|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
According to Chuck Colson, Muslims would make better theologians than most Christians. He cites an opinion survey that shows that many professing Christians cannot name even five of the Ten Commandments. How much the average Muslim knows of his religion is open to question. If you take him beyond the more radical shibboleths of Islam he may be as ignorant as the average professing Christian. But still, Colson's observation is interesting and we should take it seriously. Colson's point is that the U.S. and Europe are under a twin threat, from secularism and Islam. He believes that historic, orthodox Christianity provides the only real defense of these nations against the threat. Yet there is a glaring and widespread ignorance about the core beliefs of the Christian faith. I have no doubt that Colson is right. Ignorance is everywhere. The problem is in some ways less than he makes it out to be and in some ways even worse than he thinks. I say the problem may be less widespread than he reports because of how he and the pollsters whose report he relies on define a "Christian." They define the term in a way that includes many whom Bible believers would not see as Christians but as lost people who need to be saved. Perhaps "church members" or "church attenders" would be a better description of many of the people in the survey than "Christians." Nevertheless, ignorance of core Biblical truths is a widespread problem. I said it may be worse than Colson claims for there are truths that many evangelicals know little or nothing about and yet according to Scripture they are foundational truths. Justification by faith alone, the Saviour's blood atonement and union with Christ are just three examples of truths about which most people who sit in church week after week know nothing or next to nothing. So, who's to blame? I would say that preachers are the chief culprits. Some of them have never expounded such themes in all their ministries. If they do not teach the people it is a fair assumption that the people will not learn them. Preachers have become business executives, PR men, social directors, psychologists, entertainment agents and a host of other things. But in many cases they have forgotten their first calling. Many preachers spend little real time in studying God's word. They dredge up topics from current affairs or from preachers' manuals. Those who do study often feed their people dry husks instead of "the finest of the wheat." As a result, few Christians can really give an answer to those who ask of them a reason of the hope that is in them. That is sad, really sad for it takes away one of the surest and most Scriptural methods of spreading the gospel. So, what's to be done? It would make good sense to get into a church where there is a solid Bible ministry. Then read and study diligently for yourself, praying for the Spirit's guidance in your studies. Learn the truth-and then "tell it around and let it abound." If to knowledge you add godly zeal you will be a good theologian in the best sense of the term. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Emma Beck was a talented artist. When she found out that she was pregnant with twins she told her boyfriend (isn't it scary how boyfriends and girlfriends have taken over from husbands and wives?). Her boyfriend, whose identity has been protected, was most unhappy at the news and so he and Miss Beck decided she would have an abortion. She did and, overcome with guilt at the heinous thing she had done, she killed herself. She was found hanging at her home in Helston, England, on February 1, 2007. She was declared dead early the following day-her 31st birthday. She left a suicide note that is absolutely heart rending. "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum. I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does." Miss Beck clearly stated in her suicide note that she had told the people at the hospital that she did not want to go through with the abortion. She was clearly troubled and in a volatile state of mind. She saw her family doctor before the abortion, but missed an appointment at the hospital. She then cancelled, but later turned up to an appointment at a clinic at another hospital. She needed to see a counselor but the counselor was on vacation. So a doctor referred Miss Beck to a pregnancy counseling telephone service eight days before carrying out the abortion when she was eight weeks pregnant. This is the information that was presented to an inquest presided over by a lady doctor. She ordered that the identities of the doctor who performed the abortion and the woman's lead counselor be kept secret. Miss Beck's mother wanted to know why her daughter had not been able to see a counselor. The only answer she received was not an answer at all. It was an excuse from the hospital that, according to the abortion doctor, "It is normal practice to give a woman the number for telephone counseling when a counselor is not available." She added, "I am satisfied that everything was done to make sure that Emma consented to the operation," but went on to assure the inquest, "We have since appointed more counselors so there is more holiday cover." The coroner recorded a verdict of suicide but found no fault with the hospital or the abortionist. She glibly stated, "It is clear that a termination can have a profound effect on a woman's life. But I am reassured by the evidence of the