My Response on a Blog Re: Obama's Defense of Gay Marriage

On a blog --in response to specific comments of another blogger: 

 

Argue with St. Paul if you must. That was only 20 centenarians' lifetimes ago and he has more claim to divine insight than most of us since he was a persecutor of Christians who was blinded by a light on the road to Damascus ("he saw the light!".) He heard the resurrected Christ's voice telling him how and where and by whom (named him) to get his sight back (ironically on the street called Straight) --and from then on, he was a leading teacher/apologist for Christianity. Here's what He wrote: Romans 1: 18-32.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:%2018-32&version=NIV1984

I suppose you know Sodomy gets its name from the city where the men desired sex with the angels --who were visiting Lot as men. It refers to homosexual relations. Don't be so sure (as you stated)  that these acts possible for men with each other were as common as you think for married heteros through the ages ----especially anal --or swallowing semen. I'm pretty sure my mother and grandmother never did these things. And it's not the way I have sex either. And I've yet to have a lady friend tell me she loves sex this way--but I've had a few say they got rid of guys who wanted them to do gay acts. They told 'em to get hence and find a boyfriend for the yuck stuff.

Men want these acts once they experience them, evidently. Which is why sodomy is so forbidden in the Bible. God knows that men would put their do-hickies just ANYWHERE! and come to crave the forbidden if they pursued self-gratification this way (lovers of self.) The procreative plan is for man to crave intimacy with his wife in the normal way--not to say there isn't much variety in position and in foreplay --and in oral stimulation --which is probably all permissible. As Paul wrote, "The marriage bed is undefiled."

My remark about AIDS. It was quixotic what society/media did in the wake of the AIDS crisis. It seems suicidal to promote homosexuality as a normal, unavoidable, lifestyle. But we did it --and went to great lengths in our privacy protection--because we didn't want anyone to persecute AIDS victims for fear of their blood and fluids. The country WAS terrified that we didn't know how to stop this epidemic that was fluid-borne. We feared accidental contagion through contact sports, traffic accidents, bathroom accidents, hospitals --(and some of those were afflicted and died of AIDS because of needle-sticks or surgery accidents.) It WAS the gays and "men on the downlow" who brought it to America --to the blood supply, the prostitutes, the drug addicts, wives and their babies. The promiscuity of the gay community was amazing --horrifying --so the idea of marriage came up --maybe if they married....! But if heteros weren't faithful, why would we think that homosexuals would be more so? Considering the huge beach parties, bath houses, gay bars, and the extremely promiscuous nature of the movement. Newsweek noted the young gays, late in the epidemic, didn't use condoms.  They showed photos of huge beach parties, with hundreds of men standing around at night half-dressed --some women.  No, not swimming.  Holding their drinks, networking, finding temporary boyfriends.   Sad, not gay.

 

 

 

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Who's Nicest? Obama or Romney?

This is from a blog --NOT BY ME --by a guy named Dan and I thought it was great.  (Why don't I cite the blogs where i write?  I have good reason.) 


Nice guy??? Maybe it's like everything else under Obama...try to portray it as exactly the opposite of reality. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy....and an incompetent. Obama's certainly an incompetent...but not a nice guy. This is the most self-congratulatory, overreaching egomaniac who's ever occupied the White House. And he's a not-very-veiled corrupt thug of the Chicago variety. 
  
A short list: 

•  sacking an inspector general who exposed an Obama crony;
•  Fast & Furious;
•  trying to use the Endowment for the Arts for propaganda purposes;
•  trashing the U.S. in foreign speeches; 
•  crony capitalism with his bundlers; 
• standing up the leader of a trusted ally;
•  race baiting before he has all the facts;
•  lying (profusely, it turns out) about the impact of Obamacare and other legislation;
•  unprecedented deficits and debt; 
• appointments of anti-American ideologues as secretaries of Energy, Commerce, Environmental Protection, Health & Human Services, etc....and we could go on endlessly.                                         
• On an almost daily basis, this President has assaulted:
•  common sense, 
• the Constitution, 
• the principle of separation of powers,
•  Congress, 
• the Supreme Court, 
• ordinary citizens who dare to disagree with his ideas
•  and American values.
• We won't be forgetting. November is pay back time. Romney's fine...but it wouldn't matter who the GOP nominee is. We're mostly voting against this failed President who it turns out has nothing, at all, in common with the average hardworking, patriotic American. If you enjoyed 2010, you're gonna love  2012  
•                                                                                                                                                                                             "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Why Does Gay Marriage Lose at the Polls?

