Crystal Wright - Michelle Obama Got it Wrong - Guns Aren’t Killing Black Kids

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Michael Brown - Thou Shalt Not be Catholic

It was prescience, not paranoia, that prompted some social commentators to predict that gay activism would become the principle threat to religious freedoms in America. A recent incident at George Washington University provides the latest confirmation.

In 2010, the University of Illinois fired a Catholic professor who taught courses on Catholicism in the school’s religion department after a student accused him of hate speech because the professor affirmed what the Catholic Church taught about homosexual practice. After a national outcry and a swift legal response, the professor was reinstated, but the fact that he was initially fired is an absolute outrage.

Now, two gay seniors at George Washington University are seeking to have the Catholic chaplain at the university’s Newman Center removed over his alleged anti-gay stance. (The Newman Center is named after Cardinal Newman and is there to serve the school’s Catholic students who make up roughly 3,000 of the university’s 10,000 students.)

The two students, Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen, have mounted a campaign to get Father Greg Shaffer dismissed, accusing him of being ardently anti-gay and (perish the thought!) anti-abortion as well.

What? A Catholic priest who opposes homosexual practice and abortion? How can this be? What has become of the Catholic Church? (Dripping sarcasm intended.)

According to published reports, “Legacy and Bergen say they are primarily upset about the counseling Shaffer offers. They say he urges students who have homosexual feelings to lead a life of celibacy.”

What else would Shaffer be expected to do when a gay Catholic comes to him for counseling? Encourage promiscuity? Encourage serial, gay monogamy? Encourage redefining marriage so the gay Catholic could “wed” a same-sex partner? And since the priest has committed himself to celibacy and is, hopefully, being faithful to his commitment, is it so outlandish for him to counsel others to be celibate as well? (As a married man, I’m not claiming that I could easily be celibate. I’m simply discussing the situation at hand.)

We are told that Damian Legacy “spent considerable time at the Newman Center during his first two years at George Washington. He was an altar server at mass. He believed that he would become a Catholic priest after graduating.

“All that changed, though, when Legacy told Shaffer that he and Bergen had entered a homosexual relationship. Shaffer allegedly charged Legacy with being immoral and lacking in faith.”

So, the young Mr. Legacy believed that he could be a good, faithful Catholic while being involved in an active homosexual relationship? And he was offended that the priest allegedly told him he was being immoral? Seriously?

Well here’s a newsflash for Damian Legacy: According to the Bible and Catholic teaching, sex outside of marriage (which is only the union of a man and woman) is immoral, be it heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. That’s exactly what a faithful Catholic priest (or Protestant pastor) would tell you, and so, rather than trying to get him fired for telling you the truth, you should be thanking him for caring enough to warn you.

According to Legacy, “To have my faith leader view me that way, just because of one piece of the way that God made me, and to think that one part is responsible for the destruction of my human dignity, it just didn’t…I can’t even begin to describe the mental conflict that it creates.”

Perhaps the priest was trying to help this young man see that he was more than a sexual being and that there was a way to exercise self-control and find a deeper place of satisfaction within his own religious faith? Or is Legacy telling us that God made him in such a way that he was not able to refrain from sex with another man, even while in college? Perhaps the “mental conflict” of which he speaks is caused in part by his actions?

The two students are also upset with Father Shaffer’s statement made after President Obama announced his support for same-sex “marriage” last May, when Shaffer wrote, “As Vatican II states, God is the author of marriage. He has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Every single rational person knows that sexual relationships between persons of the same sex are unnatural and immoral. They know it in their hearts.”

Shaffer may have stated his opinion strongly, but this is hardly over-the-top for a Catholic priest, and overall, he is simply affirming the teaching of Vatican II.

Legacy and Bergen are also distributing “a letter to high-ranking administrators” citing “academic studies connecting homophobic behavior to loss of appetite, insomnia and other detrimental psychological consequences.” (I imagine they will not be citing academic studies connecting homosexual practice with greatly increased risks of contracting deadly STD’s, among other health issues.)

The bottom line is that two students are telling the Catholic chaplain of a university’s Catholic center, “Thou shalt not be Catholic.” George Washington University, what will you do? Will you stand with the right of a Catholic chaplain to be Catholic (and I write this as a non-Catholic myself), or will you will stand with anti-religious bullying?

The good news is that Catholic students are rallying around the chaplain. Perhaps their courage will prove contagious.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Scottie Hughes - One Nation Above God

I, like many Christians, watched in disbelief this past September at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina as the delegates not only voted once, but three times, to deny the reinstatement of God into their platform.

Just minutes later, Mark Alen Siegel, Chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party and nine time State Senator from NY made the hideous statement that, “ The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord.”

Almost immediately, thanks to the power of online media and talk radio, Siegel was asked to turn in his resignation. He also was removed from the campaign program, forty-eight hours later that was put on for Obama’s visit to West Palm Beach Florida. Problem solved with the hope that this was just a solo opinion out of the almost one million residents of Palm Beach County.

However, recently with the exposure of Dr. Deandre Poole, a Professor at Florida Atlantic University, who insisted his students write and stomp on the name of Jesus as a part of a class assignment, one might wonder if there is a pattern of anti-Christian sentiment in Southern Florida? Even more interesting is the fact that Dr. Poole currently serves as the Vice Chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party. Yes, the same party that just seven months ago had Mark Allen Siegel as their Chairman.

