Employee Forced to Say “Happy Holidays” Was Fired After Objecting to the Greeting

December 22, 2008

From Liberty Counsel.

www.LC.org

Panama City, FL – Tonia Thomas, a rental assistant for Counts Oakes Resort Properties, was fired on December 10, 2008 after she objected to saying “Happy Holidays.” Counts Oakes Resort Properties is a property management company that manages resort properties in Panama City. Thomas has worked in the same office since July 2007 and has never been reprimanded or disciplined. In fact, her responsibilities increased and she was running one of the company’s offices virtually by herself.

In late November, all company employees were told to answer the phones by saying, “Happy Holidays from Counts Oakes Resort Properties. How may I assist you?” Thomas objected to her supervisor and offered to say either “Merry Christmas” or to continue greeting callers the same way they are greeted throughout the year. She explained that her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas, and asked for an accommodation of her beliefs. On December 10, when the company president, Andy Phillips, came to see her, she politely reiterated her concern. Phillips then fired her for “insubordination” because she refused to say “Happy Holidays.”

After being fired, Thomas began gathering her personal things. Phillips told her that she needed to leave right away or he would call the police. He then became verbally abusive and taunted Thomas by saying: “We are going to have a Merry Christmas here; are you going to have a Merry Christmas with no job?” Adding insult to injury, Phillips summoned the police after Ms. Thomas insisted on retrieving her purse from inside her desk before leaving. Thomas was not arrested, but was forced to leave.

Thomas served her country honorably as an airman first-class in the Air Force. Her husband is still in the Air Force, and they have a six-year-old son. Left without a job on the eve of Christmas, the family will now have to forgo some Christmas presents this year. Thomas filed a complaint with the EEOC and contacted Liberty Counsel for legal representation.

Harry Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel commented: “The callous manner in which Counts Oakes Resort Properties treated Tonia Thomas on the eve of Christmas is unconscionable. It would have been reasonable to accommodate Ms. Thomas by allowing her to greet customers with the normal greeting. Instead, Andy Phillips ridiculed Ms. Thomas because of her religious beliefs and then taunted her and called the police after he fired her. Mr. Phillips will have to learn a lesson understood by all human resource officers who use common sense.”


An Obvious Truth: The Bible Supports Traditional Marriage

December 20, 2008

From Dr. John Mark Reynolds and Scriptorium Daily.

“Both the Bible and Newsweek make assertions about marriage and homosexuality. The difference is that the Bible claims to speak for God while Newsweek simply asserts things on its own authority. If God has spoken in the pages of the Bible, it is rational to obey what He said. Charity fails to find any good reason to consider what Newsweek printed as compelling.

While we represent very different faith traditions, we agree that the Bible is a trustworthy guide for humanity and that gay marriage is inconsistent with its teachings.

The Newsweek article and the editorial that accompanies it make two false claims. First, that it is unreasonable for Bible believers to take the Bible as a serious guide to modern ethical issues. Second, that even if the Bible is taken seriously, traditional American family values cannot be found in it.”

To continue reading click here.


Austin Nimocks on the Proposition 8 aftermath

December 19, 2008

ADF attorney Austin Nimocks, writing at Townhall:

There’s a lesson there for activists who are, if anything, less willing than Dempsey to go to a neutral corner and await the judges’ decision. Faced with election results they don’t like—and stung by the upset victory of their opponents—they’ve come out swinging, filing no less than six lawsuits to have the election results nullified and attacking their foes outside the courtroom, too.

By doing so, they’re putting themselves and their cause down for the count in the eyes of a growing number of their fellow citizens. As more and more stories of retaliation and vicious persecution crowd the evening news and morning paper, you can almost hear people counting off reasons to look twice at those who’ve portrayed their cause as a monument to “tolerance”:


Answering Objections from Homosexuals

November 27, 2008

From Frank Turek and Impactapologetics.com.

What about equal rights? 

Answer: First, everyone in America has the same rights. We all have the same right to marry any qualified person from the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is special rights– the special right to marry someone of the same sex. But why stop there? If homosexuals have a right to get married, then how can they say a man has no right to marry his daughter, his dog, his father, or three women and a poodle? Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people?

 

Second, the government is not taking away the “rights” of homosexuals to have relationships. Homosexuals can relate any way they want, but they have no “right” to have that relationship recognized by the state. That’s why the same-sex marriage movement has more to do with respect than rights. Greg Koukl puts this very well: “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.” Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan understands this. He writes, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form social approval imaginable.”

