Religion, Politics, Culture: Defined & Explained

Christianity & Religion

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Theft is Building Block of Obama's Utopia

In the course of getting through my MBA program I have run across some really good teachers and some that are so removed from reality that I can’t seem to find much common ground to even communicate with them.

I rarely listen to Michael Savage but I know that he contends that liberalism is a mental illness. I am now not only willing to concede the point but wholeheartedly agree with his assessment. At its root however, I think that liberalism is the result of spiritual death that comes from rejecting God and his Word. Put another way, Christ is the cure to liberalism.

A case in point is my current instructor. He has multiple degrees—including economics—and a doctorate. He looks at the spending spree of the federal government and his only gripe is that President Obama is not spending enough money to effectively rescue the economy. He claims that Obama is beholden to the right wing of the Republicans because he allowed a few token tax cuts amongst all the pork. Let me get this straight, every Republican in the House of Representatives voted against this bill and the three most liberal Republicans in the Senate voted for it and Obama caved to the Republican right?

The effective debt of the US government exceeds 65 trillion dollars-- which is greater than the gross national product of the entire world—and he has the stones to say Obama is not spending enough money? In adjusted dollars, Obama has spent more than FDR in the New Deal in less than two months!

Furthermore, my instructor thinks Obama should nationalize every financial institution in the US and then after a few years the government should divest then (make then private again) and create one thousand small banks. These banks would not be allowed to merge to form larger banks by aggressive use of anti-trust legislation.

My instructor feels that all our problems can be solved by government central planning of production and aggressive use of wealth redistribution. He wants the outright confiscation of all wealth from the top five percent of all income earners. He asserts that we need to be more like France and Germany. We need more days off, nationalized healthcare and more government control of the economy. This conveniently negates fact that France and Germany are demographically on the verge of extinction due to legalized abortion and other social factors that resulted in low birth rates. For many decades the birth rate has been below replacement levels for all European countries. In addition the large Moslem populations in these countries are pressing for recognition of Sharia Law in these formerly Christian nations.

Of course my instructor is also a believer in “green” energy. He seems to want the personal use of automobiles banned and replaced with mass transit. To facilitate this, he wants housing to be changed to cram as many people as possible into the smallest amount of space. Gaia forbid that we should have yards around our houses and waste water keeping them green.

These are just some of the issues that I can recall my teacher advocating. So why you may ask do I contend that these beliefs are symptoms of a spiritual illness? Let me briefly try to explain.
God has created three institutions to govern man: government, church and family. For a healthy society, each of these must be in balance. Each has an exclusive area of responsibility but there are areas where each intersects.

All law is religious.

"…in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not Christian theism.” RJ Rushdoony

Any change in law is a change from one god to another. In the same book, Rushdoony states, “…it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society”.
The basis of Western civilization is rooted in biblical values.

Given the above, what my teacher is advocating is removing the last vestiges of biblical Christianity from our society and replacing them with the power religion of the secular state.

For many, it may be a distant memory but the Ten Commandments are still one of the pillars of Western Civilization. What my teacher is embracing is inverting the edict “Thou shall not steal” and making it the basis of implementing social change. His whole vision of utopia is built by wealth redistribution at the point of the sword wielded by the State. This is the formula for tyranny not liberty.

My teacher thinks by abolishing much private property and nationalizing businesses and thus investing the government with the power to plan our lives he can solve society’s ills.
One can’t help but recall that the Scripture proclaims, “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools “. 

At its root, my teacher seems fixated on jealousy and envy that others have more material possessions than he does This whole scheme that my teacher has dreamed-up is the result of years of sin eating away at his insides. Clearly the focus of his worldview is based on a violation of the Commandment “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” Clearly my teacher covets his neighbor’s house and he covets his neighbor’s employees and he covets his neighbor’s job (ox) and he covets his neighbor’s mode of transportation (ass) and everything else his neighbor has.

My teacher’s utopia can only end in a tyrannical society based either on fascism or socialism. You would think after the hundreds of millions that died in the last century for these two belief systems men would reject such evil. Unfortunately, my teacher thinks he can get it right where Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the rest got it wrong.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Armed Police Forbid National Anthem at Capitol

When Bureaucrats Attack!

California politicians do really stupid things on a daily basis. Usually they get away with their actions because most media outlets ignore their actions. Unfortunately for us, journalists forgot what journalism was intended to be several decades ago and instead of keeping both sides honest, they chose sides.

As a result, journalists that cover the State Capitol don’t tend to work very hard. They go get their batch of press releases at their building on 10th and L Streets and use them as the basis for their next round of submissions to their editors. Usually their stories are paraphrases of the press releases in their “IN” box. They occasionally will get an additional quote from someone in their rolodex to round out their 700 word essay on the days’ news. The reason every newspaper and television station have the same stories is that they use the same press releases from the same sources. It’s not a conspiracy, its laziness.