• A RECENT BLOG EXCHANGE:  
   
   The Texan:  

  The answer may have to do with voter turnout. People who support gay marriage, or at least don't actively oppose it, are less likely to make a special trip to vote on the issue. Those who genuinely (if absurdly) believe that gay marriage is a threat to their own straight lifestyle are motivated to show up. Double that for those who believe their god condemns it.
  

   

  Me:  To The Texan:   You are sort of right.  The irresponsible citizens don't always vote --and they are often the ones too ignorant to see that marriage matters.   You think gay marriage is opposed just because it is a threat to straight lifestyles?  Let's say homosexuality IS a threat to heterosexuals --say in the case of the Episcopalian minister who left wife and kids to be with his male lover --and then the church elevated him to bishop.  She might consider homosexuality a threat to her life and happiness and marriage.  I would if I were her.  I'd be furious if my husband wanted to get his jollies with anal or oral sex --and had also been doing so for years and then coming home to me.  Blccch.

   

   This activity should never be entertained in the mind, much less in act.  "Yield not to temptation --for yielding is sin,"  goes the old gospel song.  What's happened to our brains that we don't have a taboo fence to keep us from pondering the taboos of same-sex relations, polygamy, adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality?    For all these activities start first in the mind. Today, we have tv and schools--all media--telling us "gay is good" --"choose your gender"  --"you can marry any other human(s)--regardless of gender."    This is all total bunkum and should never be entertained in mind or media or society --in any way at all.    We shall reap what we sow. 

   

   We don't just BELIEVE our God opposes gay marriage.  It's obvious from our design that we were NOT designed for homosexual coupling.  We are designed to couple with, and parent with, the opposite sex --only.   And God's Word is clear in Romans 1 --also Leviticus.  But nature tells us --even if there are aberrations in fallen nature --like the dog humping our legs --- the dog is still designed to hump a dog --not our legs.  

   

  Likewise, all men are designed for copulation with women --not each other.

  
  

  Nevertheless, God forgives the repentant sinner --and all of us have sinned.  But that's no excuse for legitimating sin via gay marriage. 

  
  

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

OBAMA --the first gay president??? on Mother's Day

Last week, Newsweek featured Obama on the cover with a rainbow halo and called him "the first gay president."  Andrew Sullivan, a married, gay conservative, wrote the article.   I noticed he suggested that Obama lacked closeness to his father and step-father  as many gays did!  (Now there's an admission that fits MY theory of gay causation!)   He likened Obama's situation as a bi-racial man to that of homosexual men.  But I have to wonder if the democrats were not chagrined to see the title, "first gay president," affixed to Obama --since Sullivan was not saying he was actually gay. 

However, allegedly, the mother of the murdered choir director at Obama's church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, came out to say her son and 2 other church men were murdered on the eve of Obama's  first presidential  candidacy because they were known to be involved with him homosexually.  One gay man came out publically after those murders to claim that he had a sexual encounter with Obama in the back seat of a limo that he (not Obama) had rented.  He said he did this so he would NOT be murdered for it, figuring if he got the story out, they wouldn't dare do him in.  

http://conservativeallies.yuku.com/topic/9086/Three-Openly-Gay-Men--Rev-Wright-s-Chicago-Church-KILLED---M#.T7PT1lL93Mk


 Our  minister said Sunday, that, in effect,  Obama had announced with his gay marriage affirmation during Mother's Day week that mothers (or fathers)are no longer necessary for the rearing of children. Aren't they???

Same-sex kids idolize each other as a part of normal growing up; in my youth, to turn that admiration for same-sex individuals into sexual desire was as taboo as incest or pedophilia. We slammed the mind's gate down on taboos --"didn't go there." Now the public school and media entertainment feel obligated to encourage kids into gay relations. New law for gay marriage will be a TEACHER to our kids --that they can explore same-sex possibility. What a mess on the horizon!

