Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • October15th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The opening shot in the final struggle for western culture was fired this week by the City of Houston. Led by Annise Parker, the lesbian mayor who married Kathy Hubbard in Palm Springs, California earlier this year, city attorneys “subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose homosexuality.” According to the Houston Chronicle,

    Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

    Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

    It began when the city of Houston passed a controversial non-discrimination ordinance which would allow males to use the ladies room, and vice versa. A subsequent opposition petition was thrown out on a supposed technicality. After a lawsuit was filed against the ordinance the city responded with the subpoena for sermons.

    What shall we say to these things?

     

    Obama’s Houston

     

    First, let all take note of the nature of the Homosexual Movement in America. Bent on absolutely destroying our culture, the homosexual agenda in America includes the complete dismantling of any vestige of Christianity. It is at its core a hard-nosed political movement which, along with its leader, Barack Obama, desires a fundamental transformation of America.

    This is important to bear in mind since shallow-thinking commentators from the left and the right continue to drone on about how two homosexuals “living next door” in peace will not harm anyone else from their own home. This drivel is about as sophomoric as it comes. The entire issue is NOT about “living in peace” and dignity. It is about transforming the fabric of our culture into a Gestapo state that prosecutes any “speech” that the cultural leaders find objectionable. Homosexuality has never been about “live and let live.” Anyone who casually reads their literature knows this to be the case.

    Pink totalitarian tactics is also what Obama himself has already practiced. When he initially took office the president refused to enforce the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) laws and further mandated that foreign countries demonstrate “homosexual rights” before receiving any unconstitutional foreign aid money. The entire atmosphere of Obama’s America is antagonistic to godliness and the freedom that springs therefrom. It is only in this claustrophobic climate of political correctness that such stifling of free speech can thrive. This is Obama’s Houston.

    Second, Houston’s mandate against preachers demonstrates why it is not the business of government to define HATE. Republicans as well as Democrats have foolishly legislated against “Hate Crimes” in America. Violent acts against the person of another are easily discerned by our law code. But what about “hate?” What about “anger?” This reaches into motive and depends upon who is doing the defining.

    According to the FBI “Hate Crimes” add an element of bias to crimes which is declared to be “toxic to our communities.” They cite lynchings and cross-burnings as examples. The problem with enhancing penalties to a “lynching” for example, based upon the “hateful” motive of the one doing the lynching, is that sooner or later our culture will begin to penalize the motive itself and begin proscribing what it considers to be the instigator of that particular crime: Speech and expressed thought. Now we not only have “enhanced penalties” for “hate crimes” but an entire separate category of “crime.” Hate. But this all depends upon who is doing the defining, doesn’t it? Now, reading Romans chapter one fits into that category.

    Third, this is the very reason the framers of our country mandated by Constitutional Law a limited federal government. Even though the city of Houston is obviously not the federal government, the same scenario is being played out at the federal level, as noted above. The strong arm of the government might lend a benevolent hand. But that again depends upon the nature of those in leadership positions. Once those positions morph into “power positions” instead of “service positions” all are at the complete mercy of those in power. To repeat: this is exactly why the Founders of our nation consciously created a small central government with limited functions. As Jefferson stated, “In questions of power … let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution” (Kentucky Resolutions, 1798). Unfortunately, we have not heeded well.

    Fourth, consider possible ramifications at a practical level. Will churches be forced to turn in Bibles? After all, the Bible itself is the source material for sermons showing the sin of homosexuality. Will Annise Parker, the mayor, begin confiscating Bibles? Shall we send her some with the appropriate passages highlighted?

    Will the city fathers and mothers of Houston be examining what is being preached in the mosques? Will Islam come under fire on this one? Probably not, since terrorists are sprouting in these facilities and the Obama Administration has already declared a “hands off” policy there.

    Does the city sweep include guest preachers who have visited Houston churches but who live elsewhere? Speaking of elsewhere, will other cities follow suit and begin their own purges? Will government overseers begin “policing the pulpit?”

    It is truly heart-wrenching that not only is America turning into a Gestapo-state right before our eyes, but many preachers have not been vocal enough. They have already stuffed a sock in their mouths. One of my collegiate instructors of yesteryear would ask in class, “If there was a bloody persecution against the church and Christians, would there be enough evidence to convict YOU?” Regrettably, many will have to answer: ‘No, there is not.’ The hour is late. It is time for men of God to rise up and preach boldly, subpoena or no subpoena.

     

     

     

    Share
  • October9th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Are public schools becoming indoctrination factories for Marxist brainwashing? Hearing students at Ivy League Universities recently spout anti-American sentiment that echoes the propaganda of Chairman Mao is enough to forewarn parents about who is in control at the collegiate level. However, it comes with even greater angst to discover that the public educational system as a whole seems to be tracking in the same far leftist direction.