 

Indeed. Homosexuals want the courts to grant them legal and, therefore, social approval for their lifestyle because they know that they cannot win such approval by a fair vote of the people. Until the Massachusetts Supreme Court overstepped its authority, “we the people” have decided which sexual relationships are worthy of legal recognition and which are not. And “we the people” have done so not on arbitrary grounds, but in light of the natural biological design and compatibility of a man and a woman and all of the benefits that come from their union. In other words, we legally recognize and confer benefits on marriage because marriage benefits our society at large. Americans, like virtually every civilized people before us, have put marriage alone in privileged class because marriage alone is supremely beneficial.

 

Finally, while proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be legalized? Certainly the Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God– but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to God and His absolute Moral Law– the Moral Law the Declaration of Independence says is “self-evident”– then they have to make the case that God believes same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident as the entire history of religion, human civilization, and the design of the human body attests.

 Opposition to same-sex marriage is a violation of the Separation of Church and State 

Answer: Even if one were to accept the erroneous, court-invented claim that the constitution requires a strict separation of church and state, it would not mean that state opposition to same-sex marriage violates the constitution. Churches also teach that murder, rape and child abuse are wrong, but no one says laws prohibiting such acts comprise a violation of the “separation of church and state.” In fact, if the government could not pass laws consistent with church teachings, then all criminal laws would have to be overturned because they are all in some way consistent with at least one of the Ten Commandments.

 

Second, there are churches on both sides of this issue. In other words, some churches actually support same-sex marriage. So if there is a strict separation of church and state, then I suppose we can’t put the pro-same-sex marriage position into law either, right? Homosexual activists don’t want to go there.

 

This separation-of-church-and-state objection involves a failure to distinguish between religion and morality. Religion involves our duty to God; but morality involves our duty to one another. Our lawmakers are not telling people how, when, or if to worship—that would be legislating religion. But lawmakers cannot avoid telling people how they should treat one another— that’s legislating morality.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, all laws legislate morality. Morality is about right and wrong, and every law legally declares one behavior right and its opposite wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality. The question is, “Whose morality should we legislate?”

 

For thousands of years, we’ve legislated the self-evident truth that man is meant for woman. Now suddenly homosexuals—long critical of conservatives for trying to “legislate morality”—are trying to legislate their own morality in the form of same-sex marriage. They want to ignore self-evident truths and impose their own moral position on the entire country. The only question is, should we continue to legislate the morality that nurtures the next generation (traditional marriage), or the new one that entices it to destruction (same-sex marriage)?

 Don’t write Discrimination into the Constitution 

Answer: Too late. It’s already there. In fact, all laws discriminate. But it’s discrimination against behavior, not persons; and it is discrimination with cause not without. For example, the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of Muslims who want to impose Islam on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against Muslims as persons.

 

And the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against businessmen as persons. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous among us, but they do not discriminate against them as persons. People who have homosexual desires want to be considered a special class of people that deserves special legal rights. But if we begin to classify people according to their desires or personality traits, where does it end? Should we have a special class for shy people? After all, they’re at a social disadvantage to extroverts. No, that would be absurd.  If we start to classify people by what they desire to do sexually, then we would have to give all sexual preferences and all sexual behaviors special legal status, including polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, rape, etc. “But those behaviors are harmful!” you say. Exactly, and so is homosexuality. So why is it legitimate to carve out a special case for homosexuality but not for those other behaviors? Are there any desires people ought not act on?

 

Perhaps we should use our common sense and classify people according to the way they were designed—male and female. In other words, we should be classified by our humanity and gender, not our feelings. We are men and women, not hetero-or-homosexuals. Therefore, limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against people of any kind because our population consists of only two kinds of people: men and women!

 Preventing Same-sex marriage is Bigotry. 

Answer: Opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on bigotry, but on good reason. Consider murder, rape and incest. Our laws rightly discriminate against those behaviors because those behaviors are harmful. Imagine murderers, rapists or the incestuous calling us “bigots” for enacting those laws. Such laws are the antithesis of bigotry. Bigotry involves pre-judging something for no good reason. But laws against murder, rape, and incest are based on good reason. Namely, we reasonably conclude that the health and welfare of the public are higher values than allowing individuals to do whatever they want.