We do need a constitutional amendment defining marriage.   The writers never dreamed we'd be lunatic enough to make a new definition of marriage. Had they had prophetic insight, they would've defined it. If we today have any prophetic insight we SHALL define it and get it into the constitution as most states have done --before all the kids are confused, believing marriage is for any 2 (or more) people. 

Proponents of gay marriage say they have over 50% of the country in their favor.  If this isn't true, it soon will be, with youth growing up on GLEE and SISTER WIVES  and all the other media and education propaganda that says marriage and sex are for any combination of people.

Read Romans 1 to see that this problem of homosexuality is as old as the Gospel.   And the Good News is that ALL people can be forgiven of their sins and experience new life in Christ.  Repentance comes first.  Agreement with God about what is right and wrong is essential for repentance. 


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

DOES MEDIA SHAPE CULTURE --OR VICE VERSA?

I had a recent discussion with a couple who are PhD candidates and they assert that media reflects culture more than it leads it. I couldn't disagree more.

Cultural trends are always inspired --started by someone who gets a lot of publicity and admiration.  If there are no trend setters; no cultural change.    I believe Michael Landon's Little House on the Prairie tv series, based on the books,  inspired a generation of home-schoolers who wanted their kids to be wholesome and protected from the seamy side of life like the Ingalls girls --who wanted their marriages to be happy like the tv couple --who  even liked country decor and dress also. While we didn't all home school or dress our girls in dresses, we still ALL admired the little house family and their demonstration of "family values."   

Then came Seinfeld and Friends.   The Christian young people of college age were glued to Friends.   These are people who don't need parents or have them --and any parents are usually  ridiculous characters as in most sit coms.  And sure enough, Just like the Friends,  I find today's younger generation to be tolerant of gay marriage, transgendering, alcohol use (nothing new), cohabiting before the wedding (new as a cultural phenom) --even some who were raised to be Christians.  The shows  made light of immorality.  And while they sometimes showed glimpses of negative consequences of immorality--it never turned out THAT bad --with the woman and her kids in poverty.  Consequences are always more laughable than painful in such series.  Of course, we want them to have happy endings.

Dan Quayle wasn't wrong about Murphy Brown --that she made a choice to keep a baby and be a career woman raising her child without a father. As pro-lifers we support women who keep their babies --but would their kids have been better off in so many ways if they had been given up for adoption?    I don't in the least condemn single moms --but we are not speaking truth if we don't do as Santorum did --and tell the truth --that if you wait for marriage before parenting, you and your child have have much less chance of poverty status. 

TV says (watch Lifetime) single women can have jobs and raise their fatherless  kids just fine--and they will eventually meet a rich, single, professional man who will marry them.

I agree with being culturally savvy enough to engage others in conversation --and to point out truths that show up in good drama/good art, but the admired art today is selling us untruths --and we should protest and compete with better art and drama --like Courageous --which, for its alleged faults (maybe too many themes in one story,)  it had the power to move MOST of us in a good direction --in our realization that good Christian fathers are needed to impact our culture --for the sake of the children--for the sake of their ultimate salvation.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

THE LAW TEACHES!

THE LAW TEACHES!

The law really does teach a  concept of what is "right" and what is "wrong."   The Ten C's and the Golden Rule teach the believer --along with other commands of Christ --and the majority of what is written in the Bible teaches us.   Granted, government and religion don't agree today about what is right and lawful or not.  Despite our claim of church-state separation,  the law teaches the masses by determining what is legal or lawful and what is not.  The masses equate "legal" with "permissable" and also "right."  Sometimes the law of the land has been  Biblically right --when it outlawed slavery, polygamy, sodomy and abortion.  But this is no longer true today, since it has created new "rights."

In 1973, the Supreme court said state laws against abortion were illegal --that abortion was a woman's constitutional right --and thus "right."   I've heard girls defend abortion by saying, "It's legal!"  The whole case was based on a fraud --Jane Roe (pseudonym) was not pregnant by rape as the women's advocacy groups (NOW) claimed.   She did go on to have the baby because the case wasn't settled until it was too late for her to have the abortion she wanted.   Her daughter and she are both pro-life advocates today! 