    This is not to indict any particular individual teacher or group of them. Most are concerned patriotic Americans who wish to provide the best instruction for students. But it is past time to question the general policies and policy-makers who give the entire system direction. A similar stance can be taken regarding our military. Our fighting men and women of the armed services are the greatest and most honorable patriots in the country. But that is not to say that we agree with the foreign and domestic policies that are set in place by the civilian internationalists who guide their actions.

    According to many observers, the Educational Complex as a whole is assisting to ruin our nation. CSCOPE came and supposedly went in Texas, along with its pro-Marxist lessons which, in one lesson, constructed an economic ladder for High Schooler’s that presented “Communism” at the top and “Free-Market Economics” at the bottom. This denigrating nonsense was designed to show what great things can be accomplished when America opts out of freedom and climbs up to communism.

    Forty-four states were bribed by the federal government with taxpayer money to adopt Common Core standards. These completely by-pass and displace parental guidance even in sexual matters. The National Health and Education Standards, which is hard-wired into Common Core, indoctrinates children as early as K-2d grade to “identify different types of family structures.” By 5th grade the student is expected to define sexual attraction even to those of the same gender. This is social engineering after the order of Sodom, and certainly does not qualify as education.

     

    Colorado

     

    Liberal experimentation with the minds of youth are now bearing fruits in Colorado, among other places. As long as self-described communists such as Bill Ayers is writing the curriculum, who could expect anything less? In Jefferson County students who have been taught to goose-step and hate America are protesting in masse against the inclusion of patriotism, respect for authority, free enterprise, and the positive aspects of American history.

    High School teacher Jay Bennish in Aurora, Colorado sounds as if he trained in the Lenin school for young Soviets. He compares George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler and lectured his 10th graders on the idiotic charges that the U.S. has engaged in “7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba.”

    Then there is the school lunch program spearheaded by Michelle Obama. Schools from New Hampshire to Alabama, Missouri, and Pennsylvania are opting out of the program and are sacrificing federal dollars to do it. However, multitudes of schools continue to be straight-jacketed by the buy-off of federal money funneled to the states.

    Free speech is fast becoming a thing of the past as Live Oak High School students were told by school administrators not to wear American flags on Cinco de Mayo. It was thought that this might upset the Hispanic population at the school. So far, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stood by the school in this far-fetched scenario.

    And free speech for teachers is just as jeopardized by the federal takeover of education. An Alexandria, Louisiana teacher who criticized Common Core was “written up” for posting that comment on Facebook. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, is suing the Obama Administration for coercing the states into adopting the standards.

    And this is just the point. The Federal Government coerces and bribes, then shuts off all dissenting opinion. If the American people are ever going to enjoy the full measure of freedom gained by our forefathers and if we truly cherish academic freedom, we must STOP being bribed into obeisance at the federal money trough.

    Share
  • October4th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    One of the great hallmarks of our free society is the family unit. Planned by God as one man and one woman to bring children into the world (Gen. 2:24; 3:16,17), the family has been recognized as one of the basic building blocks of a Christian society. Jesus quotes Moses in Matt. 19:6. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Even Thomas Jefferson, one of our great founding fathers, recognized the importance of a loving family relationship. “By the law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.”

     

    The family organization of Mom, Dad, and the Kids is under constant assault today. An area in which one finds this insidious attack is connected with the Common Core National Education Standards as written by the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers, which bills itself as a “non-partisan non-profit organization.” According to a Pearson Education website, “Common standards for health education, … have been in the works for years. Called The National Health and Education Standards (NHES), the requirements outlined include issues such as gender and sex, as well as sexual orientation.” Recently, Chicago area schools have announced that they are considering inclusion of these standards in their Common Core curriculum.

     

    If one clicks on the link of the NHES provided by Pearson, the browser is taken to a USA.gov link which outlines some of the “National Health Standards.” One of these is Standard #7: “The student will demonstrate the ability to practice health-enhancing behaviors and avoid or reduce health.” According to the National Sexuality Education Standards (also available online), one of the introductory paragraphs reads that these standards “were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis…the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.”

     

    Common Core Sexuality Standards

     

    By second grade, the Common Core related standards want “students to use proper names for body parts, include male and female anatomy.” Under “Healthy Relationships” the standard says, “identify different kinds of family structures” as well as “demonstrate ways to show respect for different types of families.” One need not wonder to what this refers. Is our federal government pushing the biblical model for family? Hardly.

     

    By fifth grade, the education standards call for students to “Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.” Students are then encouraged to “identify parents or trusted adults” of whom the student can ask questions “about sexual orientation.” Not only this but students are to “Demonstrate ways to treat others with dignity and respect.”