 

The same holds true with preserving marriage. The health and welfare of the public are higher values than allowing individuals to marry whomever they want. We don’t discriminate in favor of traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage out of “bigotry” or bias, but because we are sensible human beings who draw on thousands of years of evidence to conclude that one sexual relationship is more beneficial than any other. Some behaviors are better than others. That’s not bigotry, but wisdom!

 

Of course, proponents of same-sex marriage will continue to call us bigots, which may be

considered evidence that their case is flawed. Since they can’t win on the merits, their only recourse is to divert attention through name calling.

 

By the way, the bigotry charge is another case of selective morality on the part of homosexual activists. While resistance to same-sex marriage is clearly not bigotry as they claim, we might ask them, “Why is bigotry wrong? From what moral standard are you arguing? Why can you recognize that bigotry is absolutely wrong, but refuse to admit that homosexual behavior is wrong as well?” Indeed, homosexuals acknowledge the Moral Law when it comes to the immorality of bigotry, but they conveniently ignore it when comes to their own homosexual behavior.

 Same-sex marriage is Like Interracial Marriage. 

Answer: No, interracial marriage was opposed without any valid grounds. Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like. But since all “races” interbreed, there is no such thing as interracial marriage. Actually, there is only one race– the human race. At best, there is inter-ethnic marriage which is still between men and women. Same-sex marriage is between man-man or woman-woman. That’s completely different. Interethnic couplings are benign—the man and woman are still designed for one another. But homosexual couplings are harmful because they go against the natural design. In other words, ethnicity is irrelevant to marriage—gender is essential to it.

 

Ironically, it’s same-sex marriage proponents who are reasoning like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. Well, that’s exactly the line of reasoning racists used in their effort to prevent inter-racial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the procreative union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial/ethnic background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they cannot alter the laws of nature that helped produce the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.

 Homosexuality is Like Race. 

Answer: No, it’s not. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You will find many former homosexuals, but you will never find a former African-American.

 

This analogy falsely assumes a homosexual act is a condition rather than a behavior. Skin color is a condition; a sexual act is behavior. Someone could be a “homosexual’ in the sense of having gay feelings, but not act on them. The same can be said of a celibate person with heterosexual feelings. So technically speaking, there are no heterosexuals or homosexuals—there are only males and females. For convenience we call people heterosexuals or homosexuals, when it would be more accurate to refer to such people as “people who desire to engage in heterosexual acts” and “people who desire to engage in homosexual acts.” In other words, we are males and females by condition, and heterosexuals or homosexuals by behavior.

 But Homosexuals Were Born that Way! 

Answer: If there is a real genetic component to homosexual desires, it has not been discovered. But even if there is a genetic component to desires, that would not give license to behavior. All of us have desires that we ought not act on. There have been genetic links made to a desire for alcohol, but who would advocate alcoholism? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that justify pedophilia? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to violence justifies gay-bashing? Desires do not justify behaviors. In fact, there’s a word we use to describe the disciplined restraint of destructive desires– it’s called civilization.

 

But homosexual activists will have none of this. Instead of restraining negative behaviors,

homosexual activists are asking us not just to tolerate, but to endorse them. If we adopt their narcissistic demands—as J.D. Unwin documented by his study of 86 civilizations– it may be just a few generations before our nation is destroyed from within.

 But Same-sex marriage is About Love. 

Answer: Even if that were true, so what? Our culture associates marriage with love, but love is not the central purpose the state recognizes marriage. The state recognizes marriage because it is the best way to produce children and propagate a stable society. Homosexual unions by nature cannot do that.

 

But even if love is seen as a reason for marriage, we must ask, “What kind of love typifies a homosexual relationship?” Are there men who really feel drawn romantically to other men? No doubt. Are there men who really have a deep sense of commitment to other men, wish to care for them, and be intimate with them? No doubt.

 

But the same might be said of a man and his daughter, a man and a child, or three men and a woman. Should those people act on their sexual desires? If they did, would their actions truly be seeking the ultimate good of the person or persons they were trying to “love?” No. Sometimes sexual acts can be unloving. In fact, even sexual acts inside of marriage can be unloving—when they are medically dangerous for example. This is the very case with homosexual acts. They are medically dangerous. When sex is medically dangerous, the most loving thing you can do is not have sex with that person.

 

Some may argue that, “When two adults consent to engage in homosexual acts they are

each seeking the good of the other. Each person wants it and chooses it.” But if you truly love someone, will you do something that will seriously hurt or kill them? Having homosexual sex with someone does just that. It’s been documented to cause disease and to shorten life spans dramatically (one study showed the median age of death in the early 40’s for gay men and women without AIDS26). With the consequences so severe, if a man really “loved” another man, he wouldn’t engage in homosexual acts with him. Besides, sex isn’t the only way you can demonstrate your love for someone. Men can demonstrate their love for one another without having sex. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.