One defense given for legalizing abortion  was that so many women died at the hands of back-alley abortionists before 1973.  Is that a true statement?  It is according to this liberal site:   http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml:

One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.The right wing has gone on an organized campaign to discredit such statistics, going as far to claim that deaths from illegal abortion were "just" a few dozen a year--and that the anecdotes of items such as coat hangers being inserted into women's bodies to cause an abortion are false. In reality, coat hangers were just one horror among many during the years of illegal abortion.

 So approx. 1.5 million babies killed a year on average  since 1973 vs. 5 to 15,000 alleged deaths of unwed women (double the number for their babies killed with them)  by illegal abortion attempts annually? before legal abortion.   Someone once did a cemetary and death records study and couldn't find 5-15,000 unwed women of child-bearing age per year  who could be presumed to have died by illegal abortions, even factoring in the secrecy.  BTW, CA doesn't report their abortion records and they probably have many.

All I can tell you is that I went to a small town/rural township school --with 40 in my graduating class, we fulfilled the stats of 1 out of 40 unwed teen pregnancies for white girls  --and this one ended in a marriage which did not last --but she was at least not a single mother without any child support or a father to her child.   I never knew anyone who had to go to a home for unwed mothers from which many adoptions were made. I did know a lot of adopted children. I also didn't know anyone who had an illegal abortion --and usually such secrets weren't very secretive.  We all  knew who was rumored to be  "going all the way,"  and it was considered immoral to do so --even by the unchurched.  Sex ed. warned us about STD's and we all had heard of condoms as an attempt to prevent pregnancy and disease.   Those were the options to unwed pregnancy in those days.  Abortion was never  a school debate or paper assignment --and no one I knew thought it was "right" or argued for that view.

   In the 1970's, Planned Parenthood hit our schools with their Rocky Mtn. PP brochure about how "no longer was there a dichotomy between good girls and bad --no longer was there a double standard whereby "all boys did it"  and "good girls didn't."  The brochure told how grandma used to say, "Keep your knees together, " but this was no longer necessary.  Because we have birth control --and abortion.  

Even then, "Good girls didn't" and " immoral, weak-willed girls did"  wasn't the standard  that PP alleged. AFter all, the shot gun wedding was evidence that the males were held to account --though sometimes the parents preferred the girl go have the baby and give it up --seeing no future in the baby's father.   There was more compassion  then PP admits --and eventually  a realization that the father shouldn't get to stay in school and keep playing football while the pregnant girlfriend got expelled.  It was around that time that schools decided to help unwed mothers stay in school, even providing childcare in some cases.   One school nearby was known for its pregnant girls on the Homecoming Court.
 The sexual revolution started after the advent of The Pill, with legal abortion in '73 --and the hippie revolution with its free love emphasis.  There were only a few real hippies in society in the 60's but by the 70's the culture was on its way to the free-love, drug-using culture it became --the sexual revolution.

There were not nearly so many fatherless youth or "broken homes," in our day.    There was no trend to keep one's baby as a single unwed teen mother.  Steadily dating couples were just as tempted then as now to have sex --but casual intercourse among relative strangers and new daters  was very unlikely and uncommon.  And before the pill, in the 50's, everyone was afraid of pregnancy, so much more time was spent on the preliminaries of intimacy --guys didn't expect to go all the way with casual dates, and as much as they pushed for the "foreplay" activities, they typically would stop themselves before they made a baby because society was likely to make them marry the girl.    Many did marry their first loves-- or 2nd or 3rd at least.  Promiscuity was not encouraged as normal, the way it is today.  And divorce was not as easy to get --many would change their minds in the waiting period.


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Murphy Browns Get Married!!