During the last few days, the silence in the local media has been deafening with regard to the treatment of my daughter and her friends at the California State Capitol. My daughter attended the City on the Hill Leadership conference last week. This is a hands-on series of workshops on how government works. Part of the time is spent in the Capitol building meeting with legislators.

Following a meeting with Senator Tom McClintock, her group went into the rotunda portion of the building and decided to sing the national anthem and God Bless America. It has been a tradition each year to sing during their visit to the Capitol. This time however, the group was stopped in mid song by armed members of the security detail for the capitol (officers of the California Highway Patrol) and told that what they were doing was illegal because they did not have a permit! They were threatened with arrest!

A series of press releases was sent to parents and others notifying them of this government action. The irony of a group of high school kids learning the wonders of American democracy and being told that exercising their freedom of speech would land them in jail is rich. Liberalism allows freedom of speech only when it agrees with them. (Better they learn the lesson well in their youth.) Locally, Eric Hogue led his show with it today and WorldNetDaily.com featured it today. New media will boldly go places to old media cannot enter.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Wright Proves Obama Wrong

Senator Barack Obama is in the news for his association with Rev Jeremiah Wright. The sermon audio that has been featured on talk radio over the past few days is disturbing. It is racist and hate filled. It sounds like much of the lunacy that you would expect from Louis Farrakhan or other radical Muslims. While described as a Christian Church, Rev Wright seems to advocate another Jesus and another gospel.

The absurdity of Wright’s sermon claiming that Jesus was a black man who lived in a land that was under the oppressive thumb of the white Roman oppressors sound like Carl Marx or Louis Farrakhan not apostles like Peter, James and John. It is no more rational than if David Duke or some Clan member claimed that whites are superior because Jesus was white guy. Both are nonsense. Jesus was neither white nor black but somewhere in between. If Rev Wright should learn anything from the gospel it is that there is neither male nor female or Jew or Greek in Christ. We all enter the Church by adoption not by race or heritage. We are all equal before God and all enter his presence through the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Other quotes heard on talk radio speak about the evils of rich whites and the struggles of poor blacks. Then Rev Wright invokes than name of Hilary Clinton as an example of a rich white woman and Barack Obama as an example of a poor black man. Hey Rev try again. Barack is the one that earned over a million dollars a year while the Clintons were trying to get by on Bill’s 35K salary in Arkansas. Which family had more time in Ivy League schools? I don’t think it was the Clintons.

If Rev Wright is really so concerned about the rights of those that many consider non-persons then what is he doing to halt the genocide against blacks called abortion? What is he doing to strengthen black families and keep them gainfully employed? What is he doing to stop gangs, drugs and prostitution in his community? It seems that his answer is more big government and blaming white folks.

Rev Wright laments in his sermons about the number of blacks in prison. How many times has he taught his flock about the Ten Commandments? Oh, he probably can’t teach those because they are Jewish.

Rev Wright also says many outrageous things from his pulpit about the United States. While he has the freedom to do so in this country, his comments show a lack of respect for both Scripture and fact.

How such a man ever got ordained is a mystery to me. It is even more of a mystery why Obama stayed in this church for twenty years. Evidently, Obama agrees with much of the teaching he receives at the feet of Rev Wright. The only thing this whole episode does explain is the lunatic statements made by Obama’s wife.

Rev Wright is more proof that Obama is wrong.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Larry Norman 1947-2008

I just read on WorldNetDaily that Larry Norman had died. I will miss Larry and wanted to reflect on his music and influence on my life.

In the mid 1970’s, I made my peace with God. I had been looking hard for Him in fifth and sixth grade. I went from being a “good Catholic boy” to an agnostic and then began reading the Bible. I knew there was more to knowing God than what the nuns at my Catholic school were teaching to me.

At the end of seventh grade, I began attending a Baptist church in the town where I lived. The youth program was full of people with a living faith. They were really a breath of fresh air to my soul. (To this day I still see some of that group from time to time.) At church camp I walked forward and began my walk with Christ. While God has led me in other directions, I have continued to walk with Him.

At the Baptist church youth group we sang many songs each Wednesday night. Unknown to me at the time, Larry Norman had penned at least a third of the songs that we were singing. I remember being terrified by many of the songs and the fervor created by Hal Lindsey and The Late, Great Planet Earth. The church was full of “rapture fever.”

We loved to sing, “Life was filled with guns and war, and everyone got trampled to the floor, I wish we’d all been ready…”

Dispensationalist and Pre-Millennial theology were the tenants of orthodoxy at the church. This was the type of church that defined itself by what its members didn’t do. “I don’t smoke, drink or chew; and I don’t go with girls that do.” Another thing we didn’t do was listening to that “evil” Christian rock n’ roll. As far as I know, no one in the youth program ever mentioned Larry Norman.If the pastor had known, I’m sure there would have been hell to pay.

