THE DUCK FLAP

For a week, the news has been about the Duck Dynasty leader, Phil Robertson.  Since the controversy is all about freedom of faith, I ought to comment on it.  I’ll do my best to bring to light some details that have been left out of most reports.  After listening to several news stories covering the interview Phil had with the GQ  reporter, I suspected that we weren’t getting all the facts.  It appeared that the reporters had not read the article, but were commenting on small quotes.  I looked up the article and read the whole thing.  Almost all the reports were done by people who were ignorant of what was really said.  For example, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News spent the lead time on two broadcasts criticizing Phil for “condemning a group of people to damnation” and “judging others”.  If he had read the article, he would have discovered that Phil said the same thing.  Phil knows he isn’t supposed to condemn or judge anyone and he says so.  So, here are some observations you may not see on the news:

1.        Phil wasn’t sharing his opinion about homosexual activity.  All the commentators were debating if he had the right to share his “opinion”.  What he said about homosexuality was not an opinion.  The statements that are being attacked were quotes.  He was quoting a Biblical passage from I Corinthians 6:9,10 as his answer to a direct question of the reporter.  It says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”.(from the NIV version of the Bible)  The Apostle Paul wrote the passage.  Phil just drew attention to it.  As Christians, we believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did.  Therefore, the condemnation isn’t from Phil, it’s from God’s Holy Spirit.

2.       The issue of bestiality also arose.  Phil is accused of comparing homosexual behavior to bestiality.  Actually, it isn’t Phil who makes that connection.  It is President Obama.  In the letter from the White House to the Pentagon ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy restrictions, the President also ended restrictions on bestiality .  The two activities are listed together in the letter… in the same paragraph.  And he uses the same rationale to remove the restrictions on both.  A report on the discussions at A & E said that the comparison Phil made between the two activities was the main reason he was suspended.  So, why didn’t they ban any appearance by President Obama on A & E?

3.       The most important observation is that no one read past verses 9 and 10.  The key verse is 11.  It says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  Later in the article, Phil pointed out these truths.  The Bible has pervasive themes.  God does the condemnation of sin by His Holy Spirit.  We respond with repentance, confession, and belief.  Then God forgives, regenerates, and restores.  Everyone is focusing on the condemnation and nobody but Phil is focusing on the rest of the themes which are the good news.  He shares that his life is a living testimony to the verse 11.

The tactics being used by the homosexual lobby to silence Phil and any other voices are not unusual.  (See my article entitled “The Ruse” at http://freedomoffaith.blogspot.com)They have used the “fear the smear” weapon since the late 60’s.  Obviously, people are getting tired of their propaganda myths and iron boot tactics to suppress the free expression of faith.  Just look at the enormous reaction supporting Phil and his family.

 

 

 

THE ANNUAL WAR ON CHRISTMAS

 

 

Every year as Christmas approaches we see the war on Christmas surge to the surface.  Christmas carols are banned from school programs.  Store employees are threatened if they make statements such as "Merry Christmas".  Even decorations are screened according to the preferences of the thought police.  Everyone is walking on eggshells afraid of offending someone who is part of organizations that thrive on bashing people of faith.  So, government agencies are forced to make policies that prohibit the free expression of faith by anyone except secular humanists.

 

But, to the dismay of secular humanists, in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in Toraso v. Watkins

(367 U.S. 488) that secular humanism is a religion.  In fact, the IRS has given tax exempt status to secular humanism as a religion.  That means that any prohibition a government agency imposes on people of faith also applies to secular humanism!  Think about the implication of that fact.  That would mean schools, universities, government agencies, etc. that have regulations restricting the presentation of materials deemed too religious would also have to ban secular humanistic materials as well.  This has driven secular humanist to insane conclusions.  They are trying to argue that they are a religion in free exercise clauses, but not in establishment clauses.  They want to be a religion when it is of benefit to them, but not when it is restrictive.  The result is they have the blessing of being tax exempt, but they don't have to abide by restrictions on their beliefs like other religions.  That has led to inconsistent and confusing court rulings.

 

There is a better solution.  We need to return to the era of free speech.  When free speech is enacted, all groups can say what they want.  They can promote, educate, explain, discuss, and persuade to their hearts content.  Free speech is self governing.  Everyone knows that if they present absurd propositions, there can be rebutals that would expose irrational or destructive comments.  As it is currently, only certain politically correct positions are allowed.  The current educational system has become more indoctrination than education.  What is taught is controlled by a small group of people with very limited beliefs who have the warped impression that they know what is best for everyone.

 

As for holidays, let people celebrate in the way that is meaningful to them.  

Planned Parenthood Unveiled

THE ROOTS OF LEGALIZED ABORTION IN THE U.S.