Light in the darkness: National Review’s Rich Lowery wrote about marriage and out-of-wedlock births in Time magazine this week. He noticed that most *Murphy Browns –i.e. successful, educated, accomplished, deliberate choice-makers –are, in fact, MARRIED –”a bastion of marital traditionalism. It is left to the poor and the working class to ignore age-old wisdom about how to order our lives and thereby [they] suffer the consequences.”
According to his article, ONLY 8 per cent of women with college degrees are unwed mothers –compared to 70% of high school drop-outs, 51% of high school grads, and 34% for those with some college. I remember when it was 1 out of 40 white girls who had unwed pregnancies –and 2 out of 5 black girls. Now it’s 29 per cent white, 53% latino, and 73 percent blacks –who have out of wedlock births.
Lowry suggested Michelle Obama should use her position to encourage kids to wait for marriage –instead of worrying about their weight.
He said, “The decline of marriage is our most ignored national crisis. As it continues to slide away, our country will become less just –and less mobile. (I assume he meant “upwardly mobile?”)
I can’t think the courts promotion of gay marriage as a right is going to help at all. More and more men are contemplating hedonism with each other instead of making families with women for whom they are designed. Homosexuality is the gift that keeps on giving! from one generation to another and not through parents as much as through gays themselves.
* Murphy Brown was a tv sitcom character 20 years ago who decided to bear a child, accidentally conceived out of wedlock. She figured she could raise it herself when she should have considered adoption. Vice President Dan Quayle was ridiculed (later vindicated) for being so out of touch and old-fashioned about women's rights to bear AND RAISE children, married or not, that he criticized Murphy Brown. He spoke of the importance of fathers to children. Culture war in politics is nothing new. Unfortunately we are at the tipping point where more people are immoral than moral --and want policies to support the immoral.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

TIME MAG ON RICK SANTORUM'S INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

I was delighted to see a whole page in Time this week given to Rick Santorum's Inconvenient Truths --written by, of all people, Joe Klein (author of Primary Colors, a bio-novel about a couple like the Clintons.) Joe commended Santorum for his "sometimes eloquent," and "vigorous" defense on his controversial personal views. Rather than fumbling around to say "what I really meant was....", Santorum defends himself quite well when given the opportunity to speak.

I don't think Santorum opposes birth control in insurance or government programs --but he doesn't believe in it himself, as a devout Catholic --and he doesn't think Catholic institutions or their insurance should be forced by the state to provide it. He believes also in the right of conscience for individuals. (For sure, abortion is part of Obama's "women's health care" on the slippery slope. Obama twice voted for partial-birth/3rd trimester abortions which are always medically unnecesssary.)

Klein tells about Santorum having a baby born that survived only a couple of hours and how difficult the whole process was for his wife who nearly lost her life. Then he had the baby with the Trisomy 18 genetic defect that will end her life early.

About this child, Klein said he was "haunted by the smiling photos I've seen of Isabella with her father and mother, brothers and sisters. She has been granted three years of unconditional love and the ability to smile and bring joy. Her tenuous survival has given her family a deeper sense of how precious even the frailest of lives are.

Klein says yes, he supposes we should get to make our own choices about handicapped kids through pre-birth testing which Santorum religiously believes causes many abortions of Downs' Syndrome and other imperfect infants, and then Klein writes, "but I also worry that we've become too averse to personal inconvenience as a society --that we're less rigorous parents than we should be, that we've farmed out our responsibilities, especially for the disabled, to the state --and I'm grateful to Santorum for forcing on me the discomfort of having to think about the moral implications of his daughter's smile."

We need to realize a politician can hold beliefs which he doesn't desire to impose on everyone else. This is not an inconsistancy --it's a realization that not all our beliefs need to be public policy. But there are some religious beliefs we hold about culture which have very pragmatic implications for the future. Which should be encoded into law. We have more abortion because it's legal. We shall have more homosexuality, because we are trying to make it equal to heterosexuality as a lifestyle. We are not going to like the culture we get.

Watch for my review of another new Time magazine article I liked by the editor of National Review. On marriage before babies --by Rich Lowry.

_____________

I personally am not politically or religiously opposed to birth control, vasectomies and tubal ligations for those who have made several babies already, or who have health problems --though I wonder if there is any correlation to infertility these days with The Pill. But I understand a religion that thinks we should use natural family planning and otherwise let God give us all the babies he can. I understand their view that our sexuality is for procreation as well as one-flesh intimacy between man and wife. I understand their concerns for the Sovereignty of God.