This could just simply be a coincidence; however, I must question the principles of an organization that puts into leadership people with such radical, anti-Christian attitudes -- especially in light of the national press attention on the Palm Beach Democratic Party following the DNC. Why would they continue to knowingly keep in power individuals with such extreme beliefs? Could it be because the majority of their membership might also embrace that same ideology?

On the flipside, I believe Christians in America are looking for opportunities every day to show our support and stand up for our faith.

How can we forget August 1, 2012 when thousands of people across the country stood in line for hours to support Chick-fil-A when it came under fire for its views on marriage? Or despite Hollywood constantly trying to persuade us that traditional family values have morphed into a Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle, American viewers have overwhelmingly shown their support for shows like the History Channel’s “The Bible” series as well as A&E’s Duck Dynasty, which ends every episode with a prayer.

Christians today have not become more timid as some might like to portray us. Rather, it seems those on the other side have become more bold in trying to desecrate our faith. They have used the vehicle of political correctness to make Christianity look like the religion of hate and used bullying techniques to try and scare away any future followers. They have attacked our religious symbols and celebrations, made children embarrassed to pray in school to Jesus, and removed the Ten Commandments from the hallways of our local governments.

Mathew 27:46 “My God, my God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?’ cried Jesus in his last few moments before he died on the cross at Calvary. Today, almost 2000 years later, considering the pattern of anti- Christian actions, unfortunately not isolated to those Democrat residents of Palm Beach County and the Democratic voters at the DNC, many Christians wonder if there is a line where God will ever forsake us?

Scottie Hughes

October 2012

Scottie Nell Hughes is the news director and chief journalist for the Tea Party News Network as well as a contributor to Patriot.TV and PatriotUpdate.com. Her stories include on the street interview packages to entertaining yet revealing interviews with some of the most notorious names in both politics and Hollywood. Scottie Nell’s interviews have been linked on top sites like Drudge Report, Breitbart, The Blaze, World Net Daily, The Daily Caller with several stories going viral.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Transforming Normalcy

Dr. Jennifer Morse recently gave a perfectly civil and thoroughly Christian talk to a group of Catholic college students in Iowa. In a speech deeply rooted in compassion, she urged students to reach out to same-sex attracted classmates and offer them friendship. She thought they could benefit from chaste friendships, and that they would not necessarily get much of that type of support from others on campus.

The response to Jennifer's speech was predictable. The Gaystapo took to the internet with a series of egregious mischaracterizations of the speech - all of which were intended to intimidate those who would dare show compassion for those struggling with same-sex attraction. Among the lowlights were:

1. The claim that Jennifer somehow exploited the death of Tyler Clementi by mentioning his name in one sentence of her talk.
2. Pretending to believe that telling Catholic students to reach out to their same-sex attracted classmates in chaste friendship would amount to anti-gay bullying.
3. Organizing their usual swarming technique of sending people to attack Jennifer's Facebook page, although most had not listened to any part of her remarks.

In order to fully understand the extent to which the homosexual left is trying to make perfectly normal mainstream opinion seem hateful and offensive, click on the following link to hear Morse's "offending" speech. Any fair-minded person who listens to the whole 30 minute podcast will arrive at the same conclusion: there is nothing there for any normal person to take offense from.

But the homosexual left is anything but normal. It is a movement that relies upon hysteria to breed intimidation. Take a few minutes to compare what you saw in Morse's speech with the reactions from the Gaystapo. Here are links to two of the more egregious articles from the other side:

1. Please bear in mind that Huffington Post gets more traffic than the New York Times, Fox News, and NRO. Their report on the Morse speech can be accessed here.
2. The Advocate reports that the Clementis think it is “cruel” and in fact constitutes a "new low" to reach out to those struggling with homosexuality. In fact, they are furious over the idea of extending compassion toward and forming friendships with homosexuals. They demand an apology here.

Those witnessing the emotional meltdown of the Gaystapo might be tempted to think of Orwell's 1984. More specifically, they might recall the two minutes hate. It isn't difficult to imagine crowds of homosexual activists sitting around watching clips of Morse's speech and screaming at their monitors in a show of solidarity. Take the time to log on to a comment thread on the Huffington Post or on the Advocate. We're already there. Jennifer Morse has become Emmanuel Goldstein.

But the Jennifer Morse controversy is more than a foretelling of the future. It is also a reminder of the past. One cannot easily dismiss the similarity between the Morse episode and the Salem witch trials that characterized another dark period in the history of our civilization.

As C.S. Lewis once observed, the witch trials are misunderstood. Many believe they represented a time when people administered justice according to antiquated principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those trials happened merely because people applied a different set of facts to the same principles. They thought witches could fly to gatherings where they could consort and cast spells and destroy innocent lives. And so the courts tried them and sometimes executed them. The principle that people who did such things deserved to die was correct. The belief that they were actually doing them was incorrect.

There are no witch trials today because we do not believe a self-proclaimed witch when she says she will cast a spell upon us. When she says she has the power to transform us we merely laugh and walk away.

That explains all the hysteria in response to Jennifer Morse. Her opponents say she is wrong because homosexuality is genetic and unalterable. But they react to her with hysterics because they know in their hearts that the Gospel transforms. They know the Truth has power over all things. At some level they know that if they we were made in the image of God they cannot consent to their own destruction and call it good.

Of course, once convinced they are not made in the image of God, people have a difficult time loving themselves. That struggle hardens the heart and transforms loving your neighbor as yourself from a virtue into a vice. Eventually, tolerance becomes letting people destroy themselves and then destroying those who try to help them.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Egregious Government And Walmart The Fall Guy

What happens when a local police department and a state child protective services agency overreact and abuse their authority?