 I Know Loving Homosexuals Couples with Children Who Have Been Together For Years 

Answer: Yes, some homosexuals live long healthy lives, and some homosexuals turn out to be better parents than some heterosexuals. But the data shows that such people are the exception rather than the rule. And laws cannot be based on exceptions. For example, we don’t stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior just because some homosexuals outlive some heterosexuals. And if we’re not going to warn them, at the very least, we ought not endorse homosexual behavior.

 

If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we

have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes you can run a red light without hurting anyone. It would also require that we do away with all laws against theft because a starving man may need to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children. But in doing that we’d be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Traditional marriage, as a whole, is great for society. We can’t let its exceptions prevent us from experiencing the overall benefits it produces. So, traditional marriage must remain our legal norm despite any exceptions to the rule.

 Some Marriages Do Not Produce Children 

Answer: Yes, but that is the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage

because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. But by the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this.

 

Second, sterile heterosexual marriages still affirm the connection to childbearing because

sterility is not generally known on the wedding day. And on those few instances where sterility is known (e.g. with older couples), the man-woman union still symbolizes what is generally a procreative relationship.

 

Furthermore, since it would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not, it allows all men and woman to marry. But since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual relationship deserves to be called a marriage.

 Opposition to Same-sex marriage is Hate Speech 

Answer: Nonsense. If that were the case, then homosexual activists would be guilty of hate speech toward heterosexuals for trying to change the definition of marriage. Political disagreement is not hate speech. And disagreement with the radical gay political agenda does not make someone an enemy of homosexuals. I am opposed to the legal endorsement of a particular behavior. I am not opposed to the people who engage in that behavior. Just because we disagree about political ends, does not mean we ought to demonize those who disagree with us.

 

Ironically, those of us who are reasonably pointing out the known dangers of homosexual

activity should be considered friends of homosexuals, not foes. After all, we’re the ones trying to spare homosexuals from further disease and death by telling the truth about the issue. The activists who are suppressing that truth are their real enemies.

 The President is Politicizing the Constitution 

Answer: President Bush didn’t create this controversy because he wanted to “energize his base.” Four members from the activist Massachusetts and New Jersey Supreme Courts have created the need for a constitutional amendment by making up rights that aren’t in their constitution. Their rulings now have the potential to become the law of every other state through the full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution. Think of that—four unelected justices can change the laws of the entire country! Talk about discrimination—that’s discrimination against the other 300 million people in this country who are entitled to govern themselves! When any court oversteps its bounds and usurps the will of the people by legislating from the bench, the only sure remedy is what the President has suggested—a constitutional amendment.

 

We need to set aside emotion and look at the facts. When we do, we can see clearly that a

constitutional amendment is necessary to protect our national immune system. Vote YES.


What He Could Have Said

July 1, 2008

From Chuck Colson and Breakpoint.

What He Could Have Said
Defending Traditional Marriage

June 30, 2008

“It was one of the more awkward moments in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain was appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and she was asking why McCain did not support same-sex “marriage.” A well-prepared DeGeneres made the usual arguments about inclusiveness, and compared those who reject same-sex “marriage” to those who once refused to allow women or blacks to vote. It was all about fairness, she said.

McCain’s response? “I just believe in the status of a marriage between a man and a woman . . . We just have a disagreement.”

Maybe, given the sensitivity of the situation, that was the best answer Senator McCain could come up with. But suppose the senator and Ms. DeGeneres could talk backstage, away from the glare of TV lights. What could he say to seize the moral high ground? To start, he could discuss the true meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, The Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton professor Robert George writes that matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent—a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings—that marriage is a two-in-one flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually.

That is, marriage is made real by acts that are reproductive, whether or not these acts result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit. This organic unity is achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts cannot be procreative and cannot unite people organically. As a result, these acts cannot be marital, which means relationships integrated around them cannot be marriages. In other words, same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage; it takes a man and a woman to become “one flesh.”

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors will make: “Okay,” they will say, “that’s your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everybody else?”

That is when we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partnerships, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people? Or weddings between siblings?

Remember, we are not just defending the Christian view of marriage. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. Why? It is the institution that produces, nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. And marriage is the cornerstone of society’s foundational institution: the family.