These are areas about which we Christians agree to disagree. Abortion is taking innocent life for no good enough reasons. Abortion legality should ONLY be for life of mother, or maybe as a choice for the poster-child for abortion, the 12 year old rape victim. I know I would not have wanted my 12 year old daughters to have to experience pregnancy and birth from rape. I favor the rape kit at the hospital that does cleanse the womb of the foreign invasion. But those are my only 2 exceptions for "choice" --and they are really very rare.

I do think that manipulating one's fertility is a matter for the right of conscience --one way or another. We are co-laborers with God in all endeavors --maybe even family planning. But I don't think any insurance company or employer or the taxpayers should be required to cover contraception or abortion against their consciences. Most people will have some insurance choice, and can choose to have contraception coverage or not. Companies which provide pregnancy coverage are probably happy to pay for contraception. Catholic institutions are exceptions, and we hear that Catholics manage to use birth control anyway.

Obama's administration once more creates a controversy by defining "women's health" as having no babies. This controversy is designed to make all women feel abused by religion, abused if their insurance company pays for pregnancy but not contraception, and particularly abused by the GOP candidates who defend the Catholic Church. Media predicts the women's vote for Obama.

Not this woman!




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Freedom of Worship or Freedom of Religion?

Source of my comments is Mark Steyn's article in National Review this month, titled The Church of Big Government.

President Obama and Hillary have been using the phrase, "Freedom of Worship," and this is suspected to be significantly different than "Freedom of Religion" or "free exercise." Governments don't care how we worship within the four walls of the church or in our homes, particularly, but they care about what we say and do in public --and what we say about homosexuality and abortion in particular --and whether or not we proselytize, evangelize, and try to influence public policy, etc.

Notice how the media jumped on Santorum's 2008 speech about the Devil and his hold on our nation. He was right --but everybody groaned, "O no --he can't get elected with biblical beliefs like that! a literal Satan? Come on!" It was a speech to a Catholic student audience.

Big Brother is the secular god, and he wants to provide everything for everybody --being "my brother's keeper," Obama said. Only thing is, it's not Obama who provides for his brother. In fact it was noted that his brother lives in Kenya, Africa, in a shack on $12 a year with no apparent help from Obama, his real brother, most powerful man in the world--who is comparatively rich.

Steyn notes that the Catholic Church has supported Obama's healthcare plan, failing to realize that "if you agitate for state health care, the state gets to define what health care is." And in Obamacare, the state defines women's healthcare as abortion, pharmaceutical abortion, condoms and birth control. And the Obama's "compromise" states that insurance companies should provide it free since the conscience of Catholic institutions forbids them to do it.

Steyn suggests Obama thinks we are all too stupid to realize that there is nothing that is free. People need to be paid for their labors and products, and the only money the state has comes from tax-payers --not Obama, our Brother's Keeper. The state makes no money; it only spends ours. So Obama would take our money paid to gov't or insurance companies and use it for his idea of women's healthcare--against the consciences of the taxpayers. It's socialistic redistribution of money from have-mores to have-lesses. Which never seems to work. Look at Europe. According to Steyn, both the EU nurseries and churches are empty; their retirees are 50, their students are 30 (living on the gov't) and the Muslims are bursting out of their ghettos gaining all sorts of respect for their consciences (lest they riot as in Afghanistan.)

E.G. England requires booties on sniff- dogs searching for terrorists in Muslim territory, because dogs are offensively unclean to Muslims. We bend over backward to accommodate their religious sensitivities (which is kind of us) but in the U.S., we are comparatively mean to Christians, fining bakers and photographers around $20,000 for refusing to do gay weddings.

Obama admires Europe's secular, socialist government which Steyn says EU leaders happily refer to as a "post-Christian Europe" --or "future post-Christian Europe." But look what's happening there (besides their financial problems) : a man in England named David Booker worked for a church homeless shelter and said to a colleague in private conversation that he didn't believe church vicars should be allowed to marry their gay partners. The colleague didn't object to his comment, but told on him and he was suspended and the hostel announced that "action has been taken to safeguard both residents and staff" from the dangerous, insulting idea that vicars (pastors) should not have gay partners.