 

One Woman’s Dream

 

The roots of legalized abortion in the U.S. can be traced back to one woman, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  That organization is linked to its founder and carries on her dream today.  Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the second president of the organization, has said, “We are merely walking down the path Mrs. Sanger carved out for us”.  Another president, Faye Wattleton, has said she was proud to be walking in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger.  Pamela Maraldo, another president says, “Today, Planned Parenthood proudly carries on the courageous tradition of Margaret Sanger”.  (Planned Parenthood Federation of America Service Report, p. 3)

 

So, it is obvious that to understand Planned Parenthood, we must discover the tradition of Margaret Sanger.  She was the sixth child of Michael and Anne Higgins.  Michael had marched through the south under General Sherman, but his socialist ideas and activities later in life caused the family to live a life described by Margaret as “joyless and filled with drudgery and fear”.  (O’Rourke, Parliament of Whores, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1991. Pg. 9).  She left home as quickly as possible and soon became involved in radical politics, feminism, and promiscuity.  She attended college for less than a year and dropped out.  She tried teaching kindergarten, and nursing but didn’t stick with either.  She met William Sanger, a young architect with a promising career and they were married.  They had three children and moved into Manhattan.  She joined the Socialist Party and helped organize several strikes and labor protests.  She started writing for the Party newspaper.  She began attending Mabel Dodge’s meetings for radicals.  When Margaret’s turn came to share, free love and sensuality were her themes. Her lifestyle reflected her rhetoric and William gave up on the marriage.

 

Margaret then spent her energies publishing The Woman Rebel where she denounced marriage as “a degenerated institution”, capitalism as “indecent exploitation, modesty as “obscene prudery”.  (Logan & de Tilati. Morality and the Village Elite, St. Regis, 1949, p.63) Other articles promoted political assassinations.  She was served with a subpoena indicting her on three counts of breaking federal law.  She decided to flee to England.  She farmed out her children and in one last stick in the eye, she published and distributed an article entitled “Family Limitations” which promoted contraception using very dangerous techniques. (Gray, Margaret Sanger, Merek, 1979, p. 280)

 

Upon arriving in England, she joined radical groups including eugenicists who believed that for survival of civilization, the physically unfit, the poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be eliminated.  Her bed became the meeting place for the Fabian upper-crust.  (Chase, The Legacy of Malthus, Knopf, 1977, p. 81) She met Havelock Ellis, the grandfather of the Bohemian sexual revolution.  For Margaret, the sexual revolution met eugenics in Havelock Ellis.  Ellis also helped Margaret package her rhetoric and writings in a more acceptable form.  Her old line anarchism, socialism, and pro-abortion stances were to give way to eugenics.  She left England for the U.S. and immediately began a campaign to defend her position and get the charges against her dropped.  She was successful.  She held a tour promoting her eugenic ideals and opened a clinic in New York City in an area populated with Slavs, Latins, Italians, and Jews—which according to Sanger were all “dysgenic and diseased races” that needed to have their “reckless breeding” curbed.  The clinic was closed down in two weeks and Margaret was in jail for thirty days.  Upon release, she started publishing The Birth Control Review.  Her time in jail convinced her to change her approach.  She began by including articles by well known people like Pearl Buck and H. G. Wells.  Money poured in.  Her name became a household word.  Her fame was secure.  She wrote The Pivot of Civilization promoting eugenics.  She openly called for the elimination of “human weeds”, the elimination of charity, the sterilization of “genetically inferior races” and for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted”.(Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, Brentano’s, 1922, p.88)

 

At this time she met and married J. Noah Slee, a lubricant millionaire.  She set out to spend his fortune on her career and cause.  She campaigned successfully to win over the medical community.  She was given millions by the Rockefellers, Fords, and Mellons.  She had to spend considerable funds to purge her reputation because of her eugenic connections with those who had put together Nazi Germany’s race purification program.  She had openly endorsed the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the Third Reich.  Articles in The Birth Control Review mirrored Hitler’s racist rhetoric.  She even commissioned Dr. Ernst Rudin, the director of the Nazi Medical Experimentation program, to write for the Review.

 

To restore her image, she changed the name of her organization to “Planned Parenthood” and tried to cover her real ideals in language that promoted “patriotism and family values”. (Ballard, For God and Country, Blackpools, 1977, p.88) But under the slick labels is a diehard racist.  She hated charity because, “it is the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents”.  Her alternative to charity was to “eliminate the stocks”.   Her theme was, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit”.  In 1939, she designed the “Negro Project”.  Why?  She said, “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the south, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit”.(Gordan, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, Penquin, 1974)  She even went so far as to hire black ministers to promote the project.  The entire operation was a ruse to get blacks to participate in their own elimination.

 

In 1934, she recommended that the U.S. government launch a health-care reform plan that would include “parenthood permits”.  The permits would only be issued to those couples “deemed eugenically fit by public officials”. The  permits would only be good for one child.  In China, Planned Parenthood helped the government launch a brutal one-child-per-couple policy.  There have been over one million forced abortions, mandatory sterilizations, and infanticides since then.  Planned Parenthood says it has been a model of efficiency. (Mosher, Broken Earth, Free Press, 1983)  Did you know your tax dollars went to abort Chinese children?

 

To this day, the thrust of Planned Parenthood’s work is to devise new plans to penetrate Black, Hispanic, and ethnic communities with its message of eugenic racism.  Planned Parenthood’s crusade to eliminate all those “dysgenic stocks” that Margaret Sanger believed were a “dead weight of human waste” and a “menace to the race” has resulted in a wholesale slaughter.  It is public knowledge that minority children are being aborted at twice the proportional rate of the majority.  Planned Parenthood is the recipient of millions of dollars of tax money. You and I are paying for their racist eugenics and “following in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger”.  That will help you sleep better tonight.

IS ISLAM A RELIGION?