If the proponents of same-sex “marriage” succeed in foisting it on America, marriage itself would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between two (or more!) people. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be incalculable.

These are the arguments we all need to learn to defend traditional, true marriage, particularly in those states where constitutional amendments are on the ballot this fall.

Tomorrow on “BreakPoint,” I will explain how same-sex “marriage” laws pose a threat to your religious freedom.

This is part one in a two-part series”


Oprah’s New Age Religion

June 28, 2008

From Eric Barger Ministries.

Let there be no doubt. Oprah Winfrey is finally out of the spiritual closet. She has completely thrown out any previous notion that she is a “Christian.” Now, television’s most influential woman has become the driving force in bringing Helen Schucmans 35 year old trance-channeled book A Course in Miracles and new age author Marianne Williamson into the mainstream.

Not since Shirley MacLaine has any single person done so much to promote and normalize New Age mysticism to the public, as has Oprah. Her latest venture is promoting Eckhart Tolle, a sixty year-old German mystic who resides in Vancouver, British Columbia.

According to Tolle himself, his influences include:

* Sufism, which is a mystical form of Islam

* Zen Buddhism

* The Australian turned Hindu mystic, Barry Long whose teaching includes 20 books most of which focus in detail about sexuality between man and woman and its use to purify them both and rid them of personal, human love.

* Tolle acknowledges that his teachings are a synthesis of the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, one of the most famous of Hindu Yogi’s and
J. Krishnamurti. (Krishnamurti was once declared the “Messiah” and was proclaimed as the new incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha by the Madame Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society.)

* The aforementioned A Course in Miracles.

Perhaps most importantly, Tolle was born Ulrich Tolle” and changed his name to “Eckhart” because of the profound influence which the 14th century occult mystic, Meister Eckhart had on him!

Oprah has spotlighted Tolle’s books in her popular “book club” and on March 3, 2008, she began co-hosting a series of weekly webcasts with Tolle based on his latest book, A New Earth. During one webcast, Tolle led Oprah to follow him into an altered state of consciousness. I wonder how many of the estimated two million people logged online to the meeting did likewise?

When asked during a webcast how she has reconciled Tolle’s spiritualist teachings with her previous Christian background Oprah responded as follows.

I’ve reconciled it because I was able to open my mind about the, ah, absolute, indescribable hugeness of that which we call ‘God.’ Ah, I took God out of the box, cause, I grew up in the Baptist church and there were you know, rules and belief systems, doctrine. And, I happened to be, ah, sitting in church in my late twenties, and I was going to this church where you had to get there at eight o’clock in the morning or you couldn’t get a seat and a very charismatic minister, and everybody was, you know, into the sermon. And this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything. And then he said ‘The Lord thy God is a jealous God.’ And I was, you know, caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said ‘jealous.’ And, something struck me, I was I think about twenty-seven or twenty-eight, I was thinking, ‘God is all. God is omnipresent and God�s also jealous? God is jealous of me?’ Something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love, that God is in all things. And so, that’s when the search for something more than doctrine began to stir within me.”

Oprah then asks her guru, Eckhart Tolle, what happens to humans at death. Tolle responds “I don’t give it any thought.” Oprah further pontificates that God, in the essence of all consciousness, isn’t something to believe. God is! God ‘is’ and God is a feeling experience not a believing experience. And if your religion is a believing experience, if God for you is still about a belief, then it’s not truly God.

This last statement is exactly what drives the heretical Emerging Church Movement. It is a search for spiritual feelings – but not absolute truth. For experiences – but without foundation.

God is certainly NOT jealous of Oprah! However, in her defiance of the key passage forbidding idolatry (Exodus 20’s “Ten Commandments”), she has made herself a god in the process. This is what led to the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) and to the insurgence of every cultic teaching since. The mistake of all mistakes directly from the serpent’s mouth is discounting, ignoring or disagreeing with God’s infallible Word… “Hath God Said?

To really get the full impact of Oprah’s statements I suggest that you actually hear and see Oprah and her guru. It is chilling to say the least. To do so, please visit this page on our website: http://www.ericbarger.com/emailers/2008/update5-8-2008.htm


From National Right to Life: Obama as Pro-Abortion as is Politically Possible

June 26, 2008

From Dr. Douglas Groothius and The Constructive Curmudgeon.