In Canada, Hugh Owens took out an ad in a Canadian newspaper and they were fined $9000 by the government. That case has worked up to Canada's Supreme Court this year. Meanwhile, no newspaper will ever do what this one allowed Owens to do. He posted the scripture references (not the scriptures) to the verses against same-sex relations.

In 2003, the Vatican issued a ruminative document on homosexual unions. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned Catholic bishops that "distributing the statement could lead to prosecution under the 1989 incitement to hatred Act, and 6 months in the slammer."

Steyn mentioned the minister Ake Green who preached against homosexuality in Sweden and was convicted of "hate crimes" because, in 2002, Sweden criminalized criticism of homosexuality.

As Steyn says, "The state is willing to intrude on core rights--rights to property, rights of association, and even rights to private conversation."

He quotes Henri de Lubac in 1944 who said concerning WWII and its causes: "It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true, is that, without God he can only organize it against man." Steyn notes that atheistic humanism became INhumanism in the hands of the Nazis and Communism. What we have in Europe today is "dehumanism" in which a culture is amusing itself to death, he says.

And so it is today that, more and more, the state in the US bullies the churches, the conscientious objectors, the evangelists, the Bible-preachers and believers who would dare try to influence culture and thus the state along the Biblical definitions of morality and life. Even conservative Bible-believers are content to fiddle while Rome burns, buying the church/state separation ideology that squeezes our cultural foundations behind the walls of the church.


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

You Go, Rick! He Didn't Say Women were Emotional!

Santorum's looking better every day.

Watch what even Fox news did to him on what he said about women in front lines --he never said women were too emotional but even Fox headlined it that way. He said that with women in combat, there can be emotions that would interfere with The Mission at hand. He later said he really was thinking more about men's desire to protect women --and their attraction to them--the men's emotions. Same reason gays don't belong in the military either: attraction of polar opposites. Same reason there are always shipboard romances and pregnancies when women are on board.

Sexual attraction interferes with military missions. I'm not saying women shouldn't serve, but they should never be bunked next to the men in a submarine. There is a place for regarding sexual differences (and orientation differences) in various jobs and situations --without being unfair to women.

Watch the late night comedians --always after the republicans.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Pres. Obama & The Catholic Church --Women's Health Care???

I am astounded by our president's boldness in dictating new regulations, spending moneys we haven't got, bossing around the churches, insurance companies and banks! All in one week!

He meets with Catholic hierarchy, assures them they won't have to violate their consciences in his healthcare program, turns right around and caters to his ardent left-wing, extremist, feminist base by announcing that religious institutions will have to provide for their employees birth control/abortifacients --not abortion per se --but the chemicals that prevent pregnancy by abortion --and pay huge fines for non-compliance. One commentator noted that it would cost Notre Dame U. 10 million dollars for non-compliance.

There was such an outcry (in conservative media outlets) that he held another press conference and said the insurance companies, nor religious institutions, would have to provide these things --free --to the Catholic institution employee. Again, against the conscience of the employer/the church. As though the insurance company won't raise rates or get it back some way. As though the employee and church employer weren't paying for the insurance. Does he think we're stupid --or is he --that he doesn't know that all his give-away money comes from US and indebts our grandchildren?

Seems he takes on way more authority than he should --even failing to have his justice dep't. defend DOMA, the 1996 federal law in defense of marriage. Since he doesn't agree with the law (he has said both that he does believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that he thinks gays should have "equal rights" --code word for marriage.)

Who is the president to boss around churches and private business? It's all part of his big brother take-over of the health care industry, banking, insurance companies --creating new entitlements and relief programs daily with money we don't have!!!

It's clear he's buying constituents to vote for him with every give-away program, every expansion of entitlements. It's going to take voter fraud, however, and a Democratic turn-out of everyone on the public dole, to get him elected --so irritated are those who know what's going on.














"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Obama Speaks Out of Both Sides of Mouth

I saw the prayer breakfast in D.C. and heard Obama say great things about faith and prayer.

Then we get this in email from Tony Perkins of Family Research Council:

It's happened again.