I recently saw an article about Islam in Japan.  It said that:
-No Muslim can have citizenship
-No permanent residency for Muslims
-No propagating of Islam
-No importing of the Quran in Arabic
-Most corporations don't accept applications for employment from Muslims
-No renting of houses to Muslims
-No Sharia Law

There were more rules listed, but you can see the trend.  One would think that, as the author of a blog promoting the free expression of faith, that I would be outraged by such rules.  Actually, having spent 6 years regularly attending Muslim prayer meetings, reading the Quran and other Islamic writings, and discussing the topic with Muslim leaders, I can understand why Japan is taking such a stance.

My study of the subject has led me to conclude, along with many Muslim and non-Muslim folks, that Islam is not primarily a religion.  It is a governmental system with a religious component.  My conclusion is not unique.  Consider the influential Islamic Spiritual leader Abul Ala Maududi who concludes, "Islam is an ideology.  The five pillars of Islam cry out for a state to exist in order for their full establishment to be achieved.  This is the nature of Islam as it is an ideology."  Remember, Islam's most important goal, it's ultimate ambition, is the establishment of a worldly state, a global political empire: the Caliphate, to whose authority all of mankind-Muslims and non-Muslims alike- are subjected.

Professor Urbain Vermeulen, former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, says Islam is only 10% religion, while 90% deals with how people have to behave in accordance with Islamic law based on divine revelations Muhammad received.

Egyptian born Nonie Darwish, the daughter of an Egyptian Islamic martyr wrote,  "Islam is a political and legal system of totalitarian control".  She concludes that Islamic apostasy laws move Islam from a religion to a totalitarian political ideology.

The mistake much of Europe, the UK, Canada, and the U.S. is making is to think that Islam is primarily a religion and therefore afford Islam religious freedoms which have been used by Islamic leaders to establish governmental systems contrary to the laws and customs of the host country.  It is causing chaos in Europe.  A native of Berlin told me this week that when she visits her homeland, she is appalled by what is happening to her country.  The Muslims are not assimulating.  They are conquering and ravaging the land.

Only when the leaders of the west recognize the true nature of Islam as primarily a governmental system seeking to impose Sharia Law worldwide and to destroy our governmental system as contained in the Constitution and the other foundational documents upon which our societies have been governed, will we have a chance to maintain our freedoms.

Japan must have done it's homework and decided to act before it was too late.

GOD'S NOT KIDDING

I spent many years working as a chaplain in a large county jail.  One day I was speaking to an inmate who was discouraged and disturbed.  His children had been cared for by his parents.  But, recently, his children had been disceptively taken by his mother in law who is a drug abuser and lives with a known drug dealer.  His children were not with their mother because he had an affair with a woman at work which resulted in a fight and separation.  He thought it would be best for his parents to care for them.

He said, "I don't understand why God is doing this to me?".  I responded, "TIME OUT.  Are you saying God is guilty of adultry, kidnapping, drug abuse, and drug dealing?  You are the one who couldn't keep your pants on.  You're the one who violated the marriage covenant.  It was your mother in law who lied to your parents saying, 'I'll just keep them for the afternoon.'  She's the one who chose to play sniff and snort with Dr. Coke.  Where do you get off blaming God for such deeds?"

What he does not understand is that God loves righteousness and hates sin.  He really hates sin. Proverbs 15:9 says, "The Lord detests the way of the wicked but He loves those who pursue righteousness."  Dozens of Bible verses confirm this truth.  Yet we hear people describing some evil act done by one person to others and then saying, "How could God do that?" or "How could God allow that?"  That is assuming God is committing that which He hates or, at least, being a co-conspirator to it.  That's impossible.  He is holy.  He has no part in sin.

Why does God love righteousness and hate evil?  Because He loves us.  He cares for us and wants the best for us.  He knows righteousness has positive natural consequences for us and evil has negative natural consequences.  He also knows those consequences often result in fallout on those the innocent.  Sin is insidious.  The Bible is clear.  We are to love what God loves and hate what God hates.  Romans 12:9 says, "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Commit that verse to memory and you will save yourself much grief.  Society will not agree with you, but you will prosper in the long run. 

RELIGION OF PEACE?

I suggest that you look at my blog of October 8, 2012 before reading the rest of this blog.  It explains how I became very familiar with Islam.

Today the news shows tell us that the USA is closing down 22 embassies in Muslim nations due to threats of violence.  We are also issuing a world wide warning for all Americans who travel overseas.  What is going on?  The reason given is that our security forces have discovered real threats from Islamic extremists.  But, ever since 9/11, haven't we been told over and over that Islam is a religion of peace?  On June 4, 2009, President Obama spoke at al-Azhar Univ. in Cairo declaring that it is part of his responsibility as President to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.  He proclaimed that Islam is part of America and share common principles.  He said there are nearly 7 million Muslims in the USA. He also said Thomas Jefferson kept a Holy Koran in his personal library.  He also quoted President John Adams speech of 1796 where he expressed his desire for peace with Islam.  He said Morocco was the first nation to recognize the USA.  All of these statements are in error.

The Pew Forum, in 2010, reported that there were 2.6 million American Muslims in the USA. In 1801 Jefferson waged war against the Islamic Barbary states of north Africa in order to stop the pillaging of ships and the enslavement of more than a million Christians.  He had been told by our ambassador that the pirates justified their actions by the "Law of the Prophets" and the Koran.  Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran in order to understand the hostile nature of Islam, not because he admired it.  John Adams did not write the words Obama attributed to him.  His son, John Quincy Adams did write at length about Islam.  He said that war had been raging between Christianity and Islam for 1200 years and the conflict could not cease but by the extinction of Islam, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man.  He said that as long as the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet (Mohammed) shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth.  By the way, Morocco was the 7th nation to recognize the USA.