It wasn’t until college that I learned that Larry Norman had written those songs we were singing at church many years before. It was at this time that I realized that Larry Norman had been one of the earliest artists to blaze a trail for Contemporary Christian Music.

Norman also helped others to follow his lead in singing for God in a way that was uncompromising. Larry Norman was followed by Keith Green, Randy Stonehill, Michael Omartian, Gary S Paxton and others. These musicians helped to create a market for Christian music with a popular beat.

Larry voiced this idea when he song. “I don’t want any of those funeral marches, I aint dead yet. All I’m really tryin’ to say is why should the devil have all the good music?”

A few years later, I joined the Navy and had a chance to see Larry Norman in concert. I took the photo for this article in the early 1980’s.

Larry Norman had been in poor health for the last several years but is now at rest and with the Jesus that he loved so dearly. Maybe it is time for me to start buying all those Larry Norman CDs that I failed to get for Christmas last year.

Related Web Sites
http://www.LarryNorman.com
http://www.harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=12311 Obituary

Sunday, February 17, 2008

One-Way Downloads

Free Christian Music from the 1970’s and 80’s is available for download at http://mp3.one-way.org/mp3/ . The music found on this site is mostly stuff that was never issued on compact disk. They are listed by artist (alpha by first name) and each subdirectory has from one to six LPs per artist. They are taken from vinyl but many have been professionally done with new LPs and great cleaning software. A few are not cleaned-up at all but the quality is great when compared to my scratchy, cue burned music—much of which survived my disc jockey days at WDDT and KJBU.

Artists listed include: All Saved Freak Band, Bash n the Code, Cruise Family, Darrell Mansfield, Denny Correll, Ed Raetzloff, Fireworks, Michael Omartian, Prodigal, Servant and Wall Brothers Band.

I found the site purely by accident when I did my periodic Google search on Ed Raetzloff. In the past, I have spent lots of time on the one-way.org site but never seen any link or mention of this download area before. I’m not sure if the site owner intended for this stuff to be public or plans some profit making way of using these at a later date but the proverbial “barn door” is open for interested parties.

Oh, in case you were wondering, most of what I am interested in on this site is the stuff I already own on vinyl but cannot buy on CD or digital download. I still have more than a hundred albums that I cannot buy in a digital format. The less I have to convert on my still to be purchased USB turntable the better. I hope I will be able to do as good a job as the person at one-way that is working hard to preserve the Christian music experience of the 70’s and 80’s.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Fox News Publishes Mormon Questions

Today on the Fox News website, Fox posted answers to questions about Mormonism that the church chose to answer. Which ones were left out was not stated.

Of the 21 questions that the Salt Lake church chose to answer, most are misleading and purposeful distortions of their beliefs. One problem is that the church does not see itself as bound to the teaching of either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Mormon doctrine is not once and for all time delivered to the saints. It is a moving target. Mormon theology is like a cafeteria meal where you pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest.

For example:

Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?
A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

Well actually, this was not the case until 1978, when Blacks were allowed full membership in the church. Prior to that time, Blacks were regarded as cursed by God and unable to enjoy his full blessing and fellowship just because of their skin color. Only in the midst of Jimmy Carter’s human rights campaign was church doctrine revived.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?
A: Absolutely not. Mormons believe that women and men are complete equals before God and in relation to the blessings available in the Church.

This is another distortion of their teaching. I did a college paper on this exact subject in 1980 and it was clear from multiple official Mormon sources that a woman’s salvation was directly tied to her husband’s performance of the priesthood within the church. A woman could not make it without a man.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?
A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

This is a lie. Brigham Young taught extensively about the doctrine of Adam-god and the folks in Salt Lake simply were uncomfortable about this idea and revised many of their church doctrines to make it go away. It is not just the evangelical Christians that criticize Brigham for teaching Adam-god but other Mormon groups like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (they now call themselves the Community of Christ).

The frustrating thing about Mormon doctrine is that the Mormons want it both ways. On one hand, they want the foundation of a restored church via Joseph Smith and on the other, the ability to revise beliefs to fit modern contexts.

Mormons claim that Joseph Smith had a series of special encounters with God. Joseph single-handedly did not reform but restored to true gospel, which had been lost to the world since the end of the early church. Mormons contend that what Joseph taught was superior to the Bible because the Bible was only correct “in so far as it was translated correctly.” Therefore we could not use the Bible to evaluate the Prophetic word of Joseph Smith, but could only use Smith’s word to interpret the Bible. This is the basis of why the Mormon church—however large—is called a cult.

