted our society
without mercy. The obsession for these so-called freedoms,
freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom from
traditional molds, etc., has created among some a mindset to
demolish all fences. Yet, one would be well advised to
consider why a fence was erected in the first place before
breaking it down.
One of the greatest reasons to erect a fence regards a
responsible attitude. Actions always have consequences. To set
in motion irresponsible exploits inevitably undermines
society. By sheer numbers of people influenced to lay aside
all considerations for others, a society may find it
difficult to survive.
These demands for illegitimate liberties, liberties which
place segments of our society in bondage, must be resisted.
Genuine liberties open doors for all people, not merely
certain selected groups. However, genuine liberties do, on the
other hand, limit the expressions of those who would damage
liberties for others. As for example, a person may cry "fire"
in a crowded theater when no fire exists. He has no right to
place the people's lives and welfare in jeopardy on the whim
to act irresponsibly, for obviously the panic which could
pursue may well cause some to be trampled under foot, risking
life and limb.
On the other hand, some breaks with certain traditions can
have a very positive stimulus. Take for example, the
eradication of slavery and the later liberation of minorities
from discrimination have been the cutting edge of genuine
Christian concerns, this in spite of certain Christian groups
who found it hard to renounce their ties to such cultural
practices. The point is: Christianity has within its very
nature to liberate from certain behavioral patterns tied to
specific cultural practices, patterns that counter the very
basic nature of Christianity itself. Genuine Christianity
demands change, but never change for change's sake.
Certain traditions must never suffer loss. Family values,
religious freedom, religious worship, religious expressions
based on the Truth of Revelation must be upheld at all
costs. Yet, in every one of these areas Christianity finds
itself engaged in a heavy conflict. Christians have suffered
serious setbacks and diminished religious liberties, which
threaten its status within our nation, a nation founded on
religious liberties and freedom of expression under God. Such
rights have been granted by the founding fathers, but
repudiated in large measure within our modern day.
These reversals can specifically be traced to the activists
associated with the Gay community and the so-called
feminist movements. The paramount guidelines forged by
these activists create a decided advantage for themselves; in
fact, they flirt with duplicitous politics. Two standards
emerge, a favorable standard for themselves and a grievous,
restricting and "gag rule" effort to silence Christians.
Growing out of this extreme liberal approach, the emergence of
the new relativism in which no absolutes can be
admitted into formulas and issues has opened the door wide to
accept every conceivable practice with no recognized
boundaries nor consequences.
Yet, can any difference be noted during this age as
compared to the time when issues found a more traditional
Christian interpretation?
Well, what shall we say? Look at the rise in the crime
rates. How about school shootings and defiant mob action in
areas of our nation? How about gang activity which places our
homes, schools and communities very much at risk? What about
drug abuse? Yes, and how about the AIDS epidemic and many
venereal diseases? These excessive intrusions into our society
are relatively new comers. When we break down all traditional
fences, we had better be prepared to see the wolves of
destruction bring chaos and anarchy to our nation, the natural
consequences of eradicating such fences.
On the other hand, what has Christian influence to say for
itself? I have first-hand experience. I have been among
Christians in retreats, camps and other meetings. Where
genuine Christians meet, I see the beautiful example of love's
expression. Unselfish, willing and gracious efforts among each
for the other create a warm sense of belonging and caring. A
genuine expression of worship brings a complete sense of
fulfillment and joy, of completeness and worth, of outgoing,
self-sacrificing service.
Even more significantly, I have seen a genuine outreach
through love for the world at large, for people who are
seeking in the darkness of their captivity, for those
struggling, for those who haven't an inkling regarding
Christianity nor Christian values. It forever remains the urge
of every Christian to expand Christian boundaries to bring
into the fold those who have not had the opportunity nor the
sight to join the Christian family.
Moreover, genuine Christians seek to be guided by and work
toward perfection without resorting to perfectionism. They
strive for purity of heart, mind and emotions without falling
into the pit of Puritanism. They hate sin but love the sinner
and seek to bring him hope and light which can rescue him.
This comparison makes it explicitly clear which group
contributes to the expansion and preservation of our society.
Indeed, the proof is in the pudding!
As briefly as I have been able to do so, I have made a
declaration and contend that your programming should be
sensitive to decency and integrity, to the constructive and
fair practices which could be implemented without sacrificing
any worthwhile goals. I trust that you will give this effort a
fair consideration.
Analysis of Earlier
Events
SARS
World concerns have
recently focused on Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome or simply SARS.
Allow us to bring a different
dimension to this sensitive and sad explosion threatening to
rip through our world with untamed brutality. All too
frequently events of such magnitude contribute to our
awareness of spiritual correlations. Perhaps the nature
of the spiritual realities lend themselves well to the
physical expressions of inherent destitution as a
consequence of ignoring the claims of morality upon the
human heart. It can not be too far fetched to find
physical or material loss to be the outcropping of the
original fall, just as disease, suffering, loneliness, loss,
death, etc., definitely retain a continuity to the original
fall and the entrance of sin and wrong into our world.
Allow us the liberty to set forth an acrostic which clearly
suggests a spiritual/physical linkage:
S--self-centeredness.
A--anger.
R--rebellion.
S--strife
and shame.
These elements tend to be the
result of sin, a condition of the
human heart brought about by
original sin.