Other American leaders have had similar thoughts.  Teddy Roosevelt wrote, "As generations of Americans past, our time has come to  defend the beliefs and values that made this nation great, such as equality before the law... there are such social values today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do--that is, to beat back the Moslem invader."

The Nazi leadership understood that Islam was a totalitarian system aiming for political domination of the world and viewed them as kindred spirits.  Hitler deplored the fact that the Franks had defeated the Muslims in Tours in 732.  "Had Charles Martel not been victorious, we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and opens up the 7th heaven to the bold warrior alone.  Then the Germanic races would have conquered world.  Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."  Hitler also said, "It's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion.  Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"  The Nazis admired Islam's zeal for dehumanizing and slaughtering Jews.  They knew the Koran called Jews swine and apes.  In 1941, Mohammmad Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, visited Hitler and Himmler in Berlin.  Adolf Eichmann gave him a tour of Auschwitz and the gas chambers.  Eichmann's deputy revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, "The mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of european Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan.  He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.

Winston Churchill did not have such a positive attitude toward Islam as did Hitler.  Churchill spent time in what is now Pakistan and in the Sudan as a soldier and correspondent.  He wrote,"Besides the fanatical frenszy...there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries.  Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods  of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule of live...Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities--but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrogade force exists in the world."

The influential twentieth-century Islamic spiritual leader Abul Ala Maududi acknowledged that "Islam is an ideology" because it demands that the state be regulated according to Islamic law. Islam's most important goal  is the establishment of a worldly state, a global political empire: the Caliphate, to whose autority all of mankind are subjected.  I agree with Abul Ala Maududi.  My time spent inside Islam convinced me that Islam is not primarily a religion.  It is a governmental system with a religious component and it should be treated as such, not as a religion.

Thermostat or Thermometer?

We have a choice when it comes to our actions.  We can be a thermometer which simply records the existing temperature in an area at that particular time.  Or, we can be a thermostat which initiates the needed action to change the temperature to what is desired.  One reflects the existing condition and the other makes the needed changes.

A Biblical example of a thermometer would be Aaron when Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments.  Aaron was in charge of the people while Moses was gone.  The people demanded that he give them a golden calf to worship.  He recorded the attitude of the people and made them the golden calf. 

Moses, upon returning to the camp, saw what had happened and became a thermostat.  He changed things to what God wanted.  He destroyed the idol and delivered the Commandments of God which included the worship of God and Him alone.

A modern example of a thermometer would be Bill Clinton.  Over a decade ago, Congress delivered to his desk the Defense of Marriage Act.  It had passed both houses of Congress by huge margins.  It had great support in the nation.  Clinton signed the bill into law.  But, the enormous propaganda campaign of the Homosexual Lobby to change America's attitudes toward sexuality began to have the desired results.  The numbers changed and homosexuality gained support.  So, Clinton announced recently that he made a mistake by signing the bill and now he supports striking it down.  He said he changed his mind and is fine with homosexual marriage.  Does anyone actually believe that someone almost as old as I am is going to change their mind about a major moral issue in such a short time?  Not likely. He was simply being a thermometer.

An example of a thermostat is the Deputy President of Kenya.  When President Obama went to Africa and announced that the U.S. would give millions to some African countries to increase their supply of electricity, he also started promoting gay marriage to some African leaders.  What followed was nothing short of a SMACKDOWN.  The Deputy President of Kenya, William Ruto, told Obama to keep his opinions to himself.  He told him that Kenya was a God fearing nation and they didn't care that Obama had evolved on his opinion of marriage.  They were going to be guided by God's Word, not Obama's money. 

The most disgusting thing was that the mainstream media didn't give the SMACKDOWN any press.  I had to get the details from Life Site News.  The press is so protective of the President that a major international event was suppressed because they didn't want Obama's humiliating defeat to be known. We are quickly losing freedom of the press. 

SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH

As you know, this blog is about freedom of speech...especially freedom of speech with regard to matters of faith.  The last two months have been filled with news items about hinderances to free speech.  I can't remember a period of time when speech has been so restricted as the past few months.

It is now clear that during a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11/12, four Americans were killed unnecessarily due to the failures of the Obama Administration.  Here are the facts as they have leaked out from under the blanket thrown over the news by the friends of the President in the media.  There had been calls for additional security prior to 9/11 that were rejected by the powers that be in the State Dept..  Warnings abounded that there would be trouble on 9/11.  But, security was actually lowered.  When reports came in to Washington that the attack was under way, there was no response by the administration to rescue the Americans.  Instead, the ambassador was captured, tortured, sodomized, and killed along with three others.  The administration put out a fabricated report that the attack was spontaneous and due to a anti-muslim video when they knew that it was a well planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a video.  But, the facts contradicted the President's campaign rhetoric that the war on terrorism had been won.  Hence, the myth was quickly spread for weeks by the compliant media.  The facts were muzzled by almost all the media so as not to harm the President's campaign.