In one such case, Walmart ended-up being sued.

The story began in 2008. Lisa and Anthony Demaree of Peoria, Arizona (a suburb of Phoenix) visited a vacation destination that’s popular among Arizonans – San Diego – and took their three young daughters with them. When they returned home, they brought photos of their then 5, 4, and 1 ½ year old girls to a nearby Walmart store to obtain prints.

It all seemed pretty innocent productive. But some of the Walmart employees who saw some of the “bath tub photos” of the three little girls believed that they were seeing child pornography, so they contacted the local police.

Officers at the Peoria Police Department were concerned about child pornography, as well, so they contacted the Arizona Department of Child Protective Services. And shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Demaree had their three daughters taken away from them for over a month.

"Some of the photos are bathtime photos," Lisa Demaree told ABC News at the time, "but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, lying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute."

After several weeks of the children being in state custody, and after several weeks of court appearances and appeals, a county superior court judge ruled that none of the photographs of the Demaree’s daughters were “pornographic.” Similarly, a medical exam revealed no signs of sexual abuse. Thus, the girls were returned to their parents.

It seems like a happy resolution to a family’s worst nightmare. Yet the damage is still real, as the couple's names went in to a central registry of sex offenders, and, as Ms. Demartee told ABC News, “we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as memories go.”

In 2009, the couple sued the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General's office for defamation. They also sued Walmart because, according to their lawsuit, Walmart had failed to disclose to their customers that they had an “unsuitable prints” policy wherein if store employees discovered objectionable material coming from their customers, they would be compelled to report the incident to law enforcement authorities.

A federal judge has already sided with Walmart in the matter, but now the Demaree’s have appealed their case to a higher court and an outcome is pending. And while the damages to the Demaree family are tragic, here’s another fact: the damages to Walmart are tragic, too.

The idea that Walmart would have an “unsuitable prints” policy is quite reasonable. The company itself could be legally liable for handling illegal materials, were they not to hand-off suspicious items of this sort to law enforcement authorities.

The failure here lies with those who wield the force of law. The store employees may have over-reacted, sure. But the superior court judge’s decision also tells us that both police department personnel, and child protective services agents, were a bit too eager to take children away from their parents.

The Demaree’s damages are no doubt real and tangible. But unfortunately, Americans all too often assume the absolute worst about private businesses, while giving a “pass” to government agencies, even in the face of egregious behavior.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - 7 Biblical Principles For World Changers

The Bible is not only the world’s most widely distributed book (by the billions), it is also the world’s most widely banned book. That’s because it is not just an eclectic assortment of ancient religious traditions. Rather, it is the ultimate threat to the status quo of prideful, human kingdom building and the definitive collection of divinely inspired revolutionary writings.

With that in mind, here are 7 biblical principles for world changers:

1) “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.” (Matthew 5:13) In the ancient world, salt had a number of different functions, including serving as a preservative. When applied to the followers of Jesus, this speaks of our calling to be the moral conscience of society. But this high calling comes with a serious warning. As New Testament scholar R. V. Tasker explained, if the Lord’s followers are “called to be a moral disinfectant in a world where moral standards are low, constantly changing, or non-existent ... they can discharge this function only if they themselves retain their virtue.” We cannot change the world if we ourselves are not changed.

2) “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. . . . [So] let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14, 16) The greatest problem in America today is not so much the presence of darkness as it is the absence of light. Put another way, it is no surprise that sinful people do sinful things. (Do we really expect carnally-minded Hollywood producers to put out God-glorifying, biblically-based, family-friendly flicks?) And so we can’t be shocked when the darkness is dark. Instead, we who claim to be devoted to God must shine the light brightly, and we must do it in deed and not only in word. This begins with compassionate ministry to the hurting and the poor.

3) “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) It’s so easy to put our trust in numbers, as if revolutionary change can only happen when our side is in the majority. But even the secular world knows this is not true. As Fidel Castro remarked, “I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I’d do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action.” If that’s what Castro could do with a handful of dedicated men, what could God do with them?

4) “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21) If we become as mean-spirited and hateful as those who oppose us, we have already lost the battle. As Dr. King famously said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” We must set our goals higher by exposing what is wrong and modeling what is right, not by getting dragged down into the dirt.

5) “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1) As the old saying goes, you can win the argument but lose the point (or the person!). Don’t let pride or a quick temper dictate your speech (or your online communication). Step back, get control of your emotions, and reach out rather than attack. You’ll be amazed with the results that you get. (Yes, this is easier said than done, but the rewards are well worth the effort.)

6) “All the nations are as nothing before [God], they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.” (The words of Isaiah, Isaiah 40:17) Remember to keep your perspective. Some of the most ferocious, intimidating leaders of history are nothing more than dust and ashes today, and the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Curtain, and the Berlin Wall all came down in the last generation. As a historian once observed, two thousand years ago, Nero was considered to be the divine emperor while the apostle Paul was a little known Roman prisoner, soon to be beheaded. Who knew that centuries later, people would call their dogs Nero and their sons Paul?

7) “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) These words were spoken by Jesus to his disciples shortly before he was betrayed and crucified, and they are as relevant today as ever. Jesus wanted them (and us) to know that no one will be totally exempt from pain or suffering or hardship. But, Jesus added, take heart and be at peace. Just as he overcame every obstacle (including death itself!), we his followers can overcome too. In other words, “We shall overcome” was not just the song of the Civil Rights movement. It is our song too. “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.” (1 John 5:4)

There are many more principles like these in the Scriptures, but let’s get started by implementing these seven. It will revolutionize our world.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Eat More Chicken and Your Skin Will Thicken

My friends at Campus Reform are on top of it, as usual. They always expose the thin-skinned idiocy of campus liberals and give me lots of column fodder in the process. Thanks guys. The next round of waffle fries is on me.