Original sin began with the whisper of the
serpent that Adam and Eve cast off any dependency upon anyone
or anything other than themselves. They no longer needed
God, for they could become their own gods and thus determine
for themselves just what is good and what is bad by the way
such things or events related to themselves as the center of
their own worlds. Thus, all the evils and plight of the
human race came from this self-centered rebellion which
replaced the living God with the god wrapped up in human
flesh.
But the God of the Universe Himself
came in human flesh that He might provide a way of escape for
humanity. He came to be our death as He hung from a
Cross. Then why not add the Cross to SARS? The
letter t is the one letter of the alphabet which
forms a cross. Hence, the following acrostic provides a
realistic answer to the SARS:
S--self-giving.
T--the
Cross.
A--Atonement.
R--Resurrection.
S--Salvation
The addition of the t, the
one dynamic answer to self-centeredness
as the t represents the Cross, provides
the signal to lift our eyes heavenward in our darkness.
We see the stars! And
stars stands for the acrostic rendition above.
Christ was self-giving, died on the Cross for us and made
Atonement possible for us. He punctuated His authority
through the Resurrection to bring us His Salvation.
Further Analysis
A Case in Point
for Events That Shape Life
Who can tell? The highway appears as straight as an arrow
in stretches. Along the way bridges span canyons and rivers
and tunnels greet the traveler through the
mountains. Those mighty peaks force bends in the
otherwise straight highway. The horizon releases new
landscapes only as the traveler continues. What is beyond that
next horizon?
Who can tell? Look where we have been. Perhaps we have seen
all types of scenery there is to be seen, such that the next
horizon reveals other country dwellings scattered here and
there among the plowed fields. Perhaps cities or villages very
similar to all the ones we have passed will fold back like the
flipping of pages in a book. But can we know for sure?
And unlike a modern traveler with a map and a well-informed
driver, the traveler on life’s highway passes by only once and
has never been further down the highway than he is each moment
along the way. Thus, any discussion concerning the nature of
the landscape just beyond the next horizon can only be
speculative at best. No one can with certainty rule out
delightful surprises, embellishing experiences, or even
disaster; indeed, no one can assure that the journey will
not end abruptly in death.
The highway itself remains uncertain. Much of it
paved to afford a smooth ride, the highway may sometimes
unleash unexpected bumps, ruts or potholes. For no
apparent reason the straight highway may start to twist and
turn like some huge snake, creating confusion; or it may fade
into a narrow, path-like road, raising questions whether
one has wandered off the main highway. Even the vehicle
does not guarantee absolute certainty, for breakdowns can
occur.
Some assure us that we can reasonably assume that no
drastic differences will appear. Look. We have come thus far
and have gained knowledge. We can assume that we shall not
meet with an alien race that will abduct us and whisk us
through the deep recesses of space. We are merely the products
and byproducts of all that has preceded us. Events and
routines have conditioned us. We merely flow with the tide of
natural forces that influence us. Even those unexpected
turns and rough places merely reveal the lack of underlying
meaning and purpose. Sure, some will meet with disaster;
some, with success. In either case, one must rely
upon the knowledge acquired through experience and research
and form projections based upon that. Chances remain
greater that such preparation will better suit one to
face the challenges of the unknown.
Others would take exception. This journey definitely bears
the marks of a purpose-driven destiny. We wonder not as those
who sat in chairs and resign to the elements, and who find no
underlying design in all that transpires, who see in the end
an abyss of nothingness. These who buck the current and do not
compromise insist that life houses more than the external
expressions. Faithful seekers discover that an innate surge
attaches to meaning and purpose. In their travel through life
they express confidence that the end will exonerate and bring
complete fulfillment, for they are here by a Divine
Decree to execute a redemptive transformation. Hence,
each horizon will reveal new opportunities to dissipate the
darkness and influence others to find the way as they have
found in the Light.
The different, in some sense, strange travelers find a
defiant strength to resist the lures to settle in, enjoy what
the material present has to commend with promises of exciting
explorations, to delve into the lustful twists, where
responsibility and accountability may be cast aside.
These determined religious fanatics or the
religious right as labeled by those who prefer to
identify with the free wheelers, appear to have a stoic
resignation to await the next horizon or the next to reach
their heaven. But such appearance betrays a distorted
perception, these strange travelers would point out. Neither
does the point of time and place of the travel nor the vision
of the destination distract from the total picture; that is,
the circumstance and events emerge as opportunities to dialog
in an effort to uncover reality and truth, or find growth and
purging through opposition and suffering. Consequently, a new
element from the spiritual dimensions radiates in brilliant
contrast to the natural order of things; beyond the horizon
into the infinite nurturing source of all existence, purpose
and meaning shed light into every situation and circumstance
and liberates the traveler’s mind to bring him fulfillment.
These conclusions by the unique travelers did not emerge
from the travel, but from a reality which accounts, not
only for the travel and the landscape, but for a sense of an
underlying purpose and design. That is to say, these travelers
did not through knowledge and experience discover reality (the
ultimate reality, God), but responded to that reality as God
revealed Himself. They perceive themselves destitute to
discover God in their own initiative and abilities. God cannot
be discovered by any research with the most intense of human
will. Unless God bridges the gap and reveals Himself, He can
never be known.