When I heard the leaks coming out of other than main line media about the story, I said to a friend that, if this goes mainline, the President is done.  But, the facts did not get out and the public was almost completely in the dark and the President and his administration suffered almost no negative press for their failures.  The three main questions remain unanswered:
1.  Who failed to provide the necessary security?  Why?
2.  Who failed to provide the necessary forces for a rescue? Why?
3.  Who made up the myth about the video? Why?

The second blow to free speech was the admission by the IRS that they crippled and suppressed organizations that were not friendly to the President and his policies.  In other words, the IRS used their power to deny funds and recognition to organizations that favored the President's opponent.  It was part of the President's campaign strategy.
People keep asking who started the suppression.  There is no question that those who benefitted from the activity were the source.  Freedom of speech was denied to a whole segment of voters by the illegal activity of the IRS.

It's more clear than ever how critical freedom of speech is to our society.  The mainline media and an aggressive federal agency denied us free speech and a crucial Presidential election was made into a farce.  There is now real doubt as to who really won the election.

Daily revelations are telling us that just about every agency of our federal government is involved in wasteful spending, corruption, and/or total incompetence.  Washington is in chaos.  We have become a joke in international relations.  Trust in federal bureaucrats is at an all time low.  A leader has been appointed to head the NSA for strictly political reasons.  They don't have anything on their resume to qualify them for the critical position.  The new ambassador to the UN was appointed as a stick in the eye to Israel. 

I know this blog contains my frustrations.  But, it is frustrating to see our government collapsing and our freedoms crushed.  This is no time to be silent.  Keep the speech freely flowing.

IS THE U.S. MILITARY DECLARING WAR ON CHRISTIANS?

It is being widely reported that the Pentagon is talking to Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, about court martials for Christians who share their faith.  Mikey Weinstein is known for his anti-Christian bias.  He is trying to influence the Pentagon to punish any Christian who promotes his or her faith.  His organization is infamous for its bigotry against Christians.  He appears to be making some headway with his campaign.

It must be understood how significant this is.  Matthew 28:19, 20 records Jesus giving his followers a command after the Resurrection.  That command is called "The Great Commission".  It is a command to go into the world and "make disciples" (followers).  That is proselytizing and it is obviously important or it wouldn't be called the "Great Commission".  Jesus calls his followers to reproduce themselves by evangelism and discipleship.

So, what the military is thinking of doing is criminalizing the obedience of Christians who follow Jesus' command...his greatest command.  That is a direct violation of the free exercise of faith which we are entitled to by the Constitution.  It would lead one to think that the military is declaring a new war...a war on Christianity.  As I have researched this story, I've read various reports as to when the decision to implement this rule will be final.  What we do know is that the military is giving it serious consideration.  Contact your representative and urge them to oppose such restrictions on our freedom of faith.

OPPS! THE GAY LOBBY LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG

What a week for the Gay Lobby!  A former NBA player admits he is gay (to the amazement of his girlfriend) and gets national acclaim from the media.  It's all over every news program.  Right in the middle of the hype, a recording shows up on the national evening news showing a speech by Masha Gessen, a well known lesbian, where she openly admits that the real reason the Gay Lobby has pushed for gay marriage is to DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.  She admits she has no interest in marriage.  She wants to kill it! 

Such comments have been and are common within the gay community.  But the Gay Lobby has always been very careful not to let any such damaging comments get into prime time.  With state after state passing laws to condone gay marriage and politicians racing to the mike to change their stand on the issue, it would not be good to discover that gay marriage is just a ruse to destroy the basic unit of society.  Now it is out.  The gay iron fist will do all that is possible to smash the story.  The web page of the network that showed the speech last night has no mention of it today.  Even Bob Beckel of the "Five" said of the speech that it is not good news for the gay cause.

Time will tell if they can cover up the story.  The recording should be played in every legislative body considering the issue.

Here is a copy of a resolution I am proposing to my denomition:

HOLY MATRIMONY RESOLUTION

 

PURPOSE:  TO ASSIGN A MEANINGFUL TERM TO THE BIBLICAL UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

 

WHEREAS:  THE SCRIPTURES CALL FOR THE BASIC UNIT OF SOCIETY TO BE THE UNION OF ONE MAN WITH ONE WOMAN. (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6, Ephesians 5:31, 1Timothy 3:2, 12)

 

WHEREAS:  SECULAR SOCIETY IS CHANGING THE TERM “MARRIAGE” INTO A VAGUE TERM THAT APPLIES TO THE UNION OF ANY TWO OR MORE BEINGS RENDERING IT VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS TO THE BIBLICALLY BASED BODY OF CHRIST.

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:  FROM NOW ON, OUR DENOMINATION USE THE TERM “HOLY MATRIMONY” WHEN SPEAKING OF THE BIBLICAL UNION OF ONE MAN WITH ONE WOMAN.

 

 

Since the Supreme Court is considering gay marriage currently, here are some comments that may be of interest to those following the news reports:

 

Homosexuality and Young People

 

We are being told that young people approve of gay marriage by a large margin.  That is to be expected when you consider the extensive campaign by the Gay Lobby to change America's perception of gays that they launched in the 1960's.  I detail the campaign in my blog of March, 2013.

 

One of the main arguments we hear from the young is that they can't understand how any two beings that "love one another" can't have the right to be married.  As a marriage counselor since the 1960's, my response is "absolutely not".  A significantly large percent of those who come to marriage counselors to get married should never be married.