Joseph Smith launched the attack on Christianity

I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt see Joseph Smith History 1:18,19

All we are doing is defending the faith of our fathers.

At the same time Smith gets credit for restoring correct doctrine, the Salt Lake church has not spared any effort trying to make changes small and great to make Smith’s teaching more marketable to the masses. There have been hundreds of changes to the Mormon Scriptures since Smith first published them. Mormon doctrine has undergone significant rewrites over the years. The church has morphed Adam-god, polygamy, race relations and many other things over the years. It is Orwellian how easily the church can shift its beliefs.

The problem is that if God truly spoke to Smith then what he taught must be fixed and immutable. Like Moses and the Ten Commandments, God’s teaching should be etched in stone. Smith claims he wrote it down exactly as he was commanded. Smith personally took it to the publisher. How could there be any error?

Yet the LDS church has taken many liberties to correct, amplify and even outright change church doctrine. This creates a big problem. Either God spoke to Smith and he got it wrong and therefore is a false prophet or the church has purposely departed from the teachings of Smith and is apostate. The whole structure of the LDS church is built on the foundation that Smith and Brigham laid. Either way the church is wrong. Clearly this is the case.

What should be done when we are confronted with the claims of the LDS church is to evaluate them on the basis of the Bible. We know God spoke through the Bible, if what Joseph and Brigham taught is contrary to this revelation then they are wrong and should be rejected.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Matthew Ward: Toward Eternity

Matthew Ward is best known for his part of the 1970’s trio known as The 2nd Chapter of Acts. The group often toured with Keith Green, Phil Keaggy and Barry McGuire. During his time with 2nd Chapter, Ward released his first solo album, Toward Eternity. Toward Eternity was one of the best Christian rock albums of the period. I have many fond memories of hanging out at the campus radio station play cuts off this LP on Friday nights.

I have been checking periodically for many years to see if Toward Eternity would ever be released on CD. I’m still waiting. On the Matthew Ward website, there is no mention of Toward Eternity on the Store page on his site. However, on the Music page you will find a list of all the solo projects that Matthew Ward has done. On this page is a box that looks like an ad. It lists many songs in alphabetical order. If you play around with this box you will find that it is in fact a way to play and download mp3 files of songs by Matthew Ward.

Songs that have been purchased previously appear in italics. Note that songs are not listed by original LP or CD. By scrolling up and down on the music page you can figure-out which songs belong to which recording. Setting-up an account on Snocap is easy and doesn’t require selecting the songs over again. Be warned that there is no confirmation screen prior to purchasing the songs. Once purchased you need to either install a download manager from Snocap or right-click each song title and select save to download.

Matthew has a great duel on the Donna Summer album She Works Hard for the Money. Look for the track called Love has a Mind of It’s Own. He also has a great duet with Leslie (Sam) Phillips on her Dancing with Danger CD called By My Spirit.

Matthew Ward’s music is a real treasure. I’m glad he has found his way into the digital age.

Friday, September 07, 2007

Hollywood to Kill GI Joe

Liberalism seeks to dismantle the institutions and ideals that made America great. Part of their effort is to redefine words and ideas. The most recent example is being brought to us by the combined efforts of Paramount Studios (the movie home of Star Trek) and the Hasbro toy company.

GI Joe has been killed.

This “Real American Hero” is now too hot for the makers of the forthcoming movie. For Paramount, being an elite American Soldier is offensive to our neighbors in Western Europe and Asia. The Global War on Terror and American Exceptionalism are stumbling blocks for commercial success in Hollywood so GI Joe has been scrapped. The archetype of the American Soldier is being replaced by the international, coed and politically correct Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity--G.I.J.O.E.

No longer will G.I. Joe be a U.S. Special Forces soldier, the “Real American Hero” who, in his glory days, single-handedly won World War II.

In the politically correct new millennium, G.I. Joe bears no resemblance to the original.

Paramount has confirmed that in the movie, the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for “Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity” — an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.

The studio won’t elaborate, saying filming hasn’t begun and details are still in the works, but the behind-the-scenes rumblings are that the producers have decided to change the nature of G.I. Joe in order to appeal to a wider, more international audience.

The word is that in the current political climate, they’re afraid that a heroic U.S. soldier won’t fly.

Having grownup with the original GI Joe and Major Matt Mason—the cool toys for boys living during the height of the Apollo Space Program—I am offended. As a Veteran, I am outraged at the sacrilege.

We are the greatest country in the world due to two things, Western Christian values and our form of government. The American soldier is the personification of both. He is our ambassador to the world. He equally wields the sword and the plowshare. He is feared by evildoers and loved by the common man everywhere yearning to be free.