“Trying to Wiggle Out of the Obvious Contradictions

If you think you may have read this column before, stay with me anyway. There are certain stubborn realities in this presidential election year that are like stains that have resisted the first half-dozen applications of the strongest stain remover.

Too many people whose opinions I ordinarily respect are so caught up in the “promise” of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that they refuse to face facts. Or, more specifically, they soft soap the grim reality that Obama is the most anti-life presidential candidate to run since Roe v. Wade was laid on the shoulders of unborn babies.

Obama is like an instrument that vibrates in sympathetic harmony with the Abortion Establishment. While you know the litany, unfortunately only a tiny percentage of the American public is aware of his abysmal record.

They don’t know Obama’s support for taxpayer funding of abortion, which increases the number of dead babies. They don’t know that he approves of abortionists not notifying parents even when they are performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.

Nor do they know that Obama supports cloning human embryos, is a co-sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (Roe on steroids), or that he bitterly denounced the Supreme Court for upholding a law that banned the hideous partial-birth abortion “procedure.” This is no small deal. Even some pro-abortion senators drew the line at partial-birth abortion. For example, according to the Congressional Record (Sept. 26, 1996, at S11373), the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus, and what on Earth is this procedure?”

Prof. Paul Kengor recently wrote a thoughtful piece about this whole phenomenon. Although he was talking specifically about Roman Catholic apologists for Obama, his analysis applies across the board.

Kengor does a masterful (and emotionally gripping) job of painting a picture of what happened to those few babies who survived an abortion. The neglect of these victims was so revolting that, in spite of the best efforts of the usual congressional suspects, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002. All BAIPA does is require that these babies receive the same medical attention given a baby spontaneously born prematurely.

“Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress,” Kengor writes. “But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level.” Obama voted against the legislation.

All this and more is outlined by Kengor by way of setting the stage. For all of his egregious pro-abortion positions, Obama is vigorously supported by people who ought to know better–or perhaps do, and pretend otherwise.

Part of the explanation is a variation of the argument that while abortion is (or may be) important, it does not match, let alone override, a panoply of other issues taken as a whole. If this is their position, so be it.

But the website of these same Catholics begins, Kengor explains, with a long quote “from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states, ‘The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of the moral vision for society. … In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.’ ”

So there must be some heavy-duty rationalizing at work to explain why “they are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade.” (I’m not dealing with those who simply want a Democrat elected President.)

Kengor offers a very illuminating example of one man who at least addresses the abortion issue. This guy concedes that he “may disagree” with Obama “on aspects of these important fundamentals,” but nonetheless is “convinced, based upon his [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of views and, as best as is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”

In other words, I like his smile, so what if he is a force behind FOCA, which would undo with the stroke of a pen decades of pro-life achievements? Obama doesn’t raise his voice, so what if he would allow abortion survivors to die unattended? He gives me goose pimples, so what if pro-abortion justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg–the kind that would allow partial-birth abortions–are Obama’s ideal?

Kengor is right that there are psychological mechanisms (and rationalizations) aplenty at work, allowing even some who would proudly call themselves “pro-life” to wiggle out of the obvious contradictions.

We need to keep the Truth Squad working 24/7, not for these people, alas, but for those who may be influenced by them. One important component is Today’s News & Views.
Be sure to pass this edition on to friends, family, and colleagues. And also, please encourage them to sign up to receive this daily feature.”


THE MOST DANGEROUS TELEVANGELIST IN THE WORLD

April 25, 2008

I ran across this on the blog of Pastor Barry Cameron and Crossroads Christian Church in Grand Prairie, TX.

Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently wrote an article called The Church of Oprah. In it he made the statement that “writing anything even remotely critical of Oprah will bring an avalanche of hate mail.” Well, back up the trucks from the Post Office.

Without question, Oprah Winfrey is one of the most, if not the most, popular and influential people in our world. She’s also among the wealthiest. Her Oprah Winfrey Show is the highest rated talk show in television history. Her book club makes instant bestsellers of what are oftentimes average books. Statistics show each of the book selections she’s made for her book club have sold over 1 million copies.

Her “O” Magazine (which features her picture on the cover of EVERY ISSUE) has become one of the most popular ladies’ magazines in America. HARPO PRODUCTIONS, her personal media company, develops television and radio programs, records music, and produces movies. They are responsible for The Oprah Winfrey Show, Dr. Phil and The Rachael Ray Show. Her “Live Your Best Life” seminars draw thousands of women, who pay $185 each, and pack out auditoriums in cities all over America.