 

For example, it may become apparent, after spending time with a couple, that is a physically or psychologically abusive relationship.  A counselor would never condone or encourage the couple to get married.  Or, it may become apparent that the two have conflicting primary purposes of life.  Their drives are so contrary that there is no glue to hold them together in marriage.

 

We often hear of people taking their potential spouse home to meet their parents when they are serious enough to consider marriage.  The chances are very real that, when the parents, who know their child the best, meet the potential spouse, they may well not approve of the relationship.  That would definitely be a strong sign that there is something that would disqualify the marriage.

 

So, the argument is not valid.  There are plenty of reasons why two beings who say they "love each other" should not enter into into marriage.

 

 

 

When Did You Choose to be Heterosexual?

 

 

A common tactic to defend gay marriage is to ask an opponent, "When did you choose to be heterosexual?"  The purpose of the question is to prove that gays are born gay, therefore it is a civil rights issue.

 

The answer is that we are what we pursue and do.  That is what defines us.  We are not what we consider or have an inclination to do.  I have considered being a professional ball player.  I'd be very interested in being defined as such.  I have even practiced playing ball, playing the game, and watching thousands of games.  But, I have never pursued a professional career nor played for a professional team.  Therefore, I'm not defined as a professional ball player. 

 

On the negative side, one who has been tempted to take a valuable item from a store without paying for it is not a shoplifter until they pursue a plan to take the item and leave the store with it. 

 

A heterosexual is one who pursues and does heterosexual acts.  A homosexual is one who pursues and does homosexual acts.  Therefore, when someone asks a heterosexual when they chose to be one, the response should be, "I regularly pursue and engage in heterosexual acts, therefore, that's what I am".

 

 

Dr. Ben Carson's Comments on Homosexuality

 

 

The famous surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, has been attacked this week for his comments putting bestiality and pedophilia in the same conversation with homosexuality.  His critics say he therefore believes that bestiality and pedophilia are just as natural (or unnatural) as homosexuality.

 

What no one is remembering is that is was the President who linked bestiality and homosexuality.  The document he signed and sent from his desk to the Pentagon last year recinding the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for homosexuals also recinded the prohibitions of bestiality.  The two were side by side and the rationale for

lifting the bans were the same thoughout the document.

 

His critics also forget that it was the gay lobby that put two statements in the 1972 Gay Platform calling for the abolition of the age of consent which would in fact legalize pedophilia.

 

Why were those facts ignored by the press?

 

 

The following article was originally composed for the blog entitled, “FREEDOM OF FAITH” in April of 2012.  Since the Supreme Court is considering gay marriage, I thought it would be appropriate to print an updated version.  It has since been updated to read as follows:

 

THE RUSE

 

The purpose of Freedom of Faith is to encourage the free expression of faith issues.  That includes doctrines, world views, and also mores.  Lately, the free expression of mores has been challenged by media and government.  It seems that when a faith community inserts comments on social mores, the attacks explode in an effort to silence the voices of faith.  Nowhere is that more evident than when human sexuality is the issue.   So, I’m going to use this opportunity to address one issue that has been hotly debated for several decades in both the secular and religious worlds.

 

At the beginning of the 1970’s, I was serving as a counselor at a state university in Illinois.  My clients were primarily faculty, but I spent considerable time with students.  I also traveled to many Midwestern universities one week per month working with groups of faculty and students.  The counselors on our campus had a close relationship and met regularly to share information and encourage one another.  We represented various faith groups and organizations on campus, and yet there was a strong bond of dedication to the task of making campus life a healthy educational experience for all during a chaotic period .

 

At that time we were called together for a workshop led by a group from Chicago.  Such meetings were not unusual, so it was well attended.  We learned that the group consisted of leaders of the gay movement who wanted to express their take on attitudes toward them.  The topics of the workshop consisted of:

-          Perceptions they wanted to change about  gay people

-          The strategy to bring about such change

-          How to deal with opposition

-          How we could be involved in their strategy

-          Why religious prohibitions of the gay lifestyle were not valid

 

Here are some details they presented about each of the topics:

 

PERCEPTIONS TO BE CHANGED

First, they wanted the public to think that the practice of homosexuality was much more common than the public thought.  They put out the statistic that 10%+ of Americans were practicing homosexuals.  They were promoting the idea that homosexual activity was very common.  That led to…

Second, homosexual acts are just as normal as heterosexual acts.  One’s “orientation” was no more normal than another’s, just different.   That led to…

Third, the origins of homosexuality are genetic or hormonal.  In other words, gay people are born that way.  Therefore, homosexuality becomes a civil rights issue just like race or ethnicity.  That led to…

Fourth, homosexuals can never change their sensual appetites.  They are what they are for life.  No amount of counseling or treatment can make any difference.  (This issue obviously had our attention as counselors).  That led to…

Fifth, the historic religious prohibitions against homosexual behavior were really prohibitions against a lack of hospitality, not homosexual activity.  They brought in a priest from Chicago who had recently written a book presenting such a view. 

 

STRATEGY TO BRING ABOUT THESE CHANGES IN PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Their campaign was going to start on the campuses of America.  That is why they came to our university.  They would promote their agenda to the faculty, who would in turn teach it to the students who would take it with them when they graduated.  Because those grads would be the leaders of the next generation, the new perceptions would be transferred rapidly.  They also would work diligently to put sympathetic people in key faculty and administrative positions.  The idea was to gradually percolate down  to high school and then grade school.