God indeed has revealed Himself through creation and
redemption. He has taken the initiative and bridged the
gap. The very focal point of God’s revelation comes in the
Incarnation. Paul sets forth the elements of God’s
revelation and purpose very eloquently in the book of Romans.
Every traveler now and again comes to the forks of the
road. Decisions must be made. One can not wonder long in
indecision, lest he be left behind. But for the unique
traveler who has purposed to live out the revelation of God in
his life, every fork in the road simply shows that his choice
reflects a relational confidence in his God. The choice was
made at Calvary! All else simply reveals the character of the
traveler.
The forks which indeed forces the most important decision
each individual person must make regards the forks with a left
direction leading down into a low, but luring, lush green
valley, providing deep, cool shadows and appealing ease of
travel and an enticing promise of liberation from the moral
restraints that fetter the human spirit. This left fork
ideally provides the independent spirit opportunities for
assertion and success, for self-recognition and praise, for
gratification and indulgence. This mindset places
individualism in the driver's seat such that each person
operating under the intoxicating promise of fame and fortune
can only see the world revolving around himself. Either
he sees in others those he may manipulate toward his own
ends, and things, including possessions, recognition,
praise, etc., as the goal toward which he moves, or he
turns inwardly and loses touch with reality and divorces
himself from any relationship with others as much as
possible.
Yet, at this forks of the road stands the glowing
revelation of a Person crying warnings and seeking with
outstretched arms of compassion to direct the travelers up the
right fork of the highway into the rugged high country.
The road appears to be steep and challenging, not promising
comfort and ease. But the high road offers to the worry
traveler self-sacrifice, hard times, criticism and a multitude
of problems. Those who surrender and turn to the right
come to see the fulfillment awaiting the journey. They
understand that the Person pointing to the right will
support them and never leave their side, that He will provide
courage and strength and give spiritual sight which the other
travelers do not have. Those who become His slaves find
absolute liberation, not the illusion those who are deceived
to the left where empty promises end in disaster.
As significant as this forks in the highway may be, there
remain lesser forks in the highway of life, though many are
also important.
Consider the forks with respect to marriage. The traveler
who has become a unique person in Christ, the Christian,
expresses his character in his choices. Questions flow from
the traveler’s mind in terms of the Light God gives him
through the Holy Spirit with respect to the choice of a life
companion: Is he a dedicated Christian? Do we share a common
goal in life? Do we have the same mind with respect to
sanctity of marriage, God’s calling, children, etc.? Of
course, his relationship with God determines the answers to
these questions. That has been settled in his relationship
with God.
Consider the forks with respect to compromise: What should
he do if his boss demands that he be dishonest with the public
through misrepresenting a product or program? Should he risk
loosing the job to stand up for what is right?
Again, decisions of this nature have already been settled
through faith in God. The making of the actual decisions
reflects the Christian character.
Revelation touches every aspect of life for the Christian.
There are those who would suggest that Christianity become a
private matter, shared in homes or in churches, that it not be
a consideration for business life or political decisions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The early church
suffered greatly, but triumphantly, under the persecution and
ravages of those who opposed them. Are we different during our
own day and age? Have we lost the fire and vision of the early
Christians and refuse to place ourselves at risk by speaking
out or taking action that involves our jobs or caustic
political devices against free expression of Christianity
within our own society?
The Bible does not admonish us to give in and allow our
society to destroy Christianity and bring degeneration to our
own society degree by degree, bit by bit. We as a nation
find ourselves at the forks of the road. What shall we do?
Each must decide, for indecision has the very same
effect as deciding to allow the forces of evil to pervade our
lives and to undermine the society we as Christians seek to
reach.
Further
Reflections on Events of 2003
The
Defining Choices
Every force enters into the arena to
assert its demands, influences, enticements and/or pleas.
Perhaps we have been desensitized by the constant pressures
thrust upon Christians and their values and their worldviews,
as well as pressures to revamp or to moderate traditional
family values. The threat has slowly moved in, gaining
momentum over the years until we have become so accustomed to
the ubiquitous presence that we no longer feel the
ominous storm raging around us. Maybe we nourish the
complacency and illusion of security within the four walls of
our churches, or our homes. Maybe we develop close social and
interest groups that lull us into a false sense that
everything continues as before and that tomorrows come and go
and will certainly do just that. Just maybe we don’t need to
become involved with concerns outside our churches and/or
homes and/or businesses and/or closely-knit groups.
After all, the passing moment of 911
and the twin towers created a fleeting blip upon the
horizon and a passing sentiment, but seems so very remote from
where we are right now. Anyway, we have our own time and
place, our own lives to live and protect and do not wish to
entangle ourselves in politics or world threats or any of
those distant rattles that pose no immediate demands upon us.
However, such cultivated attitudes leading
to denial reflect the exact path that many of the Germans
pursued during the early days of Adolf Hitler. Many were
willingly oblivious to the movement toward eradicating the
influence of the church. They found comfort in the
false security that Hitler provided the German people and the
emphasis upon nationalism to the exclusion of moral and
ethical concerns.
Today many of us slide along with society
and refuse to become involved in policies and philosophies
which foster the same evil destination the German people
espoused.
May we take seriously this focus on events
which affect and ultimately undermine all our genuine
liberties within our nation.