Campus Reform is reporting that Chick-fil-A, the popular fast food restaurant chain, has now been dubbed a "symbol of hate," by a professor at Eastern Illinois University (EIU). Lisa Moyer, who teaches in the Family Studies Department at EIU, apparently made the comment with a straight face, although some have suggested that the term "straight face" reinforces heterosexist oppression. Regardless, her comment reinforces my belief that it is always a mistake to choose a major ending in the word "studies."

Moyer made her strangely uninclusive remarks in response to questions about a faculty resolution at EIU. The resolution proposed expelling a Chick-fil-A restaurant from campus in order for the university to be more inclusive. Because of the franchise's alleged opposition to homosexuals, some faculty decided that getting rid of them would promote diversity by producing complete uniformity of thought on issues related to sexual orientation. Talk about queer reasoning!

Moyer, in typical liberal fashion, has projected her hatred of Chick-fil-A onto the restaurant itself and has characterized their company logo as a symbol of hate. I suppose it's now in the same category as a burning cross or a Nazi swastika. In her recent interview with Campus Reform, she elevated hypersensitivity to a Zen art by arguing that her efforts to censor this "symbol of hate" are justified because Chick-fil-A makes a lot of students, particularly in the LGBT community, "feel uncomfortable.” (See www.CampusReform.org for additional details).

Although the Faculty Senate resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus was defeated 3-6, the LGBTXYZPDQ community won anyway. That is all because the discussion resulted in the school opening an office for LGBTQ outreach. When they win they win and when they lose they still win - so long as they keep reminding everyone they feel uncomfortable and need special protection.

So I've been thinking about it and I've decided that our LGBTQIA Office here on my campus makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, the rainbow is a symbol of hate. So, next week, I plan to introduce a resolution to ban them from campus. I expect the resolution to be defeated because it is idiotic. I'm just hoping I get a special office as a consolation prize - simply for being a narrow minded bigot.

Make no mistake about it: the best way to get money in higher education is to be a thin skinned bigot. African American centers reward racial hypersensitivity, Women's Centers reward gender hypersensitivity, and ABC-LGBT-XYZ-PDQ Centers reward unmitigated religious intolerance.

So what exactly is the motivation for all of this thin-skinned hyper-ventilating? Just follow the money. At the end of every rainbow flag, there's a pot of gold - and usually a few burned out professors smoking pot as well.

It is true that Chick-fil-A initially came under fire last summer after CEO, Dan Cathy, indicated personal opposition to same sex marriage. But that wasn't the real issue. The real outrage was over Cathy's personal donations to pro-family conservative groups such as the Family Research Council. The attempt to organize a boycott of the chain was simply an effort to cut off the flow of money to those organizations.

So those of us who support traditional marriage must borrow a page from the pink play book and do the same. If you are donating to a school that houses one of these LGBTQ outreach centers, then shame on you. Give your money to a pro-family "hate group" instead. They tend to be more inclusive anyway.

Oh, yes, and buy more chicken with the money you save from those withheld donations. It'll keep you from having a cow whenever you encounter a divergent viewpoint.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Kids Write Obama on Abortion

I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:

1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.
2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as "health care" within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally
3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.

But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That's normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.

What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters - all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:

Grant writes "Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have."

Julia writes "Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States."

Taejah writes "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President."

Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children - liberal or conservative - are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions - despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there's even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try."

If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Fellowship in the Woodlands

Most of America's problems are cultural. Even our economic problems stem from the cultural rejection of personal responsibility and the acceptance of collective responsibility. And none of our problems would be as bad if the church was still shaping the culture instead of merely responding to it. I was reminded of this during my annual holiday trip home to The Woodlands, Texas.

I've attended Christmas Eve services four out of the last six years at the Woodlands Church (formerly Fellowship of the Woodlands), which is a Southern Baptist mega church that keeps its Baptist affiliation well hidden from the general public. That is symptomatic of what ails the church in 21st Century America. Production and marketing take center stage. Core beliefs are lost somewhere in the process.

Make no mistake about it; the production is good at The Woodlands Church. The set is grand and the music is wonderful. Pastor Kerry Shook and his wife Chris are largely responsible for that. Their son, a musician living in Nashville, comes home to perform in the Christmas services every year. I've seldom heard a more talented young singer and guitarist.

Couched in the musical productions of these mega churches, one sees an overwhelming desire to deliver a product that demonstrates the cultural relevance of the church. This is especially true on holidays when the church has more visitors than usual. This Christmas Eve, one of the singers was dressed like Michael Jackson and was moon walking around the stage as others sang. I didn't see a likeness of baby Jesus in a manger. But I saw a likeness of Michael Jackson in a sequin outfit.

Many people dispute whether Jackson was a pedophile. No one disputes that he is still culturally relevant. Nonetheless, it was strange seeing Michael Jackson's likeness on stage just minutes after the church staff assured parents that the church nursery provided a safe environment for their young children. Mega churches are seldom short on cash or irony.

After the music, an enormous train engine (actually, it was a life size model) appeared in the middle of the stage. It was slowly moved in on a set of make shift tracks in the midst of smoke and accompanied by the sound of a real train whistle. The pastor boasted that the whistle could be heard all the way over on highway 242. I agreed that the set was impressive. It probably took the church staff as much time to build it as would have been required to build a medium sized home for an impoverished Houston family.