 

The next target was to be the media and entertainment.  They knew the ever increasing influence of media and entertainment on youth.

 

Next would be a tough campaign to change the medical community’s perception.  They knew this would be more about political science than medical science.  One of their toughest battles would be to change the idea of what is “normal”.  The other would be to deal with the view of most experts about the origin of homosexual tendencies.  This would be critical to their success.

 

Of course, they needed to target government, politics, and the military.  Using the “civil rights” tactic, they were going to promote sensitivity training to weed out the strongholds of opposition.  At the same time, they targeted the business world with the same strategy.

 

One area they knew was going to be a problem was the various faith communities.  Their strategy was to convince the clergy that the prohibitions against homosexuality in the holy writings were not really about homosexuality at all and they wanted the clergy and church leaders to convince the laity. 

 

DEALING WITH OPPOSITION

Persistence was the key.  They were going to keep hammering home their perceptions until enough people bought into them to make them common.  We could tell by their presentation that those who opposed them would be minimized by derision, pejoratives, and political pressure.  This was strange to us because these were the days of free speech where opposition was handled by the exchange of ideas.

 

HOW WE WERE TO BE INVOLVED

They knew many of us had roots in various faith communities.  They were recruiting us to inject their message into those communities using, among other things, the book written by the priest who was with them.  We were to be their representatives to convince people of faith that the various holy writings didn’t really prohibit homosexuality. 

 

Knowing we were counseling many faculty and students, they wanted us to get behind the changes in perception they were promoting and pass them along to those we were working with each day.

 

WHY THE RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY ARE NOT VALID

The main point made by the priest was that God was not upset at Sodom and Gomorrah for the homosexuality displayed, but because the people didn’t treat the visitors well.  Then he went on to dispute the way the word for homosexuality has been translated and interpreted.  His point is that God was offended by the lack of hospitality of the people, not their sexual activity.

 

FOLLOWUP TO THE WORKSHOP

Our group of counselors met and discussed the workshop afterwards.  It led to many discussions between us for months to come.  As I recall, the main conclusion was that we did not believe the public would be gullible enough to accept the ideas presented in their campaign.  What the gay leadership did not understand was that most of us at the workshop had as much training in the holy writings as the priest did.  We knew his contentions were unreasonable and could not be proven.  So, we dismissed the rest of the presentation as having little chance of success.

Obviously, we were mistaken.  The gay leadership has pulled off one of the most successful campaigns in history.  They have been almost completely successful in changing the American perception of homosexuality.  The education system has become a willing ally.  Media and entertainment are submerged in their mindset.  Medical literature has danced to their music until recently.  (I’ll discuss that later).  Their sensitivity classes are taught in the world of government, military, politics, and business.  Opposition is not tolerated. 

 

The only significant defeats have come from faith communities.  The “inhospitality” argument has only been partially successful.  Some mainline churches have bought in, but most orthodox bodies have not.  So, some time ago, the strategy was changed.  The revised approach has been to isolate the opposition by claiming that it’s not important what the holy writings say.  We’ve moved beyond those outdated prohibitions since we are so much more enlightened.  That strategy has been far more effective.

 

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

The gay leadership has successfully convinced a significant numbers of Americans that:

-          10%+ of our population is gay and therefore being gay is common

-          Homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality

-          The origins of homosexuality are hormonal and/or genetic (we are born that way).  Therefore, it is a civil rights issue

-          One’s propensity cannot be changed

-          Prohibitions by any faith community  are not relevant

 

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

One of the results of the gay leadership workshop was that I decided to check their facts.  Fortunately, I had access to the entire library of a large state university to do my research.  I have continued to engage in the quest for truth about the perceptions we as a society have absorbed until the present. I have been motivated by the fact that I have encountered those involved in the gay lifestyle throughout my career.  In order to be helpful, I needed to know the truth.  Here are the results of my research:

 

THE REAL NUMBERS

The 10%+ figure came from Kinsey’s survey published years before.   Upon investigation, we find the whole study was badly skewed.  The study included 1500 sex offenders, 600 male and female prostitutes, prisoners, and residents of homosexual enclaves.  He also was upfront about his bias.

 

The University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center has studied the numbers for 30 years.  Their results have held fairly steady from the 1980’s to 2010.  They say that 2% are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

 

The 2010 Census Demographic  Profile says 2.5% of the population is homosexual or bisexual.

 

The Alan Guttmacher 1991 study said 1.1% of men were exclusively gay.  2.3% admitted to having a same sex experience.

 

My research included many more studies, but the bottom line is that only about 1/5 of the number of people the gay campaign claims to be involved in the homosexual lifestyle is actually involved.  I’ll leave it to you to decide if 2% is “common”.

 

 

 

NORMAL

The claim is that homosexual activity is as “normal” as heterosexual activity.  The Psychological textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were very clear.  It was considered “abnormal behavior”.  That has changed.  But, a course in Anatomy 101 would cast serious doubt on how normal it is.  The same course would put it close to bestiality as far as “normal” is concerned.  That is supported by the recent military rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which also rejected prohibitions against bestiality putting the two activities on the same plane, on the same page, and using the identical arguments.