FIRE
December 4,
2003: Sketchy accounts of a court decision declaring the
United State’s Government’s policy and practice of fining and
punishing those persons, organizations, etc., within our
nation who fund and support terrorist groups UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
We are seeking to research this brief
statement to secure more details, but such a defiant,
audacious, flagrant and blistering contempt for the
Constitution of the United States betrays unmitigated treason
against the very existence of our nation. I believe that every
true American would burn with fire in his heart to see a
so-called judge (or judges) place our children, families,
homes and livelihoods at high risk in allowing support
for terrorists to strike against our nation, depriving us
of defending ourselves.
My words boil out in the nicest and
tamest way I can put it. My actual feelings can not
be expressed, not even with the words
outrageous contempt, for
I have not yet reached up to that level of contempt
in my feelings.
PRAY! PRAY!
PRAY!
However, this decision came not as a
complete surprise, for what are we to expect with the
fermenting of the culture of death
promoted under the banner of the politically
correct mania? After all, within the scope of
this quagmire any human life becomes expendable. I,
personally, do not think that the ones espousing this demonic
sadism has any intention to include themselves within
the expendability clause, and thus creating a most vicious
duplicity.
Question: Why refer to the Constitution of
the United States since such reference only becomes a mockery?
The courts who arbitrarily make decisions based on their own
agendas should never call it an
interpretation of the Constitution of the United
States since such language destroys the credibility of words!
If words have no actual meaning, then
why use them at all?
This will give us a little to reflect
upon, but allow ourselves to be moved to action, to oppose
these black forces of evil that have a clearly marked goal of
destroying the America we cherish and value.
Having thus focused upon the threatening
storm on our landscape, we may yet see a silver lining, a ray
of hope.
First, a ray of hope emerges even in the
vilest decisions ravaging our judicial system. Most decisions
remain split because of decent judges and justices who cannot
be drawn into this cesspool of slime forced upon the American
people. Thank God for them, for they have kept their garments
clean and their eyes on the kind of America our forefathers
valued. These judicial champions are to be applauded and
should receive our acknowledgement and recognition for their
stand.
Second, even if our courts could fall one
hundred percent into this sordid and vile corruption, they
exercise absolutely no power to contest God Himself.
The late pastor, Dr. George Jones, used to
declare, "Governments rule, but God over-rules!" These
judicial decisions can bring our nation into the abyss of
damnation, but Christians, such as we are, can exercise our
privilege of prayer. God can deal with the obstinate courts
and subdue them, bringing them into line. Yet, if He does
allow the judicial system to succeed in absolute rule of
terror, it can speak to our failure to assume our
responsibilities or to allow us to undergo persecution for a
greater purpose than we may be able to understand.
If we as Christians relinquish our
tendency toward the comfortable way out and accept God’s call
to exercise opportunities to vote and place pressure on our
congressional leaders to make right, decent decisions, then we
keep our hands clean. In that case, if our nation continues on
its course to abort constitutional government in favor of
their sophisticated judicial dictatorship, God will pour out
His grace to sustain us as He did with the early church under
persecution.
A
Follow-up
Finally, we have been able
to learn that the above reference to the court decision
involved the Ninth Circuit Court in California. There's
little doubt that this decision will be
appealed.
BUT HOW
DID OUR COURTS GET THIS WAY?
When our nation came into its own, the default religion,
Christianity, found credible and respectful protection. Courts
consisted of moral and spiritual grounds and recognized the
value and relevance of the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of our nation itself recognized the
legitimacy of the Christian-Judeo foundation upon which
liberties found expression.
However, as the courts moved into the modern era, a rampage
of anti-Christian rebellion, the foster child of the
relativistic, nihilistic, libertarian culture of
death gained momentum. The courts did not find
themselves immune to this strong undercurrent eroding the
appreciation for the Constitution of the United States and the
liberties afforded religious expressions.
Until recently, the courts nominally pointed toward the
United States Constitution and called their radical departure
from constitutional meaning as interpretation.
But we know where the courts have gone from there in some
of their decisions, do we not?
Yet, the question cannot be easily evaded: How can the courts
assume absolute power and rule by decree with impunity,
flagrantly violating their reason for existing?
First, the very nature of their offices makes them
accountable to no one or anything whatsoever!
Elected officials can be controlled to a certain degree
through the vote. They are by the nature of their offices
accountable to the public at large.
Second, many judges and justices no longer accept the
Constitution of the United States. Some have even openly
declared that they prefer to relate to world laws, hence,
effectively surrendering the sovereignty of our own nation.
Third, by decisions made outside the perimeters of our
national concerns and religious rights, they have disdained
the heritage of our nation and so many through decisions have
bullied, " I have decided. What do you intend to do
about it?" They feel smugly immune to any movement
that our nation as a whole can take. Their dictatorial powers
fall beyond any and every American citizen to alter!
This tragedy can be dealt with by demanding Congress act to
allow the right appointees to the court system. Unfortunately,
our hands are tied until these bigots are removed from power,
and we can do just that through the right appointees.
Christian Liberties Threatened
An Overview of
Principles
Cases before the courts reflect a
dangerous trend toward litigation intended to suppress
religious expression and restrict free exercise of beliefs.
Discrimination against Christians especially in public
locations in general and in schools and on the job in
particular has grown from the abuse of the so-called
separation of church and state as a politically
correct action.
Notwithstanding, the Constitution itself never originated the
idea nor chose the expression in any measure to forge this
totally alien intrusion, which has brazenly been branded
constitutional interpretation.