The crowd at Woodlands Church also got to see a YouTube video of a man watching an old train pull into a station. I still don't understand the point of showing the video, which featured a man so excited to see an old train that he took the Lord's name in vain three times. Let that sink in for a minute: The Woodlands Church played (in church, mind you) a video in which a man was taking the Lord's name in vain three times. And they did it as part of a Christmas Eve service celebrating the birth of our Lord.

It reminded me of the time I took the Lord's name in vain in a lecture at Summit Ministries in 2010. I didn't mean to do it. But it didn't matter. The kids at the ministry let me have it - and rightfully so. I was absolutely in the wrong.

My question for the mega church is simple: how did the commandment-violating video get past the entire staff at the Woodlands Church without someone catching it and correcting it? It's pretty easy to do an overdub on "oh my God" to turn it into "oh my." But the entire staff missed it. Or perhaps they didn't care.

Unlike my teenaged Summit students, senior pastor Kerry Shook couldn't see anything wrong with playing that video in church on Christmas Eve - even though its narrator took the Lord's name in vain three times. He just laughed at it. And that was all that mattered. The service wasn't meant to honor God. It was meant to entertain.

Kerry and Chris delivered a joint sermon, which had a broad general theme connected to the giant locomotive that stood behind them. The thesis was that we need to relinquish our need to control people and circumstances and instead let God direct our lives. But during the short sermon, Kerry's wife said something rather unusual. It had to do with holy moments in our lives. It was as morally confused a statement as I have ever heard inside a place calling itself a church.

Without batting an eye, Chris Shook stated that all of the moments in our lives are equally holy no matter what we are doing because they were all created by God. So she insisted that we must learn to live in the moment, rather than seek a holy moment - because, once again, all moments are holy, and equally so.

To illustrate the error of Chris Shook's statement, consider these "equally holy" moments, which were "all created by God":

• A man sees a woman being raped and intervenes to stop the attack.
• A man sees a woman being raped and decides to join in.
• A man gives his wife a dozen roses.
• A man gives his wife herpes.
• A man tells his grandmother she is a saint.
• A man tells his grandmother she is a whore.

Obviously, not every moment in our lives is equally holy or God honoring "no matter what we are doing." It matters very much what we are doing. Everyone knows that, including Chris' husband Kerry who contradicted his wife about five minutes later. Near the end of their joint sermon, Kerry thanked people for coming to The Woodlands Church on "Christmas Eve, one of the holiest nights of the year."

Put simply, there can be no holier or holiest night if every moment in our lives is equally holy. Either Kerry was right or his wife Chris was right. A cannot be not-A. The law of non-contradiction matters.

Every right thinking person knows that Kerry was right. His wife needed to sit down and let her husband the senior pastor deliver the correct message unencumbered by contradictions steeped in moral relativism. The culture teaches moral relativism. The church needs to correct it.

Of course, having Chris up there was the most important thing because it shows that The Woodlands Church really isn't a Baptist Church after all. They let women preach and that shows they are culturally relevant. A little bad theology never hurt anyone.

In our holiest moments, we recognize that sound theology must defer to the secular doctrine of feminism. Some doctrines are holier than others. And relativism is culturally relevant even when it isn't logically consistent.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Piers Morgan Wants to Amend Moses

Fresh off his attack on America’s gun control laws, Piers Morgan set his sights on another set of laws that trouble him, the laws of Moses and the Bible. But before he called for an amendment to the Bible to recognize “gay rights,” Morgan actually asked his guest, Pastor Rick Warren, a very fair question, and Warren stumbled in his answer.

Of course, Morgan’s timing could not have been worse. After all, this was a Christmas Eve interview with a Christian leader, and Morgan is not exactly riding a wave of popularity. And to compare the Bible to the Constitution shows a real lack of understanding, let alone sensitivity. (According to Morgan, “Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed.”)

Even those who do not believe the Bible to be God’s Word generally have the prudence not to call for an amendment to the Scriptures. The idea is patently absurd. (To quote Morgan again, “My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”)

Who will be responsible for making the amendments? Shall we amend the Bible on an annual basis? Shall we do it by regional vote? By age? By gender? Perhaps we can each amend the Bible as we please, whenever we like? (Come to think of it, in practical terms, that’s what a lot of people do on a daily basis!)

Morgan actually called for a “new Bible,” thereby making a mockery of his very position. (Note to Piers Morgan: If “the Bible” is merely a book containing the latest human opinion, it is not “the Bible.” This would be like calling for the manufacture of a “new car,” only to produce a horse.)

But putting this drivel aside, Morgan’s first question to Warren was actually valid. And while Warren, to his credit, unashamedly spoke of his faith in the Bible as God’s Word, noting that what “is flawed is human opinion” – not the Bible – “because [human opinion] constantly changes,” he failed to respond properly to Morgan’s question. This set up Morgan to make his ridiculous call for an amendment to the Bible. (To Morgan’s credit, at least he recognized that the Bible does prohibit homosexual practice, in contrast with the editors of the new Queen James Bible, who simply rewrote the troubling passages.)

To buttress his argument that the Bible was inherently flawed and in need of updating, Morgan cited the law of Moses that adulterers should be stoned to death. This dialog then ensued:

WARREN: That’s . . . a civil law for the nation of Israel.

MORGAN: But it’s still an element of the Bible that is flawed.

WARREN: Well, evidently, for that generation, that’s their – that’s their commandment.

MORGAN: Exactly my point. . . .

WARREN: But it’s not one of the moral laws.