But Oprah Winfrey is more than just an entertainer, economic machine, entrepreneur, educator, etc. She’s also an evangelist for a “false gospel,” full of New Age philosophy and completely devoid of Scriptural truth.

On a recent program, which you can view on YouTube, Oprah said, “One of the mistakes human beings make is believing that there is only one way to live and we don’t accept that. There are diverse ways of being in the world . . . that there are millions of ways to be a human being and many ways, many paths to what you call God. Her path might be something else and when she gets there she might call it ‘the Light.’ But her loving and her kindness and her generosity — if it brings her to the same point it brings you, it doesn’t matter whether she calls it God along the way or not. There can’t possibly be just one way.”

Someone in the audience mentions Jesus and Oprah asks, “What about Jesus?” A lady in the audience says, “There is one way and only one way and that is through Jesus.” To which Oprah responds, “There couldn’t possibly be just one way.”

In one of her more recent ventures, The New Earth Web Class, (week #3), Oprah is visiting with Eckhart Tolle, author of the book, A New Earth: Awakening To Your Life’s Purpose (a selection of Oprah’s book club) and here is what she says, “I took God out of the box. Because I grew up in the Baptist Church and there were, you know, rules and, you know, belief systems and doctrines and um, I happened to be sitting in church in my late twenties and I was going to this church where you had to get there at 8:00 in the morning or you couldn’t get a seat . . . and a very charismatic minister and everybody was just, you know, into the sermon and this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything. And then, he said, ‘and the Lord Thy God is a jealous God.’ And I was, you know, caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said ‘jealous.’ And something struck me and I was like, I think about 27 or 28, and I was thinking, ‘God is all. God is omnipresent and God is also jealous? God is jealous of me?’ And something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit. Because I believe that God is love and that God is in all things. And so, that’s when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me. And I love this quote that Eckhart has. Uh, this is one of my favorite quotes in chapter one, where he says, ‘man made God in his own image. The eternal, the infinite and unnamable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God’.”

Oprah then turns to Eckhart and asks, “What happens to us when we die?” Eckhart says he doesn’t give it any thought at all. Then, Oprah says, “God is a feeling experience not a believing experience . . . and if God for you is still about a belief then it’s not truly God. That’s what you’re saying.” And Eckart agrees with her.

What?

Oprah has embraced Betty Eadie, the new age, Mormon author of the book Embraced By The Light and said she wants “people to see things on our show that makes them think differently about their lives . . . to be a light for people. To make a difference . . . to open their minds and see things differently . . . how to get in touch with the spiritual part of their life.” However, according to Watchman Fellowship, a Christian ministry, which exposes cults, deceptive teachers and their teachings, “the light Oprah offers is the ‘angel of light’ (2 Corinthians 11:14)” which is none other than Satan, himself.

Oprah wholeheartedly endorsed and promoted the feel good, phony-baloney book, The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne, which teaches you can think anything into existence and bring success and unlimited wealth to yourself just by thinking the right thoughts. Only the latest in a long line of self-help books focused on positive thinking rather than God, the book promotes believing in the force of the universe rather than having faith in God and even states the individual reader is God.

Oprah has done a lot of good in our world. But that doesn’t discount the damage she is doing to millions of people who are buying into the dangerous gospel she espouses. A gospel diametrically opposed to Scripture.

The Bible emphatically and clearly states there is only ONE WAY to Heaven and His name is JESUS! Jesus said, “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No man comes to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6). The apostle Paul was equally clear when he wrote, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

Oprah is a talented talk show host and likeable person — at least from a distance. But she’s also a dangerous televangelist duping tens of millions of people into believing and embracing a false gospel.

Don’t allow yourself to be deceived by the most dangerous television evangelist in the world and don’t excuse her actions by recounting all the good she accomplishes.

No amount of good works can ever make up for a false gospel that sends people to Hell!


Connecting Hitler and Darwin

April 20, 2008

From Dr. David Berlinski and Human Events.

One man — Charles Darwin — says: “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. …”

Another man — Adolf Hitler — says: Let us kill all the Jews of Europe.
 
Is there a connection?

Yes obviously is the answer of the historical record and common sense.
 
Published in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said nothing of substance about the origin of species. Or anything else, for that matter. It nonetheless persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races.
 
They drew the obvious conclusion, the one that Darwin had already drawn. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word expense to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races. 
 
The point is made with abysmal clarity in the documentary, Expelled. Visiting the site at which those judged defective were killed — a hospital, of course — the narrator, Ben Stein, asks the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing.
 