From the outset our forefathers placed
no restrictions against religion, but quite the
contrary, sought to separate government from religion such
that there could be no interference with the
free
exercise of religion.
In
other words, the government could not license a religion of
its choice and establish a state church over which it could
retain control and deny all other churches a license to
practice. It’s a far-fetched idea that the government
assumes the right to disallow the churches to speak out in any
manner which could conceivably influence the political
outcome. Since all
political ideas pose moral and spiritual implications, a
church would cease to fulfill her role to be denied her right
to address such moral and spiritual concerns.
But those who champion the cause of
free religious expression have come to the defense with
considerable impact through some of the courts. The Liberty
Counsel and The
American Center for Law and Justice, among others, work diligently and
unrelentingly to guard religious liberties in our
nation.
Many of us champion a genuine
constitutional government. The Constitution of the United
States of America came through the struggles of our
forefathers against the opposition of America’s enemies
abroad. Many paid with suffering and even death to establish
the right to be governed through that Constitution.
Therefore, we can most certainly appreciate efforts by the
LC, ACLJ, Christian Coalition and other
dedicated citizens who refuse to roll over and play dead while
enemies within our own country this time threaten to compromise the very
foundations upon which our nation stands.
Many liberal and ruthless talk show
hosts arrogantly and aggressively bellow their disdain
for even the least inkling of decency and moral
restraint. They especially take delight in directing their
stinging criticism against Christianity. These proponents to eradicate the
religious right have
expressed strong ridicule for the resort to
reasoning and
factual evidence
brought to the light in a debate regarding social, ethical and
moral foundations to preserve human life.
One such talk show host made a comment
following a very enlightening response by the pro-life
debater who used documented evidence from a scientific,
expert source, which offered a compelling case for the
pro-life position. The host’s snobbish sneer reflects
his complete disdain, "That’s just your opinion."
May we for just a moment pause to
reflect on the slide down the slippery slope embraced by the
host? Did the host address the issues raised, or did he evade
the issues by sweeping them under the rug with his intolerance
of any view which did not tally with his own views? Or is
there any way we may gather that the host could
conceivably find genuine justification for his behavior?
We do know the answer to these questions, do we
not?
Then, what within our society promotes
such a transparent disregard for truth? Perhaps we would do
well to reflect on the subject of relativism and
pluralism
dealt with on the
Home Page of this
website and additional information
on that page.
Briefly,
relativism embraces the culture of
death, that disposition
which moves heaven and earth to create the vacuum center
around which the whole essence of existence spirals downward
toward that meaninglessness and
nothingness, eventually
ending in annihilation. Any meaning or purpose in life is a
fleeting bubble created through the necessity to survive, if
but for a moment upon the illusionary stage of performance.
Little wonder that truth is perceived as relative to each person’s
perception. What is true for you may not be true for me and
vice versa. The notion of absolute
truth only regards an
invention sifted through intolerance. Consequently,
these activists promote total tolerance toward every belief or
any belief, with the only exception, that of
Christianity. Genuine
Christians, those who center in Christ as the only way to
salvation, are lambasted as intolerant and bigoted, unwilling
to allow others the right to exercise their beliefs.
Indeed, on the surface, such an
accusation may take on the appearance of credibility.
However, such blurring of reality by
these smug critics, resorting to distorted and malicious
assaults, must be addressed. The distinction between
beliefs and
persons has been
obliterated in the fostering of such philosophical
arbitration. To these critics, it is inconceivable that a
distinction can be made between
beliefs and the
persons who embrace those beliefs. That obnoxious defiance of reality finds a
corollary with respect to a patient who has a treatable
cancer. If we are true to this distorted
perspective, then in the same vein we cannot separate the
patient from his cancer; hence, a physician should be tolerant
of the cancer and ignore it! Yet, many of the
same people who would bond one’s beliefs to himself at the
same time would call for the treatment of the patient with
cancer. What utter hypocrisy and
inconsistency!
Just as the doctor
can care deeply for the patient, he
does remain intolerant of the
cancer. Thus, why do Christians suffer the ridicule? Do we
understand the import of this question? Are we able to grasp
the relevance that Christians can love those who espouse a
false belief without embracing their belief itself?
Of course, this discussion is
indeed a rehashing of the
subject dealt with in the Home Page of this
website. Yet, the extreme relevance and critical importance of
dealing with relativism and pluralism demands
constant emphasis and unrelenting defense of the
gospel.
Paul expresses his intention to defend
the gospel (Philippians 1:15-17). Also, I Peter
3:15 declares "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts,
and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you
a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear…"
Christ rebuked the scribes and
Pharisees, not that they were blind, but that they
refused to see when He brought the light to them (John
9:39-41). Truth vindicates and emancipates those whose hearts
are true and responsive to the Light. But when that same truth
is shunned and resented, it becomes the darkness that binds
and destroys.
The modern day example of the
predisposition of the scribes and Pharisees can be found in
the referenced talk show host in his bold disdain for truth
and reason. Such demagoguery employed by any person to make a
mockery of truth and reason should justifiably be met with the
utmost intolerance such that respect for truth and reason in
any discussion become the only acceptable basis for continuing
the discussion. Otherwise, no point can even be made to set
forth issues, for there can be no credible reason to ignore
truth and reason to stack the cards against the opponent. If
the same rules apply equitably across the board, and the other
person also resorts to the same tactics, anything and
everything said would be useless and pointless.