Paramount and Hasbro are stripping Joe’s identity and taking with them another incremental step in undermining our culture in the name of political correctness. If they had any brains they would take this opportunity to show why America is the nation that the rest of the world looks to when they get in trouble. Paramount is blowing a golden opportunity.

See the Fox News article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296054,00.html

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Anne Rice Slaughters Presidential Politics

Anne Rice, the author of the Vampire Chronicles and other tomes about creatures of darkness, posted an endorsement of Hilary Clinton’s bid for President.

Rice has a reputation of delving into the dark world of things that go bump in the night. That she could take a witch like Hilary and transform her into an angel of light is no marvel, but it is fascinating to read her logic in arriving at this conclusion.

Anne Rice seems to have been sucked into the same vortex that recently absorbed Jane Fonda. Both high profile women have claimed to give their lives to Jesus Christ and to be profoundly transformed by the experience. Both are firmly entrenched in the Democrat Party and comfortable being there. Both have used the experience of their conversion to repudiate the Republican Party utilizing arguments rife with Neo-Marxist and Liberation Theology of the 1970’s. Unlike Fonda however, Rice proclaims that she is Pro-Life.

I would like to examine the endorsement posted by Anne Rice.

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT:
August 10, 2007

To my readers:
Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation --- which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

If you think her previous statements were incomplete and confusing just keep reading.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

If your life is dedicated to write books about the Lord then to steal a phrase from Laura Ingraham, Shut-up and write.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Irony: associating “soft voice” with Hilary

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

What a strange place to start building a case for endorsing Hilary.

Rice’s comment here shows a complete lack of historical understanding of the Constitution, the First Amendment and judicial activism. The founders wanted to prevent the establishment of a national church like the Church of England. There was a balance between religious liberty in this country and the State. Seven of the thirteen original colonies had state sponsored churches at the time the Constitution was ratified and they saw no conflict with their practice and the Constitution. There is no wall of separation between Church and State only protection of Churches from the national government.

John Kennedy was Catholic and ran against Richard Nixon, a Quaker. Neither was faith was ever considered mainstream at the time of the founding. However, each faith had a state established by its followers from the earliest days of the Republic. Catholics had Maryland and Quakers had Pennsylvania. What this Presidential contest has to do with the separation of church and state—a phrase that comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists many years after the Constitution was written--is beyond my understanding.

Clearly Rice has bought into the myth of separation of church and state. Her citing of Darryl Hart’s book is proof of that fact. Hart advocates a faith that is so heavenly minded that it is no earthly good. He cannot have a church that is “salt and light” in its culture. True Christianity transforms the culture that it is in. Revival is when the church is culturally relevant. In Harts’ version of Christianity, you could padlock the doors to every church and no one else would notice. For him as long as Jesus is only in your heart your faith is ok.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

Christianity by definition must influence and affect every area of your life. But why appeal to Conscience and not Scripture as your standard?

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

Ok, where are we off to now?

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

Since when have Christians disagreed violently about the Gospels? Yes they have a number of applications and lessons to teach us.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point can not be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

Yes we have a two party system but when has either party claimed to be the Christian Party? The question that you fail to ask is which party will allow me to be a follower of Jesus Christ and still participate fully in it activities?  Which party better fits a Christian worldview? Which party better respects God, family, marriage, the unborn, liberty, limited government and other values from Scripture?

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

Voting for Ross Perot or Mike Bloomberg is a wasted vote. Ralph Nader won’t like this either.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Anne sort of skips over the part where she evaluates what each party stands for in contrast to her Christian beliefs. Since many candidates don’t agree with their party’s platform it might be better to say that you evaluate each candidate on their merits and pick the best one. However, we abandon all logic and jump to the conclusion.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Her argument is not from logic, this whole essay is just justification for the above facts. I. Anne Rice, am a Democrat and I endorse Hilary.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

Oops, Anne gives away the store here. There is nowhere in the Gospels or any other place in the Bible where to above listed values of “feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies” are the responsibility of government. They are clearly the responsibility of individuals to those around them. Each of us is commanded to do these things.

In the Bible, government is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This protection includes military defense, law enforcement and a judicial system. Only in Egypt during the time of Joseph will you find government running a modern welfare state. Look at it in Genesis. First the Egyptian government fed the people in exchange for their possessions and then the desperate people sold themselves voluntarily into slavery for food from the government. Gary North has written extensively on this subject in such books as Moses and Pharaoh. Many of his works are available at www.freebooks.com

Anne the Bible does have a word for the government acting in the way you desire, it is called theft.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

This is just as logical as saying in 1860 that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of slavery, it will be through the Confederate States or in 1936 Germany that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of Auschwitz, it will be through the Nazi Party.