doctors here." If she was reassured, she must have been the only one. It was generally admitted that Miss Beck had problems with depression. Yet, despite her telling hospital professionals that she did not want to proceed with an abortion they pressed on anyway. That they obtained her later permission is not the point. How did they obtain it? What counseling was available? Why was there no hesitation in proceeding even after the doctor in charge had noted that she was alone and unsupported? If a church were accused by a suicide note of actions that contributed to the death of the victim the police would be all over the case and the press would be full of the story. But in England a coroner can bury the identities of those whose actions had an immediate influence on the commission of a suicide. This story is a tragedy. Little twin babies were mercilessly killed. Their mother has killed herself. Yet the "boyfriend" can wash his hands in anonymity, as can the abortionists who contributed to the tragedy. This is wrong. It is a whitewash and the culprits should be held accountable. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Earlier this week, I reported on a British court's decision to fine a Bishop for violating the "right" of a practicing homosexual to gain employment in a church job. Despite the fact that the law specifically exempts religious organizations from sex-discrimination charges, the Bishop's legal rights were trampled under the bogus rights claimed by homosexuals. Here in the United States, Iowa State University has furnished another example of how selectively "rights" are recognized. In the Astronomy department of Iowa State University Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez has worked as an assistant professor and has established a stellar scientific reputation. He has published 350% more peer-reviewed publications than his department's stated standard for research excellence. He has co-authored a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press. He has had his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications. In 2004 his department at Iowa State University nominated him for an "Early Achievement in Research" honor. Add to this that Gonzalez is Hispanic, which makes him an even more attractive candidate for promotion in state organizations that proclaim their love of racial diversity. Yet despite all this, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure. Not only that, but the Board of Regents refused to allow him to be heard in oral arguments and finally rejected his appeal. So why would Iowa State University reject a man whose academic credentials and research record are beyond reproach? The answer is simple. He wrote a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," which supports the idea that the world we live in bears evidence of having been brought into being by design and not by accident. On the basis of that book, the evolutionists in the astronomy department of Iowa State University and a number of their fellow travelers in other departments started an email campaign to have Gonzalez ousted by being denied tenure. The University's Board of Regents has denied that Dr. Gonzalez's support of Intelligent Design played a part in his rejection. However, the head of his department, Eli Rosenberg, stated that Gonzalez's book did play a part. He went on to suggest that his research record over his six-year probationary period had put his appointment in trouble. The facts utterly confute Rosenberg's statement. The Gonzalez record was more than adequate to gain tenure. As the De Moines register found out from emails that reporters examined, the University's claim that his support of ID didn't play into their decision was patently false. The simple truth is that in Iowa State University evolutionism has gained such a stranglehold that even respectable scientists will be forced out if they question Darwin's theory. Then, having rejected such scientists, the evolutionists who ousted them will assure the public that "scientists" all agree. The falseness of that claim is that it stands on a prior belief that you cannot be accepted as a "scientist" if you don't agree! The message from both Britain and America is plain. Rights and freedoms are reserved for the politically correct. Question the godless orthodoxy of the "scientific community" or of the current "liberal" social order and you will discover that your rights either have been taken from you or are in process of being removed. What proclaims itself to be a liberal democracy is in fact becoming an illiberal dictatorship, with its thought police patrolling every area of our lives. That's not an Orwell prophecy. It's here and now. Just ask Guillermo Gonzalez. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Just before I prepared this commentary I received news of the sudden death of a longtime friend, a brother in Christ whose testimony was clear and vibrant and whose Christian character was an example to all of us who knew him. I spoke to his shocked widow whose grief is made bearable by the grace of her Saviour's presence with her and by the assurance of His word that her husband, though absent from the body, is present with the Lord. She knows that though his body is in the grave his soul is with Christ, "which is far better" (Philippians 1:23). Coincidentally, just before receiving the news of my friend's death I read some statements by a leading bishop of the Church of England, N.T. Wright, to the effect that Christians do not go to heaven when they die. According to Wright, in what theologians call the intermediate state-that is, the state of the soul between death and the resurrection-Christians do not go to heaven to live in blessedness as disembodied spirits awaiting the resurrection. Until Christ returns, he insists, Christians "sleep." As he explained it, "We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep. The Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish text from about the same time as Jesus, says ‘the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,' and that seems like a poetic way to put the Christian understanding, as well." The dogma of soul sleep is not new. It is the belief of Seventh Day Adventism. Now it is being promoted by a well known theologian. This is not Tom Wright's first foray into the realm of the controversial. He is the man who launched what has become known in theology as "The New Perspective on Paul," his redefinition of the doctrine of justification. Far from being new, it is in most of its salient characteristics a return to the old dogma of the Council of Trent. It is in essence a repudiation of the central doctrine of all Protestant soteriology. So it is not surprising that having gone off the rails in such a vital area Wright should also go astray on the subject of the intermediate state. When the Bible speaks of the dead "sleeping" it uses the term metaphorically and applies it solely to the body, not of the soul. When Paul considered death he said it would be "gain" to him. It would be "better" than his present experience. In his lifetime Paul had amazing experiences of Christ's presence and fellowship. He looked forward to death as giving an entrance into a better state-which could hardly be the case if his high level of consciousness of God was to be replaced by some dreamy sleep or unconsciousness. Again, he spoke of "the spirits of just men made perfect." This is hardly the description of unconsciousness. Perfect sanctification of the soul by definition cannot be enjoyed by unconscious souls. Indeed, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that unconsciousness is anything but a physical state. Released from the body the souls of believers are perfected and enter into a far better enjoyment of Christ than ever before. It is not their final state. Their bodies will be raised and body and soul they will be forever with the Lord, perfectly conformed to their glorified Saviour. That is their final hope. But it should not dim the immediate realization of a happy entrance into glory when they die, no matter what Bishop Wright says. In plain English, Wright is wrong. My friend is more alive than ever he was! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
You have heard the old sayings about the fox being in charge of the hen house and the inmates running the mental asylum. That's the way life is getting to be in what were once known as "liberal democracies." Now they are liberal, in the worst sense of the word but they are becoming more and more dictatorial than democratic. Consider what recently happened to the Bishop of Hereford in the United Kingdom. He and his diocesan leaders were interviewing candidates for a position in the employment of their church. A 42 year old applicant seemed to have the qualifications they were looking for until the bishop began to putting some personal questions to him. It transpired that he was a practicing homosexual and he took great exception to being asked about such matters. Poor thing, he felt traumatized and suffered deep emotional hurt. On the way home he even cried. And then to cap matters, when the bishop telephoned some days later he learned that he had not got the job. Clearly the Bishop and his diocesan leaders felt that it was not appropriate for them to employ a practicing homosexual. So the rejected homosexual sued them. And he won. In fact, he was awarded $100,000 in compensation and the Bishop was ordered to undergo "equal opportunity" training. The compensation includes $50,000 for future loss of wages, $16,000 for future pension loss, $14,000 damages for psychiatric injury, $12,000 for injury to feelings, $2,640 for counseling and $50 for costs incurred seeking work. The case was brought under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Under that legislation, it is illegal to discriminate against people as a result of their sexual orientation, but the law does contain an exemption for organized religion. In his evidence, the Bishop said he had made it clear to the applicant that a person in a sexual relationship outside marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post. He said that the behaviour of the man they had rejected for the post was contrary to official Church teaching and had "the potential to impact on the spiritual, moral and ethical leadership within the diocese." Clearly, it is the legal right of a church to exercise its religious liberty to refuse employment or membership to anyone who beliefs or practices are contrary to those of the church. Despite this, the tribunal ruled that the Bishop had acted unlawfully and had discriminated against the offended homosexual applicant on the grounds of sexual orientation. So to defend the "rights" of a homosexual the tribunal determined a Church of England bishop's testimony to be a lie, for he testified that the rule by which he and his colleagues judged the merits of the applications before them were the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Not so, said the tribunal in effect, you discriminated against a homosexual. You are guilty and it will cost your diocese $100,000 plus as much again in legal costs. Remember this has taken place despite the promised protection of churches against discrimination charges for applying their religious principles to the working of their organization. The sodomite lobby has gained such a stranglehold that even the law must be bent to accommodate homosexuals. If religious liberty is not yet dead in Britain, it's on life support and the plug will soon be pulled. Just ask the Bishop of Hereford. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