This observation merely brings to
surface the duplicitous nature insisted upon by the talk show
host, for he has reserved for himself one standard of great
latitude and denied the other person any latitude whatsoever.
I’m certain that we have noticed this
discrepancy repeated through the news media and other programs
far too frequently.
I recall Dr. James Dobson’s interview
on one of the programs in which time and time again Dr. Dobson
would be cut off from what he had to say with intrusive and
derogatory comments, sometimes putting words in his mouth
which intended to make him look like a fool. Of course, most
of us knew exactly what was happening. Christ remarked
vividly, "And you will be hated by all for My name’s
sake…(Matthew
10:22)."
Click to go back to top of
page.
Important
Disclosure
With the exception of references to
public figures and other areas of public domain regarding any
entry into this website, I, as the textual content writer,
respect the rights of privacy and am also very careful never
to violate copyrighte material. Consequently, any
illustrations used herein simply represent conglomerated
abstracts that do not place anyone at risk of being identified
personally.
NEW LOOK
Our text has been revised. We no longer make
frequent use of the he/she, his/her, himself/herself,
etc., gender friendly and neutral terms. One of the major
reasons for this change regards an effort to make
expressions less interrupting; indeed, some readers
find the frequent usage distracting. While we do seek to be
accommodating to gender sensitivities, we now make use of the
generic he, him, etc. without
attaching any male chauvinistic slant to these terms. We trust
that for the sake of simplicity and clarity, everyone will
understand the merit of this
change.
Click to go back to top of
page.
...................................
Thank you for
visiting our website.
Our aim is to serve the needs of those who
search together with us to explore with a desire to
uncover a greater expanse of truth than we can
ordinarily be aware of. Of course, we make no claims
with respect to cornering the truth, for no person can embrace
total truth any more than the lowly ant can reach the sun
and thoroughly explore the entire burning, exploding
surface. Truth will forever remain greater than the
sum total of all populations of earth, past, present and
future!
Notwithstanding, we move in a direction, ever
growing, ever enamored and learning, ever expanding our
horizons and encountering the reality enlightening the
human soul. Such a journey attests to much more
than mere observations, more than meditations, more than
speculations, more than just an adventure. Certainly,
these elements may well be a reflection of the journey in
part, but ultimately, we shall discover that Reality can
be no less than God Himself! We believe that all of
us can come to the dynamic conclusion that in Him all things
consist (are held together with His meaning and purpose).
--Colossians
1:16-17
But we always invite the participation of each
one who visits these pages. You can add much to the
direction and nature of our exploration by bringing your own
thoughts, suggestions, criticism and
questions. We
even have a for your comments. Or you may wish to send
an e-mail. We do take
seriously every person's comments and we are open to all
additional light that may be given such that we can
continuously grow ourselves and seek to improve these pages
significantly.
Again, thank
you, and we trust that you will both explore with us and
contribute to the journey through your
comments.
Click to go back to top of
page.
We Fight for Everyone’s
Right to Speak
Under the United States Constitution
every citizen enjoys the right of free speech. Of course, such
free speech gives no person a right to cause panic by crying
"Fire!" in a crowded building unless there actually is fire.
The same is true by assaulting another person’s character
through false statements or caustic innuendoes.
However, we may freely disagree with
what others say and even express our disagreement freely, as
long as we do not employ tactics which deliberately distort
the truth to cause problems for any person.
This indeed should be the acceptable
disposition of government toward individual citizens. The
government has no right to choose a national religion or
philosophy to force upon the people or any specific group of
people.
Moreover, as far as legal rights go, allowances need to be
exercised for all ideas, ideologies, principles, philosophies,
religions, etc., just as long as no advocate usurps force or
undue pressures to overpower the choices of others who do not
agree. Everyone’s rights should be equal to everyone
else’s rights, such that the playing field remains
level.
However, this principle of non-interference by government
does not necessitate the government’s endorsement of any
certain one or even every one of these
ideas, ideologies, principles, philosophies, religions, etc.
It’s unfortunate that the High Court sometimes picks and
chooses arbitrarily. The Supreme Court has often identified
with certain ideas, ideologies, principles, philosophies,
religions, etc. On such occasions the justices officially
choose to show preferences through such endorsements (i.e.,
the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe versus
Wade declared the unborn child to be a non-entity,
hence, employing a philosophical view contrary to reason,
science and humanitarianism. That decision involved an
area in which government interfered with people’s right to
exercise principles of the level playing field. The
unborn child became the target of bigotry and denied
all rights inherent in humanity. In this case the High Court
compromised its own integrity and reached beyond its bounds to
disregard the Constitution).
This does point out the stunning fact (especially for some
naïve people) that legality does not automatically make
a thing right. Certainly, we can see from Hitler’s Germany
that the Jewish people legally became dehumanized. The Jews
were open targets to murder, torture, abuse and general
hatred. Such became the legal status in Germany, but not
unlike Germany, we as a nation through our abusive court
system have given our blessing upon torture and murder of the
unborn child. We have incurred immeasurable guilt through the
sacrifice of forty million plus unborn children within our own
country.
This whole matter illustrates the gross delusion we suffer
when we even suggest that because a thing happens to be
legal, it must therefore also be morally, ethically and
spiritually sound.
Hence, what should constitute guidelines for our
discussions? We have noted that a person should be able to
declare his ideas, opinions and preferences freely. Quite
true, in His temptations Christ allowed even Satan to speak,
but those of us who find ourselves guided by
truth in Christ never need to embrace
expressions of very dark and evil ideas which some resort to.
Christ Himself held Satan to the truth. On the other hand,
this does not give us license to assault the person(s)
expressing those ideas, either. As we peel a banana to consume
the fruit and discard the peeling, so, we discard the evil to
accept the person for whom we care. In other words, we should
never lose sight of the diamond in the coal.
In reality, then, our goal in any dialogue should be that
of communication motivated through love, not through cutting
the other person down. This does not suggest that we always
refuse to ignore or excuse weaknesses, but that we seek to
help the other person(s) to understand. At the same time, as
we would expect others to acknowledge the light we wish to
share, we should also be willing to become the recipients of
possible light they may share.
Consequently, to communicate with each other, we must
determine the frame of reference which serves as a
vehicle to interface with each other. Just suppose some of
us know only English; others understand only Japanese.
Apart from a translator even the very simple and basic
communication would be, at the very best, difficult.
Yet, a number of other common references must be
established. Just suppose one group accepts the notion that
absolute truth can only be an unfounded supposition,
that relativism can be the only legitimate frame of
reference. The other group accepts absolute truth as
the only valid and essential common frame of reference.
Such diametrically opposite views would tend to create
hostilities, argumentation, polarization, etc. There could be
little movement to bring any kind of resolution.
Furthermore, suppose one group insists on self-serving
goals to be the only basis for discussion. In such case,
little point could be established to advance no matter what
the frame of reference for the other group turns out
to be.
On the political landscape we may readily observe that
opposing groups find little common frame of
reference. Dedicated, unrelenting family-oriented
congresspersons or judges may find themselves beating futilely
to be heard. The opponents insist on a totally different
frame of reference.
However, we must keep in mind that a ship without a compass
has no frame of reference beyond itself. Some
politicians dogmatically demand no external frame of
reference, such that a society as ours begins to fall
apart at the seams!
Out of the caldron of political
rationale emerge two distinct and opposing approaches to
arrive at decisions. One class of politicians, including many
from the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our
government, determines action based on secularization,
relativism, pluralism—all giving rise to
privatization. These expressions grow from humanism.
Hence, these politicians may be classified as
Revolutionaries (sometimes referred
to as Expansionists), since they
never bring into serious consideration tradition and
traditional values. Thus, they easily bypass the Constitution
of the United States through rewriting the Constitution and
calling such rewriting interpretation or
referring to world law and ignoring the Constitution
(especially true of the judicial branch).
Allow us to expand upon the elements of this radical
segment of our political system:
Secularization: The
movement toward the so-called separation of church and
state incursion into our society demonstrates this growth
toward this very dangerous dichotomy. The sacred and the
secular perversion attributes a gulf between the
so-called sacred and the secular, an unfounded
assumption alien to the Constitution of the United States.
Separation of Church and State has come to mean that
the sacred and the secular cannot intermingle, the church
(religion) totally barred from influences or expressions that
could conceivably influence the political process. This
dichotomy works out in the ideology placing religion in a
niche to itself and everything else (science, politics,
philosophy, etc.) as true disciplines.
Relativism This
dichotomy sifts into the society with a view that every belief
must be looked upon as relative; i.e., what is true for one
person may not be true for another because truth is
never absolute. What one believes determines truth for
him.
Pluralism Relativism
inevitably gives rise to pluralism. Since nothing can
be uniquely right for everybody, tolerance must be expressed
toward all cultures, religions, beliefs and peoples. Each
enjoys the center of his own little world. Each separate world
must be understood as being right in and of itself per se.
Privatization The
political fallout of this philosophy comes with
privatization. Christianity, as well as every religion,
has a right to exist within the scope of its own private
quarters. It’s a private matter for each individual to decide
for himself. No one is wrong, for religion must remain a
matter of the home, not politics, not business, not for public
interference or display. Furthermore, this orientation
embraces positive tolerance such that claims of
exclusivity must be the only philosophy (or
religion) disallowed. Hence, Christianity becomes the
target. However, other religions, cults and the occult may
claim exclusivity as well, but are by and large ignored.
Herein we observe the duplicity of the Revolutionaries.
Obviously, Christianity remains
their exclusive target!
This disposition afflicts many political leaders, including
judges. The courts move toward privatization, for such
is the outgrowth of Revolutionaries.
The other political devotees
may be referred to as Traditionalists, perhaps
in the better sense of the word, for this group treasures
Constitutional values, pro-family values, Judeo-Christian
heritage and understands the necessity to acknowledge
absolute truth. Sometimes this group, also
referred to often as
Constructionists, receives the label
of radical right.
These diametrical opposite philosophies create an
inevitable impasse between the Revolutionaries and
Traditionalists. Whereas, the Revolutionaries prize themselves
as libertarians and create their own domain framed within the
scope of their own little box (see thinking outside the
box) and attribute to humanity a deism (humanism), the
Traditionalists acknowledge a point of
reference from beyond the box where absolute truth
provides the compass to direct toward genuine meaning and
purpose.