If you are pro-life in the Democrat Party, you are not allowed to speak at any Party Conventions or publicly dissent. Anne you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

Anne, we never said abolishing Roe would fix everything. It would get the Federal government and some states out of the abortion business and would allow tax money to stop being used to kill millions each year in the name of choice. There would be fifty fights in fifty states. Constitutionally, it is states issue not a federal one. 1/3 of all pregnancies since 1973 have ended in abortion and your party is hell bent on keeping it that way. Take the tax money out of the abortion industry and it would be a good step in reducing the frequency.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history – that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

We gave-up the right to slavery.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

Anne your beloved Party and Liberal theology have given us the situation that we have now.

What happened to the importance of the Gospels in this discussion? If unborn children don’t qualify as “the least of these” that Jesus spoke about then who is? Do the right thing because it is right and let God do his part. If we don’t repent the how can we be forgiven and restored to God?

You talked earlier about a vote for a third party as a vote for one of the two parties. The same applies here. For you to do nothing is to vote for preserving the status quo.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Yes but not by advocating more abortions.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers --- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

Better education? Ha! We need the transforming power of the Holy Spirit to change people’s hearts.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

Are unborn children not entitled to human rights too?

Remember when you said that you didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned? Roe says it’s a woman’s choice!  The fathers don’t count. That is the law you are defending. Status quo. Now you say what about the fathers? Get a clue. You can’t have it both ways.

Roe legally protects fathers from any responsibility unless the baby is actually born. If the baby is born, the government takes most of the fathers’ responsibility and puts it upon the taxpayers. There is a definite linkage between spending on social programs and children born out of wedlock. The solution to problems created by government is for government to get out of the way not more government programs.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

When you start putting thought into your vote, you will start voting for candidates on their merits not just for guys with a “D” by their name. Maybe you will even give money and votes to a few that are pro-life. The bad news is that these folks are in the other party.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs --- on a whole variety of issues --- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

On what basis can you say such a stupid thing? Democrats make money by killing babies. Why should they stop? Anne, their god is the State. Take any of those precious things that God expects his followers to do in the Gospel and that is the Christian view. Now substitute the word government for God in all those same commandments and you will get the position of the Democrat Party on any give social issue. We are back to Mose and Pharaoh.

“The conflict between Moses and Pharaoh was a conflict between the religion of the Bible and its rival, the religion of humanism.”—Gary North

Hilary will keep abortion “Safe and Lethal” so what does this issue have to do with her? Nothing. Can you even name any accomplishments of her in office? What has she done in her time in the Senate to make her qualified for President?

In summary, Democrats love abortions. Democrats love social programs. Therefore Democrats would love to create a social program to stop abortions. Hilary is a Democrat. Therefore Hilary would love to stop abortion.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market --- these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

Translation: don’t hold me accountable for interjecting myself into the national political dialogue.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

The only political debate on church and state that I have heard this whole election cycle is about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. What are you talking about? Anne you have wandered into areas far beyond your area of expertise.

Did you ever notice during the debates that thus far in the election cycle not one Democrat candidate has had even a single question about abortion? Why? Because every one of them agrees. They all support abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy and have no problems using your tax money and mine to pay for it. This is the status quo under Roe v Wade.

Debate over abortion only takes place in the other party.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

So how does voting for a pro-abortion candidate in a pro-abortion party reflect your deeply held belief in the sanctity of life?

So Anne, what would Jesus do? Based on my reading of the Gospels, I think he would make a different choice than you have. He might even vote for a third party.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point?”--Martin Luther

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Need a Primer on Mormonism?

With all the publicity about the Mitt Romney candidacy, you might be wondering what are the differences between historic Christianity and the LDS church. Does it matter?  Hear one of the best experts on the subject. Walter Martin’s classic lectures on the Maze of Mormonism Part 1 & Maze of Mormonism Part 2 are now on the web.

Many of Walter Martin’s lectures and other material are available at Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet This site is run by one of his daughters and her husband. Many of his teachings can be found in the Listening Library in RealAudio format. All are from cassette tapes that were converted to digital. The audio quality is not the best but it is worth a listen. Additional teachings can be found at the page for Kingdom of the Cults page The audio teachings on this page are not the same as the book but go along with some material presented in the book.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Gene Robinson Marriage Assaulted

Gene Robinson, the homosexual Episcopal minister whose elevation to Bishop has been the fulcrum of the irreconcilable split in the worldwide Anglican Communion, has found yet another way to throw more fuel on the ecclesiastical pyre of the American church.  Robinson is the bishop of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is in the final stages of enacting a civil union law and Robinson wants to be first in line.

What I find curious is the quotes used from Robinson in the news stories about this issue. Robinson equates this civil union law with state recognition of gay marriage. He views this as a step toward forcing the federal government into recognizing gay marriage.

I think this is a huge leap forward, but it is not full equality until we have equality. The biggest piece missing, of course, is federal recognition. I don’t think it will happen until we get several more states. It doesn’t have to be a majority, but it has to be a significant number embracing full marriage rights until we can expect that at the federal level. We are only arguing over a timetable.

According to my understanding of this issue—and a cursory review of the issue on the Internet seems to confirm —civil unions and domestic partnership laws are two roughly equivalent ways used by states to create a legal means of granting the same rights to homosexuals that married couples enjoy. This is done on a state-by-state basis without federal recognition.  The above quote from Robinson seems to support this interpretation.

My question then is this; if civil unions and domestic partner recognition grant the same rights that states confer on married couples why is there such a push here in California to allow homosexuals to call themselves “married”? Marriage is defined in state law as the union of one man and one woman. This has been the definition of the term for the last two thousand years here in the West. Why must it be redefined now?

Marriage is one of three institutions created by God. The three are: government, church and family (marriage). The first miracle of Jesus was at a marriage. The relationship of Christ to the church is explained as the relationship of a groom to his bride. I submit that the assault on marriage by the state and some in the church is nothing short of an attack on God. It is a form of open rebellion by sinful men. No one can harm God so they take out their hatred of him by harming those that bear his image. Murder, abortion, homosexuality are all examples of this evil.

Anything that diminishes marriage undermines those institutions established by God for our benefit. The fact that a leader charged with defending Christ’s Church is a leading advocate for the destruction of both the institution of marriage and the Church charged with protecting it just heaps greater judgment upon him. 

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Hitler in Springtime

Earth Day is the pagans’ alternative to the Christian celebration of Easter. In fact I call it Pagan Holy Week. The environmental religion of “Mother Earth” is probably at its greatest peak of popularity since the early days of Saint Patrick.

As part of this rise in worshipping the creation instead of the Creator, adherents to this viewpoint are trying to reexamine history to gauge the impact of mankind on their blessed deity. The newest revision of history in light of the supremacy of the environment is a tome called “How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment and Nation in the Third Reich.”

It is available from http://www.Amazon.com. The books’ description reads in part:

The Nazis created nature preserves, contemplated sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature. How Green Were the Nazis? is the first book to examine the ideology and practice of environmental protection in Nazi Germany. Environmentalists and conservationists in Germany welcomed the rise of the Nazi regime with open arms, for the most part, and hoped that it would bring about legal and institutional changes.

This sounds like a candidate for http://www.snopes.com but the book appears to be genuine.

Alex Beam, a writer for the Boston Globe, has written a review of the book with all the seriousness that such a topic richly deserves.

It is undeniably true that Adolf and his crew were A-number-one landscape-impacters. London got plenty impacted by the Nazis’ environmental outreach program, as did cities like Leningrad, Stalingrad, Dresden, and Berlin. According to this book, the Nazis had big plans for spreading their green ideology eastward into Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. “In the vast territories conquered in the east . . . they saw the opportunity to create a better, greener, future, combining racist and environmental thinking,” the authors write. How sad that the eastern European Jews didn’t go along with the program! What soreheads.

It’s incredible that anyone would actually publish sentences like these: “The Nazis, however, were not interested in turning Germany into a tree farm”; “World War II was the opportunity that many modernist landscape architects had been waiting for”; or, “In the end, everyone . . . agreed that it was the wrong moment to embark on any projects with organic farming.”

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

To be fair, I did learn a lot. I already knew that Hitler was a vegetarian with a taste for nonalcoholic beer, but I didn’t know that SS boss Heinrich Himmler also eschewed meat or that Hermann Goering had a “sincere interest in forest conservation.” Nazi party secretary Rudolf Hess was a devotee of organic gardening. Did you know that there was an organic herb garden at Dachau? Marvelous! It’s depressing how many historians insist on dwelling on the negatives.

Read his article for yourself A silent springtime for Hitler?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/04/11/a_silent_springtime_for_hitler/

Oh, for those for you that don’t see the humor in the title it is a combination of the fictional play Springtime for Hitler from Mel Brooks’ Producers and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, one of the first environmental propaganda books.

Thanks Dean Barnett for bring this to my attention.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

But They Were Such Good Kids

Children are often regarded as a blessing from the Lord. But for some, they are a curse and a shame. I have two instances that are currently being played-out in the lives of people with whom I am acquainted.

The family situations of these two children are very different. One family consists of a single mom; the other is husband and wife in a stable marriage. One child was raised in church while the one with a single mom has probably never heard a sermon.

Both children are in rebellion against their parents and society in general. Both under performed in school and want to party and be with their friends. Both are found in the bowels of MySpace.com. Text messaging on cell phones is their link to their friends.  Abusing alcohol and sexual promiscuity are important components of social interaction.

Both children are financially irresponsible and are aided by others in perpetuating their behavior. One of these children is underage and is living at his girlfriend’s house with the blessing of her parents. What tales of his home-life he has told to them is not known but can easily be imagined. They are enabling his rebellion and re-enforcing bad behavior. The other child has credit cards; a sympathetic mother and a sugar daddy, professional athlete, that help her persist in irresponsible behavior.

Both children have broken the hearts of their parents. The hardest thing the parents have to struggle with is cutting-off their children while still hoping for repentance and enlightenment. Their desire is to have a restored relationship with their offspring.

Neither child was raised with an appreciation for the church or its teachings. This includes of course the Ten Commandments. The fifth of these is

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

Notice the part about long life as a promise of obeying God’s and their parent’s instruction. I’m sure that Rushdoony would argue that this is a two way street but when children willfully violate the instruction of parents, Scripture and civil law it is clear they are without excuse and will reap what the sew.

Many years ago, I was instructing the brother of one of these children in the Lord’s Prayer. He was ten years old at the time and raised in a “Bible Believing” Baptist church and never knew that Jesus has instructed that when your pray you should say

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

The parent’s reaction was that she did not want her child "to be taught all that Catholic crap". Sorry, it’s verbatim from the New Testament and there were no denominations back then. You either believed Jesus and followed him or you didn’t. (Seems like it is still that way today.)

Whether the parents made all the right decisions or not when they raised their children; neither family viewed their job as complete when their child chose to leave. "My house, my rules" is the universal motto of any responsible parent.

Now that the children have chosen to learn from the school of hard knocks, all we can do is pray for the parties involved and trust God that they will live long enough to amend their ways.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Anglican Church Tries to Control Outcome of Impending Church Split

Scott Adams, the father of the dilbert comic strip, has proposed that there is a right way, a wrong way and the weasle way. The Weasle way has been superceded now by the Anglican way. The Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown in the towel on unity within the Anglican Community and proposed splitting the Church into the Orthodox Historical Anglicans who have a vote in Church matters and the liberals who will be under the umbrella of his authority but be given no vote in matters of Church government. Below is an article from the London Telegraph explaining this idea that is sure to make waves.

Williams sets out his blueprint for twin-track Church
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 28/06/2006)

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday outlined radical plans that could force the liberal American Church out of mainstream Anglicanism if it refuses to toe the majority line on issues such as homosexuality.

In his most personal and direct statement on the crisis engulfing the worldwide Church, the archbishop made clear that his patience was running out with liberals who defy official policy yet want to stay in the Anglican “club”.

In a six-page “reflection”, Dr Williams set out a blueprint for a “two-track” Communion, with Churches prepared to obey official policy classed as “constituent” members and those who refuse to curb their autonomy being given “aossciate” status.

The “associate” Churches would still be bound by historic links but would not share the same constitutional structures, he suggested.

In a phrase that will alarm liberals, the archbishop said the relationship between the constituent and associate members would be like that between the Church of England and Methodist Church.

"The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision-making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible,” he said.

The move would effectively create two strands of Anglicanism and would be widely seen as the equivalent of a schism even if no individual provinces are formally expelled.

Allies of the archbishop believe that the plan will ensure that Anglicanism will remain a broad but manageable movement, but critics will fear that he would gain papal-style powers over an inner core of Churches.

The archbishop’s letter to the Church did not address the more immediate fate of the American Episcopal Church, which failed to meet the requests made by him and his fellow primates to halt its liberal agenda at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, last week.

Dr Williams is not expected to make a final pronouncement on whether the liberal leadership of the American Church will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference until a meeting of all the primates early next year.

But he will hope to persuade conservatives that expelling the Americans will not be necessary, as the liberals could anyway find themselves on the margins.

Under his long-term plan, first disclosed in The Daily Telegraph last month, all provinces will be given the chance to sign a “covenant”, which will restrain them from acting unilaterally on contentious issues.

Those that did not - up to a third have expressed doubts - would be able to continue pushing through their divisive reforms without destroying the rest of the Church. But they would lose their voting rights at key Anglican summits where policy is decided.

A number of provinces, including the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada, have already made clear that they would be highly unlikely to sign such an agreement.

If the plan is adopted at the next Lambeth Conference, the liberals will be confronted with a choice of whether to join up and lose their much- prized autonomy, or face isolation.

In his reflection to all bishops, clergy and Anglican faithful worldwide, Dr Williams said: “There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment.

“Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are.”

Liberals reacted with fury to the plan, describing it as a mess that would please no one.

Affirming Catholicism, a liberal group of which Dr Williams was a founding member, said that “partition” would not work.

Church’s Opposition to Abortion Will Lead to Prosecution

Abortion opposition will eventually lead to prosecution of the Church