A Japanese who hopes to become an Anglican priest has priest has produced yet another version of the Scriptures. Well, not quite for it would be crazy to call the book that Doubleday has published as a version of the Bible. It is a perversion. It is a blasphemy. And yet it bears a blurb commending it from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course, after Williams' recent blathering about the inevitability of Sharia law in Britain, his recommendation may be just what is needed to ensure the failure of the publication. The writer of this latest parody of Scripture is Ajinbayo Akinsiku. He titles his book, "The Manga Bible: From Genesis to Revelation" and in it he reduced the Bible to "a graphic novel." In this novel, according to Akinsiku, "Christ is a hard guy, seeking revolution and revolt, a tough guy." He stated bluntly, "We present things in a very brazen way." The only thing that is brazen about this book and the entire attitude behind it is the hard-nosed rebellion of its author and his sponsors against God and His word. The New York Times shrewdly remarked: "Publishers with an eye for evangelism and for markets have long profited by directing Bibles at niche markets: just-married couples, teenage boys, teenage girls, recovering addicts. Often the lure is cosmetic, like a jazzy new cover. Sales of graphic novels, too, have grown by double digits in recent years. So it makes sense that a convergence is under way, as graphic novels take up stories from the Bible, often in startling ways. In the last year, several major religious and secular publishing houses have announced or released manga religious stories. The medium shapes the message. Manga often focuses on action and epic. Much of the Bible, as a result, ends up on the cutting room floor, and what remains is darker." For example, though Akinsiku has room to let his imagination run riot to create stories about Noah and Abraham and a host of other Bible characters, he has no place for such things as the Sermon on the Mount. Yet the author hypocritically says he wants people to come to know the real Jesus. And, as I have noted, Rowan Williams uses his position as Archbishop of Canterbury to assure us that "it will convey the shock and freshness of the Bible in a unique way." According to Timothy Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, reworking Scripture in new ways, including manga "is the end of the Word as we know it, and the end of a certain cultural idea of the Scriptures as a book, as the Book. It opens up new ways of understanding Scripture and ends up breaking the idols a bit." Don't you believe it! Foolish men have been predicting the death of God's Book for centuries and they have always been wrong. After it has conned a few gullible people into parting with their hard earned money, Akinsiku's blasphemy will soon be on the rubbish heap of history, where it belongs. And the Bible will still be standing, the living, infallible word of the eternal God. It always defeats its detractors and in this case will mortify its manglers. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Happy Saint Patrick's Day! You know, there was an actual Saint Patrick. Unlike many of the alleged saints who lived in ancient times or in the Dark Ages, Saint Patrick was a real person. Today he is thought of as the patron saint of Ireland. I hail from Ireland and that makes Patrick a subject of special interest to me. Of course, he is not a patron saint of anywhere. There's no such thing as a patron saint. The Bible knows nothing at all about such beings and the notion that they exist grows out of the pagan ideas that crept into professed Christianity. However, though Patrick was never a patron saint he was a real man and a real saint in the Biblical sense of the word. Scholars dispute about where Patrick was born. He said that he was born and raised in "Britain." Unfortunately it is almost impossible to be certain as to precisely where he meant. France claims him. Remember that we still have a "Brittany" in France. Scotland claims him and its claims may be superior to those of any other place. His father was a churchman and he grew up herding his father's sheep until one day he was stolen away by a bunch of marauders who took him to Ireland where he lived as a slave. There on the lonely slopes of Slemish mountain, which is in the northern county of Antrim (some believe the mountain in question is the one now known as Croagh Patrick, Ireland's so-called "Holy Mount"), the young slave boy came into a real, personal and living faith in Christ. Finally he managed to escape and make his way home but his engagement with Ireland was just beginning. God gave him a strange dream, somewhat like the vision He