In a move that's reflective of the Obama Administration's continuing track-record of hostility toward Christianity, Lt. Gen. William Boykin (USA, Ret.), was recently pressured to withdraw from speaking at the United States Military Academy at West Point. General Boykin had been preparing to speak at the West Point Prayer Breakfast about the importance of prayer in a leader's life. The Academy moved Boykin to pull out of the event when a handful of atheist and Muslim cadets complained about Boykin's beliefs. The message to this elite, three-star warrior was obvious: You and your faith aren't welcome.

General Boykin is an American hero. There are few who would be more qualified to speak at a West Point prayer event. A former Delta Force leader who has faced danger for his country on missions in places like Iran, Somalia, and Grenada, General Boykin is also a man of deep Christian conviction. It is his outspoken faith that has made him a target of groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, who lodged a complaint with West Point, which led to Boykin not speaking at the event.

This isn't the first time that an outspoken Christian has been booted from military events. Just over a year ago, I was disinvited from an event at Andrews Air Force base because of my biblical views. Before that, evangelist Franklin Graham's invitation to a Pentagon prayer service was rescinded because he too spoke the truth about his faith. These high-profile snubbings of religious expression are only the tip of the iceberg. The Obama Administration is advancing an environment of religious disarmament among the military -- and it must be stopped quickly for the sake of our soldiers' spiritual lives.

You can help the brave men and women of our military. Please join with me in signing our petition that calls on Congress and the Obama Administration to take action to ensure that America's brave warriors have access to free and full expression of their faith.

If Obama is not responsible for military actions above, as FRC believes he is, he should intervene.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

IS WHITE AMERICA COMING APART? Read Charles Murray's New Book

Ron Haskins wrote a review titled The Virtue Deficit for Natl Review. Feb. 6, 2012. He was reviewing the book Coming Apart --by Charles Murray (author of The Bell Curve.)

Murray says there are 4 “founding virtues: –marriage, industriousness, honesty and religiousness.” And these are dividing America as the lower socio-economic class declines in commitment to these virtues. He says the lower class has doubled since 1960, “changing national life.” He might've added that the entitlement roles increased accordingly.

This is obvious to me –and it started with removing prayer from classrooms causing a hostile gulf between religion & education–and then the hippies parented the white Americans between age 30 and 49 today -whom Murray analyzes in the book.

By 2010, more than 1/3 of marriages of this age group in the lower class (lower by occupation and education) end in divorce compared to 5 % for the upper class.

By 2010 more than 1/4 of white babies are born out of wedlock –but for college grads, the percentage is 5%. For h.s. drop-outs, unwed births are 60 per cent.

Combine unwed births and divorce rates and the result is that 6 or 7 times as many lower-class children as upper, live with single parent. And more go to jail. (don’t know if he’s still talking only about whites here, or not.) The result is a continually widening gulf between upper and lower classes --as more and more children in the lower classes follow their parents' pattern.

Finally, he refers to upper class (elites) as wimps in the fact that they walk the walk –but don’t talk it. i.e. Elites or upper classes don’t stand up for these "founding virtues" in their own traditions that make for success in life — despite all the evidence in support.

I say that’s because the elite leaders need votes and are afraid of offending or seeming judgmental. And also because they don’t BELIEVE in traditional morality even if they live it publically. They are more committed to moral neutrality and values relativity –just as the education elites taught them in all those values clarification classes of 70's-90's: “No one but you can decide what is right for you –blah blah blah.”

Santorum said recently in debate that 98 % of Americans who do these 3 things are not in poverty; only 2 % are. The 3 things : marriage before child-bearing, h.s. graduation, and work. This is consistent with Murray's findings and theory.

He also noted that Obama administration discouraged ed. programs that promote marriage before sex. The Obama administration took offense and defended their refusal to advocate abstinence in sex education HERE. They say they advocate marriage --but is that the same as "waiting for marriage" --as in the abstinence model of sex ed? I doubt it. It's "Latex and Abortion before Marriage." And many aren't listening to that message either, but do interpret it as adults condoning pre-marital sex as inevitable bio-drive.

Religion still has the best chance of producing life-long marriage --whether or not the couple gets the cart before the horse.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible