God and the Presidential Election

December 28, 2007

From Bill O’Reilly and billoreilly.com.

Any republican who dares mention God or faith on the campaign trail will be vilified as full of “fetid hypocrisy”…

“You’ve got to hand it to the committed left media, they are ruthless and fanatical – much more so than the relatively few right-wingers currently inhabiting America’s newsrooms. The latest leftist tactic is to put the “hypocrite” label on any Republican presidential candidate that dares mention his “faith.”

Leading the charge is The Washington Post, a newspaper that is densely populated with secular-progressives. Their chief anti-religion hatchet man is columnist Harold Meyerson, a self-proclaimed “non-believer” who routinely smears public people that demonstrate spirituality.

Earlier this month, Meyerson wrote a column entitled: “Hard-liners for Jesus,” and it was a beauty. The lead paragraph went like this: “As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it’s a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.”

But Meyerson was just warming up. He then went on to assassinate the characters of GOP politicians including the President: “Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety…”

Blood dripping from is keyboard, Meyerson ended his brutal diatribe this way: “The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party’s rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week. And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn’t be better calibrated to expose the Republicans’ rank, fetid hypocrisy.”

Joy to the world, Harold, right?

The strategy here is obvious. Any republican who dares mention God or faith on the campaign trail will be vilified as full of “fetid hypocrisy” if the man has ever done anything wrong in his entire life. Using this tactic, the secular American media hope to get any faith-based issues out of the campaign.

That would be good news for the democrats, of course, because a Pew Research Study shows that only 29% of Americans believe the Democratic Party is friendly to religion. Thus, discussions about faith and values aren’t going to help the democrats very much.

But there is a larger issue in play for The Washington Post, The New York Times and other committed left media. Standing in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, unfettered abortion, and other sacred liberal causes, are people of faith. They are the primary opposition to the social liberal agenda fervently embraced by the leftist press. If you can demonize (sorry) people of faith, if you can shut them up by playing the hypocrisy card, then say hello to a Swedish social system.

Ah, Sweden, a country of nine million people enjoying, perhaps, the most “progressive” political system on earth. The quasi-socialistic government provides cradle-to-grave entitlements, most people never get married, and just about anything goes socially. By the way, about 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.

Harold Meyerson would love Sweden. The Washington Post should begin publishing there. What a country! None of this God stuff, none of this vile “fetid hypocrisy.” Just an enormously high suicide rate while everybody does his or her own thing.

But back to the USA. In the months to come you will hear and read countless news commentaries about the moral hypocrisy of the GOP. The secular-left media will hammer Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee et al., while Senators Clinton and Obama will get a pass. Unless, of course, they start up with this God stuff. Then, all bets are off.

So a word to the wise: The upcoming presidential election will not only be about important issues facing America. It will also be a test of faith.”

Advertisements

Oprah Show: Porn and Adultery Good for Your Marriage

September 28, 2007

From redstate.com.

“Oprah is a talented woman who has tackled innumerable topics but nothing like this has crossed her couches before. The show that aired Tuesday, September 25, 2007 was entitled: “237 Reasons to Have Sex” and featured numerous “experts” on intimacy and marriage.

First to the defense of aberrant behavior was Dr. Pepper Schwartz who took it upon herself to fly across the world experiencing one-night stands and writing a book about her adventures. Among other things Dr. Schwatz advocated to Oprah the notion of “friends with benefits” … read, casual sex:

“We get together, we have a great time,” said Dr. Schwartz “We adore each other, we respect each other, we have great sex, and that’s it. It stays in that little category and it doesn’t get out of it.”

Of course Oprah conducted a poll of her own audience bringing to light several choice examples of the slippery slope that families face in our culture. Take Winnie, for example, who says she saw a gorgeous home, and she told her husband of 44 years about it that night. “He hawed about it and I said, ‘I’ll give you the best sex tonight you have ever had. I don’t care if it’s all night,'” she says. “And so we did and I got the house the next day.”

Next, Oprah talks to Janee who owns a small collection of pornography, or, eh, “erotica” – as she prefers to call it. “I think with respect to my mother’s generation, her mother’s generation, you know, exploring the adult entertainment industry was just unheard of. It probably wasn’t even an option for them,”

Another expert, Dr. Saltz, chimes in advocating pornography to women for overcoming their concerns about the addiction that their spouses indulge. To her credit, Dr. Saltz notes: “The problem is, it can be a double-edged sword in that anything really pleasurable can become kind of addictive.”

Next, Oprah trots out the best of the breed Greg and Hollie, married with two children enjoying all the normal things that families do… and, oh yeah, practicing “open marriages”, read adultery. As Oprah recounts the story:

During a long car trip Gregg asked Hollie—who says she had never had sex with anyone besides Gregg—if she was curious about being with someone else. “And I said, ‘Well, nothing’s missing. I don’t need it. I don’t really think about it,'” Hollie says. “But sure, I mean, if you’re curious, if you’ve only had one partner your whole life, I mean, sure, you’d wonder what it would be like with somebody else.”

Eventually Hollie started dating and eventually sleeping with one of their mutual friends. Gregg says he’s flirted with other women but hasn’t started an outside relationship of his own.
“She just has more love in her life,” Gregg says. “It doesn’t take anything away from what the two of us have.”

As we pointed out previously Oprah has aired numerous shows delving into the topic of pornography addiction. These included the sad tale of woman who killed her husband in self defense after he went on a porn-induced rage and a former gospel singer whose life was shattered by the addiction. Why Oprah, whose influence is unmistakable, would backtrack to advocate pornography and adultery is beyond us.”


Group sees more sex, violence in TV family hour

September 5, 2007

From Peter Kaplan and Reuters. 

“Americans are being subjected to more sex, violence and profane language during the traditional, early-evening “family hour” of broadcast television viewing, a U.S. watchdog group said on Wednesday.

A study conducted by the non-profit Parents Television Council found that instances of violence during family-hour broadcast TV had increased by 52.4 percent since it conducted a similar study in 2001, while the amount of sexual content grew by 22.1 percent.”

To read more click here.


Morning News Shows Promote Dems, Study

August 30, 2007

Written by Nathan Burchfiel, CNSNews.com Staff Writer

“In covering the 2008 presidential campaign, the network morning news shows are “overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, [and] they are actively promoting the Democrats’ liberal agenda,” according to a study released today by the conservative Media Research Center (MRC).

The study examined 517 campaign segments on the morning news shows broadcast on ABC, CBS and NBC in the first seven months of 2007. It found that the shows covered Democrats “nearly twice as much” as Republicans and framed interview questions from a liberal perspective most of the time.

The study was produced by the MRC’s News Analysis Division. The MRC is the parent organization of Cybercast News Service.

The study found that 55 percent of campaign stories on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” CBS’s “The Early Show” and NBC’s “Today” focused on Democratic candidates while only 29 percent focused on Republicans. The remaining 16 percent were classified as “mixed/independent.”

The morning shows aired 61 stories focused exclusively on Sen. Hillary Clinton, 44 stories on former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and 41 stories on Sen. Barack Obama, all of whom are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Vice President Al Gore, who is not officially running, was the subject of 29 stories.

Republican candidates received less attention, according to the study. Sen. John McCain was the focus of 31 stories. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the focus of 26 stories and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was the focus of 19 stories.

Interviews with Democratic candidates or their representatives accounted for more than four-and-a-half hours of airtime in the first seven months of 2007. Interviews with Republicans candidates or their representatives accounted for less than two hours, according to the study.

In addition to the time disparity, the report alleges that “the top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Sen. Clinton cast as ‘unbeatable’ and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tagged as a ‘rock star.'”

To read more click here.


How Now Shall We Live? By Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey

August 28, 2007

This is a MUST read for all Christians.  It is an incredibly powerful book that I highly recommend.  There is also a study guide for this book that I recommend as well.  This book examines the great spiritual battle today that is a cosmic struggle between competing worldviews.  The authors utilize true stories and compelling teaching to demonstrate the following:

– Expose false views and values of modern culture

– Live a more fulfilling life the way God created us to live

– Contend for the faith by understanding how nonbelievers think

– Build a society that reflects biblical principles

I ran across a review on amazon.com that I thought really did a great job of capturing the core of the book.  It is below.   

5 out of 5 Stars – The Way We See The World Can Change The World, June 21, 2006

“Centuries ago, when the Jews were in exile and despair, they cried out to God, “How should we then live?” The same question rings down through the ages. How shall we live today? Pearcey and Colson’s primary observation is that “the way we see the world can change the world.” (pg. 13) This is because our choices are shaped by what we believe is real and true, right and wrong, or good and beautiful. In short, our choices are shaped by what Pearcey and Colson call our “worldview.”Every worldview attempts to answer three basic questions: (1) Where did we come from and who are we? (2) What has gone wrong with the world? And (3) What can we do to fix it? According to Colson and Pearcey, the culture wars are not about extraneous issues like abortion or public education. Fundamentally, they are about worldviews–between competing secular and spiritual answers to those three basic questions.

The demise of objective truth, profoundly expressed in the halls of academia, also extends into the popular press and culture. The result has been a postmodern worldview which embraces relativism and reduces all ideas to social constructions shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity. Under this view, the world is just a power struggle for meaningless prizes. Their one absolute is that morality is not absolute. Other existing worldviews include “traditionalism,” found in many small towns filled with churches; and modernism, found among pragmatic social and business leaders interested in personal material gain, but less interested in philosophical questions and social issues. Against this backdrop, Christians are challenged to provide answers to those three basic questions in a compelling manner.

C. S. Lewis observed, “The Christian and the materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They both can’t be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe.” Thus Colson and Pearcy observe that choices are not without consequences. The Christian worldview says we were created by God. Compelling evidence that life does not have a random origin can be found in the current arguments for intelligent design. Christianity claims that God created the universe with a material order and a moral order. If we live contrary to that order, we sin against God. Thus, what has gone wrong with the universe is human sin.

The way to redeem our culture is to help people realize which universe they’re living in. If it’s a materialist’s universe, then the answers don’t revolve around taking moral principles seriously. But if the real universe was made with a moral law (as Colson and Pearcey argue), then it stands to reason that the solutions to our problems begin with recognizing that fact, and taking steps to educate people in ways that will help them live lives that are not inimical to the way we were designed to live. This, Colson and Pearcey argue, is how we should live.”

For more information on Charles Colson visit his website at www.breakpoint.org and for more information on Nancy Pearcey visit her website at www.pearceyreport.com.


PTC Reveals Best and Worst TV Advertisers

August 9, 2007

From the Parents Television Council.

“The Parents Television Council™ released its ranking of the “Top Ten Best and Worst Advertisers” on television.  This annual report ranks advertisers according to how frequently they sponsor wholesome, family-oriented television shows or those containing sexually graphic, violent or profane material on broadcast television.“Television sponsors contribute to the television culture, either in a positive or negative way, by what programs they choose to support with their advertising dollars.  We applaud those on our best list because they are contributing to the well-being of millions of families by choosing to be responsible sponsors.  It’s a good business decision to be responsible, as we’ve seen recently demonstrated by Disney and the Hallmark Channel in choosing to ban smoking in their films and by McDonald’s decision to remove a rapper who consistently uses derogatory language in his act from its concert tour.  More companies need to follow suit and realize that their ad dollars do more than showcase their company — they are a tacit approval of the television show’s content.  Those on our worst list have sponsored some of the most heinous content on broadcast television, including shows that depict sadistic torture and drug use, discuss themes of bestiality, oral sex, and other sexually graphic dialogue, describe horrific crimes against children, and use foul language,” PTC President Tim Winter said.”

To read more click here.


Homosexual content prominent on primetime TV, study says

August 9, 2007

From Michael Foust and the Baptist Press.

“When it comes to homosexual characters and themes on primetime television, ABC and the CW lead the pack, a new study says, although all five major broadcast networks have enough such programming to cause Christian families concern.

The study of one year’s worth of programming found that 15 percent of all of ABC’s primetime programming hours during that span contained either homosexual characters or the discussion of homosexuality. The CW was second at 12 percent, followed by CBS (9 percent), NBC (7 percent) and Fox (6 percent).

The first-of-its-kind study was conducted by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). The organization also gave the networks grades: ABC was rated “good,” the CW, CBS and NBC “fair” and Fox “poor.” No network received the highest grade of “excellent.” The study, dubbed the “Network Responsibility Index,” examined programming between June 1, 2006 and May 31, 2007.”

To read more click here.