 

ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The gay campaign wants us to believe the origins of homosexuality are hormonal or genetic.  I found that the textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were inclined to consider the origins to be due to an acquired appetite.  Usually, the appetite was acquired under psychological, sociological, or physical duress.   What caught my attention was the great lengths the authors went to present case studies to support their conclusions.  It also caught my attention because my own counseling experience for many decades has verified those case studies and the conclusion that homosexuality is an acquired appetite.

 

But, the efforts of the gay campaign have been very influential.  In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a brochure entitled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”.  The brochure contained the following statement, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

 

Then, in recent years, the same organization revised the brochure to read, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.  Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.  Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

 

In other words, there is no scientific or medical evidence that people are “born that way”.  That position is supported by the experience of a medical student who reported that during his years in med school, his class asked several professors about the origins of homosexuality.  The consistent answer was that there is no medical or scientific evidence that it is hormonal or genetic.

 

This issue is huge when you consider that all the laws and regulations being passed by government are based on the myth that people who engage in homosexual acts are “born that way”.  It is consistently treated as a civil rights issue like race or ethnicity when in fact it is not.  It is a ruse foisted on society by a carefully calculated propaganda campaign.  “Ruse” is not my term.  Some gay leaders have called on their cohorts to abandon the “born that way” ruse because they no longer need it for success.  They use the term “ruse” to describe the argument.  But, as we have recently seen when an entertainment personality spoke out about her choice to engage in lesbian activities, the gay leaders go berserk at the suggestion that one has any choice in who they are or what they do.  Such talk about “choice” is common inside the shock jock radio and TV world, but this lady’s comments reached the mainline media and that is not allowed.  So, the iron boot came down hard on her and she had to step back on her comments.

 

 

 

NO CHANGE

 

Of course, if there is no choice, then there can be no change.  The propaganda machine insists that, since they are “born gay”, there can be no changing the fact.  The problem is that there are thousands of people who were once involved in the homosexual lifestyle who are now actively heterosexual and willing to testify to the fact.  The gay leaders insist that they are all lying.  Their adamant denial is understandable.  If the public knew about the overwhelming evidence of change, it would destroy their civil rights strategy and the public would realize they have been duped and the sensitivity courses they have had to attend and the laws that have been passed are based on false presuppositions.

 

RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS

 

I’ve already discussed how the religious prohibitions against homosexuality are being challenged.  This part of the gay campaign has been the least successful.  So, they have changed tactics and declared such prohibitions as irrelevant and anyone who brings up religious issues is immediately branded a “homophobe”, “hatemonger”, and “bigot”.  This was evident recently as Bernie Goldberg blasted anyone who had a problem with a national retail chain choosing a lesbian as their spokesperson as “a racial bigot”.  The new tactics obviously are working.  Even Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has spouted the 10%+ stat in 2012 even though the stat was debunked 40 years ago.

 

No one seems to want to investigate the obvious because they fear the smear.  But, I will go ahead and bring up the point.  Why is it that the holy writings of the ancient world religions are, as far as I have read, almost unanimous in their strong prohibition of homosexual activity?  Ancient civilizations must have seen the practical need for such prohibitions.  When the major world religions are united on an issue, there is a practical reason.  For example, almost all of the major world religions have some form of the Golden Rule.  They are not identical, but they have it in one form or another.  Why?  Because it is critical to survival.  The same is true of prohibitions.  They saw the need because of what they witnessed in the human race from the earliest of days.  Homosexual activity has been around since history began.  They had plenty of evidence upon which to build a stand.  The resulting stand was to prohibit it. 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The campaign of the gay leaders has been very successful.  Their success has led to an arrogance that is incredible.  This minute group of people has…

-          Redefined the basic human unit of civilization.  A small group of people in just a few years has been very successful in redefining marriage.  The definition has stood since the beginning of history.  Now the human race is being told that they have been wrong all this time and the definition needs to be altered.

-          Outlawed the opposing voices.  More and more countries are banning any negative statements about homosexuality.  After reading about rulings in Canada and Europe, we can see the future in the USA.  Even historical, medical, scientific, or moral statements of facts will soon not be tolerated.  The alumni of the Free Speech Movement are being told to be quiet or else…  Even the majority of the Pro Family commentators have decided not to continue the battle because they fear the smear.  Many are now parroting the propaganda they once criticized.  The iron boot wants to make it political suicide to be Pro Family.

-          Opened the door for the procession into society of a world of formerly taboo practices.  One conclusion of our group of counselors was that, if the homosexual campaign were to be successful, it would be like a tractor-trailer.  Homosexuality would be the tractor to burst through the gates of acceptance and it would bring with it pedophilia, bestiality, S & M, sex slavery, bigamy, etc.  We were correct.  For example, you have only to watch the world news to see the age of consent plummet .  It will continue to do so until there are no laws against pedophilia.  Eliminating age of consent has been vital to the gay campaign since its inception.  Read the 1972 Gay Rights Platform and you will find it calls for the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent”. 

 

Before the iron boot kicks in my door, I need to reveal my history.  I have worked with, aided, counseled, and helped those involved in homosexual activities my whole career.  I have walked with them through the most traumatic days of their lives for more than 40 years and continue to do so today.  No one has ever accused me of treating them in a prejudicial manner. 

 

My purpose for this article is to open the door to some interesting history that not many people have had the opportunity to witness and explain how we arrived at this point where a very small portion of the population has so much influence over what we see, read, think, say, and learn.  The amazing fact is that is has been based on a ruse of 5 myths.