MORGAN: No, but it’s still in the Bible, and it’s flawed.

This is where Warren’s response fell short.

First, the law against adultery was a moral law, not a civil law. The specific penalty for adultery, namely, stoning, was part of Israel’s civil law, but even at that, Torah law does not distinguish between moral law and civil law.

It would have been better to say, “We both agree that adultery is still wrong; it’s just the penalty for adultery that has changed. It’s the same with homosexual practice.”

Second, Warren offered a weak defense for the validity of this law, saying, “evidently, for that generation, that’s their – that’s their commandment.”

Actually, it would have been better to say that Israel was a theocracy, and as a nation, the people of Israel heard God speak his laws from Mount Sinai. America is not a theocracy and we are not trying to make America into a theocracy. Also, in the ancient Near East, the laws of Moses were actually more compassionate in many ways than the laws of the surrounding nations. But either way, laws like these were common at that time.

More importantly, Jesus, in the New Testament – which is part of the Bible! – spoke against the stoning of an adulteress, without downplaying the sin of adultery. So, Warren could have simply said, “We don’t need to amend the Bible. The Bible already dealt with the very question you raise.”

Of course, if Warren had the time, he could have asked Morgan what right our contemporary Western culture has to throw stones at ancient Israelite morality (no pun intended). For every person stoned to death in ancient Israel for sexual sins, countless thousands of people in Europe and America suffer and even die because of sexually transmitted diseases. I wonder how a line like that would have gone over on the show?

Ironically, after Rick Warren commended Piers Morgan for bringing up these issues, calling for more civil discussion, Moran agreed, saying, “The debate should always be respectful. It's the moment -- it applies to politics, too. . . . The moment it becomes disrespectful and discourteous and then rude and then poisonous, you never achieve anything.”

Perhaps Morgan forgot this principle when he vilified gun lobbyist Larry Pratt as an “incredibly stupid person”? But I digress. Calling for an amendment to the Bible is more than enough for now, and I have no desire to compare today’s gun laws with the Law of Moses.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not principle. Let voters decide.

“As views on gay marriage change, and a growing number of Americans support it, politics will follow. This is how it’s supposed to work.”

I’d guess if I asked the Wall Street Journal editors if the American constitution should be viewed as a “living document” – if our understanding of its words and what they mean should be open to change to reflect attitudes of the moment – they would say “no.”

Liberals think the constitution should be re-engineered every few years like an iPad.

So it is not surprising when liberals, for whom tradition is meaningless, trash once sacred institutions in favor of impulses of the moment.

But it does surprise me when those whose politics are supposedly right-of-center, who view America’s founding documents as sacrosanct and give the highest priority to preserving their integrity, are cavalier regarding the integrity of an institution thousands of years older than our constitution.

But it’s a point of view not uncommon.

In the 1850’s, Stephen Douglas proposed solving the dilemma of whether slavery should be permitted in new states by suggesting that they should just vote. What could be more American than submitting the question of slavery to the democratic process of each state?

To this Abraham Lincoln observed: “God did not place good and evil before man telling him to make his choice. On the contrary, He did tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death….I should scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska.”

Lincoln’s rejoinder to the idea of “popular sovereignty” – that states should vote to determine if slavery would be legal – was that there are core truths – truths that define right and wrong, good and evil - that precede the democratic process.

To reject this premise is to buy into moral chaos. Which is what we are approaching today.

The claim that somehow it is a sign of a healthy, free society that by way of the vote we can re-write our language, our dictionary, our oldest, time-tested traditions is a sign of how lost we are.

Same sex marriage advocates argue that their efforts will save the embattled institution of marriage. But this takes a symptom of the disease and calls it a cure.

As American society has become more self-centered and materialistic, family and marriage have been imploding.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 1960 72 percent of American adults were married. This dropped to 51% in 2011.

Marriage and family is the pillar of any healthy society. It is the institution through which children are born and raised and through which time-tested truths and values are transmitted from one generation to the next.

To deal with the crisis of the collapse of family and marriage by redefining what they are is the sign of a society losing its way.

Fortunately, America is still a free country. Individuals can make their own choices about how they choose to live.

But taking personal choices to deviate from our social standards of right and wrong, true and false, and decide to change those truths and standards, so that nothing is any longer considered deviant, is a bridge to nowhere

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael brown - Is Anyone Hellbound?

The new documentary Hellbound? has reignited discussion about the perennial topic of hell as well as revealed some very bizarre perspectives.

Kevin Miller, the film’s director, who identifies as a Christian, stated in an interview that, regarding the traditional view of hell as a place of fiery torment, “I don’t see anything in the Bible that would lead me to believe that such a place exists.” Instead, according to Miller, when Jesus talked about hell, he was talking about the here and now.

Really? Jesus didn’t warn about a place of judgment to come? And Director Miller gets his denial of hell from the Bible? Perhaps he is reading into the Scriptures what he would like them to say? Warnings like this from Jesus, spoken with rhetorical urgency, are hard to dismiss: “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:29)

Frank Schaeffer, son of the late and revered evangelical leader, philosopher Francis Schaeffer, appeared in the movie and is more aggressive in his dismissal of hell. He writes in his column in the Huffington Post, “People ‘defending’ God have completely screwed up America and our politics. And their version of ‘God’ f----d up the first half of my life too.”

He claims that, “Hell is irrelevant because of course there isn’t one. The movie is important though because it exposes a real question: how can we survive the God-nuts who take this stuff seriously? Hellbound? is our chance to get to know the enemies of what’s left of our crumbling ‘civilization.’”