Moreover, the Revolutionaries concede no
reference point beyond their own
circumference of interest and agenda, making void any reality
beyond the makeshift reality of their own creation. Thus, they
seek nothing beyond themselves, no light which originates
beyond the prefixed and predetermined world in which they
demand to remain the very hub around which the entire universe
revolves. That does not suggest they fail to go through a
formality of discussion such that they fulfill the window
dressing requirements, but never make the least really
significant concessions beyond their original demands. Before
those true Revolutionary judges lower the gavel to affirm
their decisions, they enter into their ritual, but their
discussions and questions can only be a show to quell the
expectations for open discussions. Congresspersons who are
true Revolutionaries in like manner allow a debate and concede
to the process, but nothing ever phases them with respect to
their adamant demands.
On the other hand, the Traditionalists seek to bring in
all light, every avenue of possibilities to make their
decisions with the broadest considerations and an assessment
of the possible impact of those decisions. They do not
have a prefixed agenda but believe in genuine open and honest
discussions. Certainly, they refuse to compromise principles
and moral, ethical and spiritual values to accommodate or to
expedite the process. True Traditionalists bring to the
process the conviction that absolute truth must frame their
references, that there can never be less than absolute right
and absolute wrong, though human understanding can only move
toward the absolute in varying and relative degrees.
Having thus made these characterizations through
observations and investigations, we can never be ready to say
that any certain person or certain group can be located all
the way at one pole or the other. Yet, it can be absolutely
determined that persons and groups are predominately
moving toward the extreme Revolutionary position or toward the
absolute Traditionalists' pole. Neither do we suggest
that no persons or groups reflect instability in
commitment. Indeed many do vacillate. Even some
manipulate to demonstrate ulterior motives. Sadly, a
significant number tend to exploit people, situations,
circumstances and offices toward their own ends.
Yes, by all means, we must never surrender our rights
to dialogue, to discuss freely, but little can be accomplished
unless common grounds, common sense, fair and reliable
rules, exist. The playing field must be level for
everyone.Thus, the necessity for the right frame of
reference can never be overemphasized!
In practical application we see the consequences of the
incursion of the predominately Revolutionary position
into our society. An incisive effort to divorce our
nation from its roots and foundation leaves scars all across
our landscape. New, abrupt and brazen tragedies inflict heavy
tolls on schools (raving slaughter of students and teachers as
in Colorado) and the public at large (arrogant rebellion
against authority, responsibility, accountability and decency
often expressed in acts of violence, sexual assaults,
destruction of property, kidnapping and dismembering victims,
abortion, and the list goes on endlessly).
This is truly the new America emerging from the destitution
promoted under the Revolutionary efforts to purge moral,
ethical and spiritual values from our nation. If the
proof can be found in the pudding, what more evidence do we
need to realize we are headed in the wrong direction?
Even the rise of the Revolutionary movement
in our society may well be laid at the doorsteps of very
liberal educational institutions within our nation, as
well as educational institutions of other countries. Those
institutions have expended much deliberate effort to debunk
our traditional moral, ethical and spiritual values, such that
we gain absolute liberty to make ourselves the only source of
reality. Furthermore, the intentions focus on execution of
this philosophy with impunity. This wildfire of
relativism came into its own with the stimulus
and blessings of such educational institutions as these.
We may well illustrate this tragedy with the story of a
lone ship in the middle of a vast ocean. The captain gathers
his crew and decides to reeducate everyone with his new
philosophy.
"Your very own ideas must be the basis for your actions on
this ship from now on," he informed with a smile. "You must
become your own god, subject to no one else. Learn for
yourselves as you go and listen to no one else. Your ideas are
just as valid as everybody else’s ideas. It will be OK for you
to get information, as long as you determine what information
you make your own and judge whether it is right for you or
not. We as a group decide what direction the ship will go and
decide each time which direction we should take when we change
course. We no longer need to know which is north, south, east
or west. Since directions should not be absolute, we are
going to throw our ship’s compass overboard!"
At that the captain jettisoned the compass. Foolish? No
more so than what many of the educational institutions in our
own country have done. No more so than what the
Revolutionary movements in our nation have done.
No more so than what much of the political agenda (judicial,
legislative and executive branches) entertains.
Many of us recall with fondness
the genuinely Constitutional America.
In that America statesmen eloquently defended the
moral, ethical and spiritual values of our nation. That era
produced people who had backbone and guts to shine the light
with no compromise on issues, when courage to speak out could
not be lost in the maize of dilly-dallying over claims that
threatened to dilute and weaken resolve to follow through.
We indeed need discussions, free and open exchange of
ideas, but even more, we need those persons who refuse to be
intimidated by unconscionable, ruthless tyrants who
sadistically take delight in uprooting and destroying our
society, who stop at nothing to disown the America of our
forefathers!
URGENT!
Very disturbing news coming out
of Washington with respect to Congress’ indecision on the
Marriage
Amendment carries
detrimental potential against the survivability of our nation,
of our society, as we know it! A report that adverse
influences bear more heavily upon the congressmen than
pro-family efforts must spur the ones of us who believe in
decency and truth to rush to register our support. If we
have not, please let us act immediately to halt the forces of
evil. In this post election for 2004, we need to redouble our
efforts to get Congress to act. (Let us check the Links Page to
contact ACLJ, LC or others who can help us contact our
congressmen!)
Read Open Letter to
ABC
Click to go back to top of
page.
|