gave Paul concerning the man from Macedonia. In his dream Patrick felt God calling him to return to the dark, misty and bog ridden land of Ireland, with its wild people and its endless dangers to win its pagan inhabitants for Christ. Patrick obeyed. His own Confession tells the story of his conversion and gives us a brief but profound insight into his beliefs. He confessed himself a sinner and threw himself on God's mercy in Christ. He was never commissioned by a pope or by the papal church. He went to Ireland without episcopal ordination, as a man sent from God with a burden to preach Christ to the heathen Irish. What he preached was the gospel of saving grace. And God powerfully blessed his ministry. He moved all over the country and witnessed both to chieftains and serfs. He founded hundreds of churches-and the interesting thing is that those churches were not set up after the fashion of Romish churches. The Patrick of papal mythology never existed. The medieval "histories" of his life and work were inventions through which Rome sought to highjack a ministry that had been conducted entirely without any sanction from Rome or its bishops. There was good reason for Rome's effort. The Churches that Patrick founded were among the very last in Europe to bow to the supremacy of the pope-not until Pope Adrian IV "gave" Ireland to the King of England so that he might subjugate it and bring it into the papal fold. But by that time Patrick had been dead for almost a millennium. Thank God, it was not popery but the gospel of free grace that Patrick brought to Ireland. Today, on St. Patrick's Day, we salute his memory. In the truest sense, he was Ireland's spiritual father and he was Ireland's first Protestant. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) with headquarters in Cambridge, England, promotes itself as "the world's foremost scholarly organization devoted to the dialogue between science and religion." Recently it commissioned a report by seven of its "expert" members to deal with the claims of the Intelligent Design movement that has set evolutionists by the ears here in the United States. ISSR notes that "there has been much interest in the view that our current scientific understanding of evolution is incoherent. According to this view, certain biological features, because they appear to be ‘irreducibly complex', could not have evolved by natural selection and therefore must have been created by the intervention of an ‘intelligent designer'." ISSR adds: "This view has been challenged, not only by atheists such a Richard Dawkins, but also by religious believers. Among these are many members of the International Society for Science and Religion." ISSR's Executive Committee has published the report on the issue by its seven members, each of whom is proclaimed as an "expert" in science, theology, philosophy or history. The report was finalized only after consultation with ISSR's members, who come from many countries and from many different religious traditions and academic disciplines. The concept of Intelligent Design is, says the report, "neither sound science nor good theology." The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God's action as creator - a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call "the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science - just as we oppose the efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism)." Sir Brian Heap, the President of ISSR, who is both an endocrine physiologist and a professing Christian, said, "Here is a succinct critique with a valuable bibliography, though no doubt not the last word on the subject." He is dead right. This is certainly not the last word on the subject. Parading "experts" is as helpful as parading a line of polar bears. Those who promote ID are also "experts" in the very same fields of science, philosophy and religion. What all ISSR's religious experts have in common is a desire or willingness to discount (a) the plain statements of the Bible, treating them as anything but divine revelation; and (b) any cogent argument that shows the inherent impossibility of the scheme proposed by Darwinian evolutionists. In other words, they come to the subject with closed minds, determined to make the evidence fit their prejudice. The theologians they acclaim are not theologians at all in the real sense of the word. Theology can function only on the basis and in the realm of divine revelation. ISSR's theologians can never ascend beyond a humanistic construction of a god of their own imagining. Theirs is a god of their own devising. Their religion, whatever its name, is really idolatry. Their theology is bad theology and their science is bad science. All the "experts" in the world cannot change this. Unfortunately, however, their prestige enables them to press their bigoted views on the government to deny students in public schools the opportunity to learn both sides of the debate, which says a lot about the insecurity of ISSR and its experts. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Recently I commented on the demise of the so-called Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Its support at grass roots level is almost non-existent. After over a century of propaganda and high powered sponsorship it has come to very little. That has not dampened the enthusiasm of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches for the event. Since 1968, the WCC's Commission on Faith and Order and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity have jointly sponsored it and this year the pope and the General Secretary of the WCC, Dr Samuel Kobia, a Kenyan Methodist, got together in Rome to give a very public thrust to their endeavor to produce one united church under the leadership of the pope. The WCC, headquartered in Geneva, has 347 churches in its membership, including Anglican, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal and Orthodox bodies. Although the Church of Rome does not belong to the WCC, it has members on some of its bodies, including the Commission on Faith and Order. About thirty ecumenical leaders of Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches met in Rome to take part in what was billed as a week-long ecumenical festival. Kobia's joint appearance with the pope marked the conclusion of the week of prayer for unity (January 18-25). Kobia repeated the same old canard as all his predecessors. He said: "I want to assure you of our commitment to continue our co-operation in the best possible way. ... The world needs a church that is one and united in its witness." Referring to the unrest in his home country which has led to more than 800 deaths, Kobia continued, "The common witness of the churches for reconciliation and healing of the nation is crucial for peace in Kenya." All this sounds great to the carnal mind. The secular press seems to love these apparently loving and peace-producing statements. In fact, Kobia's statement is absolutely false on all levels. Unity already exists among genuine Christians on the basis of fundamental Christian doctrine and practice. It does not necessitate a monolithic ecclesiastical structure without which our witness must remain ineffective. The opposite is clearly the case. As recent studies have shown, churches that are large state monopolies are dying while churches that are seen as being "competitive" are flourishing. So building ecumenical powerhouses carries no promise of having any effect on the world around us. To hear Samuel Kobia talking to the pope you would think that if only they could have got together in time the recent politically inspired rioting in Kenya would have been avoided. You talk about wishful thinking! I would argue that if their vision of a world church ever materializes it will make matters such as the Kenyan troubles even worse. Make no mistake: there is no God-given spiritual power in the ecumenical movement. It is a man-invented, man-engineered, humanistic organization that has since its inception been an open enemy of the gospel of Christ. In its history it has been pro-Communist, pro-terrorist, anti-Western and anti-missions. In a word it has been anti-Christ. Remember that when next you see a benign looking picture of men like the pope and the General Secretary of the WCC. The ecumenical machine they are cranking up aims at nothing less than the destruction of Bible Christianity. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
When two lesbian women tried to hire photographer Elane Huguenin for their pseudo marriage ceremony she declined because she said her Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The lesbian pair filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination. The complainants sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees, which according to lawyers could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars if the case were to proceed through various stages of court proceedings. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography. "We defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, said. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elane photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony-that marriage can be defined as two women or two men." There is an already clearly established legal precedent that should protect Elane Photography from this iniquitous lawsuit. Of course, that is not to say that the New Mexico Human Rights Division will not try to establish rights for homosexuals that trample the clear constitutional rights of a photographer whose religious belief does not allow her to participate in a same-sex pseudo marriage. Homosexuals and their fellow travelers are on a crusade to force acceptance of their perverted lifestyle by mainstream society. In fact, they want to go further and force the rest of us not only to recognize homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle but to become active participants in promoting it. Already that have prevailed on courts to rule that little children must have textbooks that effectively redefine the meaning of family to make homosexual relationships appear normal. They will never stop in their crusade until they have spread the poison of their perversion to every part of this society. We need more individuals and business that are willing to stand up and be counted. Many corporations that have regard only to the bottom line and care nothing for the moral fiber of the nation have become active supporters, even promoters, of the sodomite movement. As I say, it's time that people of integrity decided to take a stand and determine not to yield their constitutional rights-yes, their God-given rights-to oppose the dark and damning wickedness of homosexuality. Homosexuality is nasty, not normal; abominable, not acceptable. The sooner we take that message to America the better for America. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