So, those who believe in a place of future judgment are “the enemies of what’s left of our crumbling ‘civilization,’” by which he explicitly means America.

Schaeffer continues, “Talking about hell in and of itself is a waste of time because if there is a ‘God’ no one knows anything about him/her or it and they never will, let alone about what he/she or it will ‘do’ about the ‘lost.’ But there are people, lots of them, who think hell is real because it fits their kill-your-neighbor-if-he-looks-at-you-funny vision of ‘life.’”

Well, I just learned something new: If I believe that God will bring about justice in the world to come and settle wrongs at the time of resurrection, I believe this because it fits my “kill-my-neighbor-if-he-looks-at-my-funny vision of ‘life.’” Seriously?

But there’s more. For Schaeffer, America’s hawkish tendencies and aggressive foreign policy directly relate to our fundamentalist reading of the Bible: “Thank you St. John (or whomever) loon was the author of the ‘book’/acid-trip of Revelation, for giving us a deluded roadmap so that the Americans who can’t find France on a map can get their foreign ‘policy’ marching orders direct from a ‘prophet’ huddling in a cave alone with his odd brain 2000 years ago.”

Aside from the fact that it is sad to see someone like Frank Schaffer, who once held to evangelical Christian beliefs, then Greek Orthodox beliefs, turn into such a Bible mocker, it is more than a stretch – shall we call it a leap of incredulity? – to claim that America fought (or is fighting) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, because of a literal belief in hell and the Scriptures.

Interestingly, a study “appearing in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS ONE, found that criminal activity is lower in societies where people’s religious beliefs contain a strong punitive component than in places where religious beliefs are more benevolent. A country where many more people believe in heaven than in hell, for example, is likely to have a much higher crime rate than one where these beliefs are about equal. The finding surfaced from a comprehensive analysis of 26 years of data involving 143,197 people in 67 countries.”

According to Azim F. Shariff, professor of psychology and director of the Culture and Morality Lab at the University of Oregon, “The key finding is that, controlling for each other, a nation’s rate of belief in hell predicts lower crime rates, but the nation’s rate of belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates, and these are strong effects. . . . The finding is consistent with controlled research we’ve done in the lab, but here shows a powerful ‘real world’ effect on something that really affects people -- crime.”

Here in America, belief in hell remains prevalent, and a 2003 poll by George Barna indicated that 71% of the population “said that there is such a thing as Hell.” At the same time, “just one-half of 1% expect to go to Hell upon their death.” So, hell is real, but none of us are going there!

Putting aside our religious differences, perhaps the questions we need to ask ourselves are these:

1. Are there lasting consequences to our actions?
2. Will there be an ultimate judgment and final justice?
3. If so, how should we live today?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Surviving the Humanist Hurricane

The upcoming elections aren’t about Republican vs. Democrat; conservative vs. liberal; Romney vs. Obama. Not entirely, at least. They’re much bigger than all that.

November signifies nothing new. It’s a microcosm of a much greater struggle – one that predates mankind. These elections are about truth vs. lies; light vs. darkness; good vs. evil.

Ultimately, November represents a high point – or a low point if you prefer – in the epic clash between diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible worldviews.

On the one hand, we have the Judeo-Christian worldview. It is both informed by and fully acknowledges absolute truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. It holds that individuals and nations together are accountable to a sovereign, holy Creator who “does as He pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth” (Daniel 4:35).

It was within the framework of this worldview that our great nation was formed. The historical record is undeniable. Our unique constitutional republic can operate harmoniously within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition alone.

It declares that, rather than by man – than by government – we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

On the other hand, we have the secular-humanist worldview. It, too, represents a tradition old as the days of Noah. It holds that there is no absolute truth and imagines, absolutely, that, as theological giant Francis Schaeffer often described, “Man is the measure of all things.”

It is from this humanist perspective that Barack Obama views the world. He and other “progressives” who share his worldview willfully ignore that, as history proves, when man is the measure of all things, all things can, and usually do, go horribly wrong. Consider, for example, the hundreds of millions killed under the humanist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al.

When man is the measure of all things, all things are necessarily relative. Relativism measures our deeds on a scale unbalanced, with no fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong. It presumes that the only thing immoral is to presume that there are things immoral.

Schaeffer, writing in “The Christian Manifesto,” noted: “What we must understand is that the two worldviews really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but total differences in regard to society, government, and law. There is no way to mix these two total worldviews. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized.”

Indeed, we are at an impasse. We play a zero-sum game that is no game at all. Somebody must win, and somebody must lose.

“It is not too strong to say that we are at war,” wrote Schaeffer, “and there are no neutral parties in the struggle. One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.”

Under the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is the final authority. What God giveth, God taketh away. Under humanism, man – through government – is lord. What government giveth, government taketh away.

Evangelical luminary Dr. R.C. Sproul once observed: “Humanism was not invented by man, but by a snake who suggested that the quest for autonomy might be a good idea.”

That snake’s eggs have hatched, leaving us to contend with a nest of humanist vipers.

In the end, eternal Truth – the image of God in the person of Jesus Christ – will crush, underfoot, the heads of that snake and his viperous brood. Yet, until such time, believers must not tarry but, rather, faithfully join the struggle – no matter how rough the waters become.

And the waters are becoming rough.

Our Founding Fathers had the divinely inspired foresight to construct a constitutional levee against the humanist hurricane. Regrettably, in recent decades that levee has given way, resulting in a devastating secularist flood. Amid the debris and drifting out to sea are, among other things, the dismembered bodies of 55-plus million unborn babies, the tattered institutions of natural marriage and family and respect for sexual purity, virtue and morality.

Also drowning beneath humanism’s neo-Marxist undercurrent are individual liberty, American sovereignty, fiscal solvency and national security. Each of these indispensable items, within both public policy and our cultural at large, barely clings to life.

Ephesians 6:12 declares: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Indeed, we are at war. Our struggles are complicated by the reality that many of the aforementioned rulers and authorities – to include Barack Obama and the larger “progressive” establishment – embrace the humanist philosophy. As noted, this philosophy was first planted in the mind of man by the very garden snake who commands “the powers of this dark world” and the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

But there is hope. Real hope. Not some nebulous, superficial hope fabricated to fuel a cult of personality.

There is hope in Christ.

Jesus commands His followers to be His hands and feet – to be salt and light in a rotting world that loves darkness.

True, salt preserves, but in an open wound, it also burns. Humanism is an open wound.

True, light’s bright glare can be illuminating to those eager to see. But it is also blinding to those whose eyes have become adjusted to darkness. When the light of Christ is shined, it sends lovers of evil scurrying for the shadows.

Indeed, we struggle to survive the humanist hurricane. America is keeping her head above water; but barely. The upcoming elections may determine whether we as a nation sink or swim – live or die.

Still, whatever happens in November, we must continue to faithfully tread the torrential waters. Although we have a profound opportunity to calm those waters on Nov. 6, humanist storms will always come.

We can once again gain solid footing on dry land, but to do so, we must first save ourselves.

Yet, not alone; we’ve been offered a hand up. We’ve been thrown a lifesaver.

And that Lifesaver walked on torrential waters.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Atheists’ and Muslims’ Cross to Bear

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

While America mourned the 11th anniversary of the Islamic attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, atheist radicals were throwing fuel on the fire. While millions were praying for the friends and families of precious souls lost, self-styled “progressives” were preying upon the most significant symbol of hope to which many of the grieving clung.

The 17-foot steel-beam cross, found amid the rubble of the once towering World Trade Center, is at the center of a lawsuit filed by the American Atheists Foundation. While nearly the entire 9/11 memorial site remains purely secular in nature, these secular absolutists complain of unequal representation. Such a bizarre measure of inequality could arise solely in the blinded mind of a “free-thinking” relativist.

Fortunately, these Christ-hating heathens don’t have a legal leg upon which to be hopping mad. In cases like Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that “religion has been closely identified with our history and government.”

In fact, the high court ruled explicitly in Lynch v. Donnelly that religious elements within a larger government display are perfectly constitutional where both a religious and a “secular purpose” are represented. There could be no better example than the case at hand.

The relic cross was dedicated to the World Trade Center Memorial. Workers, volunteers, indeed most of America, saw it as a profound symbol of hope after it was discovered amongst the debris. The cross, which many believe miraculous, brought tremendous comfort to those who lost loved ones in the cowardly, Islamo-fascist attacks.

American Atheists’ complaint reads like a bad joke. The group’s president, David Silverman, insists that he and his fellow God-deniers are experiencing debilitating physical reactions from simply witnessing the rubble cross. Such reactions allegedly include “inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

These materialist martyrs complain that the cross makes them “feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.” (Well, cry me a river, princess. Suck it up and go see the school nurse.)

To be sure, our atheist flowers – like other living dead – are evidently so insecure in their lack of faith that the mere glimpse of a cross provokes a hiss, a dramatic cape-whirl-twirl and an abrupt retreat to the cold sanctuary of moonlit coffin (or Starbucks; whichever has Wi-Fi).

Am I trying to vilify David Silverman and his anti-Christian American Atheists? Not at all. I’d no sooner try to “milkify” milk. Actions define character. It’s at once both refreshing and instructive to see the godless left cast off its Apollyon mask.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel civil-rights firm, said of the case: “Atheist groups would like to see a total collapse of the free exercise of religion in America. The cross is a symbol of hope amidst the total destruction at Ground Zero. The lawsuit is further evidence of the war on Christianity in America. The 9/11 cross survived the terrorist attack by Muslim extremists, and it will survive the cultural attack by radical secularists.”

Indeed, radical secularists’ war on Christianity has reached biblical proportions. We saw it on full display at the Democratic National Convention. It was surreal. There, thousands of Democrats, with a unified voice, denied God three times and then booed His inclusion after shell-shocked party officials rammed Him back into the platform – this, despite an obviously failed voice vote. (The democratic process and the Democratic Party: Neither the twain shall meet.)

The uncanny symbolism was not lost on Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WND: “It’s reminiscent of the denials of Jesus by Simon Peter on the day He was arrested for a sham trial before the Sanhedrin,” he wrote. “I didn’t hear a cock crow at the Democratic convention, unless you count Bill Clinton’s speech.”

Benjamin Franklin once observed, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?”

We know what we’d be. We’re becoming it.

Yes, liberals’ desperate attempts to secularize America and eradicate her rich, Judeo-Christian heritage must be vigorously combatted. The left’s militant crusade to exorcise public recognition of God must not go unchallenged.

As Muslim radicals’ conduct murderous assaults on U.S. embassies around the world, secularist radicals are no less determined to kill freedom. There is, you see, a tie that binds. Both groups hate – with a visceral, all-consuming kind of hatred – the one true God. They hate all things Judeo-Christian.

But they also share a common goal. God-deniers want to destroy the America of our founding – the America of which George Washington said in his inaugural address: “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Millions of Muslims, on the other hand, simply want to destroy America.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.