“Darwinism,” she replies wanly. 
 
It is perfectly true that prominent Nazis were hardly systematic thinkers. They said whatever came into their heads and since their heads were empty, ideas tended to ricochet. Heinrich Himmler proclaimed himself offended by the idea that he might been descended from the apes.
  
If Himmler was offended, the apes were appalled. 
 
Nonetheless, even stupid men reach their conclusions because they have been influenced in certain ways. At Hitler’s death in May of 1945, the point was clear enough to the editorial writers of the New York Times. “Long before he had dreamed of achieving power,” they wrote, [Hitler] had developed the principles that nations were destined to hate, oppose and destroy one another; [and] that the law of history was the struggle for survival between peoples … ”.
 
Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? We may strike the Gospels from possible answers to this question. Nonetheless, the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation. A professor of theology at Iowa State University, Hector Avalos is persuaded that Martin Luther, of all people, must be considered Adolf Hitler’s spiritual advisor. Luther, after all, liked Jews as little as Hitler did, and both men suffered, apparently, from hemmmorhoids. Having matured his opinion by means of an indifference to the facts, Roger Friedman, writing on Fox news, considers the connection between Darwin and Hitler and in an access of analytical insight thinks only to remark, “Urgggh.”
 
The view that we may consider the sources of Nazi ideology in every context except those most relevant to its formation is rich, fruity, stupid and preposterous. It is for this reason repeated with solemn incomprehension at the website Expelled Exposed: “Anti-Semitic violence against Jews,” the authors write with a pleased sense of discovery, “can be traced as far back as the middle ages, at least 7 centuries before Darwin.” 
 
Let me impart a secret. It can be traced even further. “Oh that mine head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears,” runs the lamentation in Jeremiah 9.1, “that I might weep day and night for the slain daughters of my people.”
 
And yet if anti-Semitism has been the white noise of European history, to assign it causal powers over the Holocaust is simply to ignore very specific ideas that emerged in the 19th century, and that at once seized the imagination of scientists throughout the world.
 
What is often called social Darwinism was a malignant force in Germany, England and the United States from the moment that social thinkers forged the obvious connection between what Darwin said and what his ideas implied. Justifying involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He was not, it is understood, appealing to Lutheran ideas. Germany reached a moral abyss before any other state quite understood that the abyss was there to be reached because Germans have always had a congenital weakness for abysses and seem unwilling, when one is in sight, to avoid toppling into it.
 
These historical connections are so plain that from time to time, those most committed to Darwin’s theory of evolution are moved to acknowledge them. Having dismissed a connection between Darwin and Hitler with florid indignation, the authors of the site Expelled Exposed at once proceed to acknowledge it: “The Nazis appropriated language and concepts from evolution,” they write, “as well as from genetics, medicine (especially the germ theory of disease), and anthropology as propaganda tools to promote their perverted ideology of ‘racial purity.’”
 
Just so. 
 
Would he care to live in a society shaped by Darwinian principles? The question was asked of Richard Dawkins.
 
Not at all, he at once responded.
 
And why not?
 
Because the result would be fascism.
 
In this, Richard Dawkins was entirely correct; and it is entirely to his credit that he said so.


A Call to Action

January 30, 2008

From wallbuilders.com.

Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
(2 Peter 1:2)

In the latter months of 2007, there was a flurry of incidents attempting to censor America’s religious heritage (e.g., the capstone at the Washington Monument, the flag folding ceremony in the Veterans’ Department, the flag certificates from the Architect of the Capitol, etc.). In each case, citizens learned of the incidents and in large numbers made their feelings known; each policy was promptly reversed.

In response to those (and other) incidents, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia introduced a Congressional Resolution affirming America’s Godly heritage through dozens of documented historic examples.

That measure, H.Res.888, declares its two-fold purpose:

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as “American Religious History Week” for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.
The House has agreed to consider and debate this excellent resolution. There are three things you can do to help:

Call your Member of Congress and ask him or her to co-sponsor H.Res.888 (to identify your Member of Congress, click here, enter your zip code in the upper left hand portion of the page, and hit “GO.”)

Call Randy’s office (202.225.6365) and thank him for standing up for our religious heritage. (All folks appreciate encouragement, but especially those on the front lines of battle.)
Forward the resolution to others (it is downloadable). It will remind Americans what God has done for them and instruct the next generation about God’s hand in America’s history.

God bless!