     

    Setting aside the wisdom and propriety of sex education, even at the second grade level, this is bare-knuckled indoctrination that oversteps the God-ordained authority of parental guidance in the teaching of their children. And since these are national standards, created on the top-down model of authoritarian governmental control, there will be no recourse to the local principal, school board, or even state education guidelines. Under the umbrella of Common Core the very CORE of our society—the family, is under assault.

     

     

    Share
  • September23rd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    President Obama authoritatively instructs America on what is, and is not, Islam. “Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaeda’ affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” I used to think that President Obama himself was not a Muslim, only a hardened Marxist addicted to lying with proclivities toward Islam. But the more one listens to his calculated misdirection pertaining to the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) the more convinced I become of his Islamic allegiance. He is an accomplished liar and defends Islam with a taqiyya tongue. But on second thought, perhaps both of these opinions are correct; for Islam is nothing less than Marxism with a “religious” edge.

     

    Marxism

     

    Marxism is the worldview inspired primarily by Karl Marx, based upon a revolutionary concept of societal change that has as its goal a Totalitarian Government. These “societal changes” are accomplished by violent revolution. Vladimir Lenin, who had a sterling Marxist pedigree, advised the Communists that they were to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their goals. For example, the communists define peace as “the elimination of all forms of opposition to socialism.” Lying and redefinition is communist tactic.

    Wherein does this differ in principle from Islam? Remove the prayer rituals, eating regulations and mosque worship and Islam looks exactly like Marxist communism. And the common people who feel the iron fist of Islamic brutality throughout the centuries probably have not discerned any difference between a dictatorship of a Chairman Mao and a Caliphate of Ali Khamenei who is officially the “Leader of the Revolution” in Iran.

     

    Islam

     

    Is Obama aware of this nature of Islam? Of course he is! The stated goal of The Muslim Brotherhood, according to official government documents, is a work, “in America … a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    Public knowledge this. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna with the one purpose of establishing an Islamic state on a global scale. Obama is perfectly aware of the nature of Islam. He just hopes the American people remain in a state of ignorance as he practices the chief Muslim tactic of “taqiyya.”

     

    The Tactic of Taqiyya

     

    “Taqiyya” literally means “to remain faithful” or “to guard” but in practice and in effect it really means “dissimulation.” The Quran actually instructs Muslims to practice misdirection by words (3:28; 16:106). It allows a Muslim to conform outwardly to a non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” until the situation is more favorable from the Islamic perspective. After all, Muhammad himself said, in the spirit of Lenin, “War is deceit.”

    Warner Mackenzie points out that “taqiyya” is “employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims.”

    It is also important to keep in mind that taqiyya means “Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam.” This is “sanctioned in the Quran and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful in his heart.”

     

    Obama’s Taqiyya

     

    Obama has furthered the agenda of Islam more than any preceding leader of the free world. When Obama extended official invitations to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership when he spoke in Cairo in 2009 he was the very first American president to invite the MB to the table. This practice has continued unabated during his presidency. The official White House guest list in February 2014 included Anas Altikriti, another MB official whom Obama warmly received in the Roosevelt Room.

    In 2011 Barack Obama hosted an ‘iftar’, the nightly dinner to break the Muslim fast during the month of Ramadan, at the White House. The invitation list included Mohamed Magid, the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), another organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Knowing how controversial the list would be with Magid’s name on it, Obama purposefully left his name off of the published guest list. (Daily Caller, Aug. 11, 2011). This is not ignorance on Obama’s part. It is dissimulation and misdirection.

     

    Obama’s purpose seems clear to those who do not refuse to see. Advance the cause of totalitarian Islam. His recent televised speech follows the same pattern. “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents…” Taqiyya.

    Share
  • September18th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Whatever defenses one may wish to give of the Obama Administration, one thing cannot be denied. Barack Obama has more swiftly shepherded America to the pits of the godless than his predecessors. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in yesterday’s Pentagon instruction to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman so prefers.

    Casting the entire issue as one of rights, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James stated, “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

    The decision follows a request by the Air Force to the Department of Defense Counsel after an Airman at Creech AFB, Nevada struck out the words, “So help me God” on the official oath. The Airman’s unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606 which prohibits any omissions.

    The Airman in question had secured the counsel of the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Legal Center after he had been informed that he could not reenlist in the Air Force while omitting the phrase “So help me God” from his contract. Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA responded to the change: “We are pleased that the U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed our client has a First Amendment right to omit the reference to a supreme being in his reenlistment oath.”

    Rights?

     

    Both the Secretary of the Air Force and the AHA attorney who threatened suit against the Air Force have cast this episode as one of “rights.” So also does Jason Torpy, President of the Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and board member of the American Humanist Association. “After fighting for our rights, nontheists now again have the status quo in the Air Force, a secular affirmation consistent with other branches of service and our Constitution.” What shall we say to these things?

    First, the entire issue is not a question of “rights.” It is a matter of whether or not America any longer believes that there is such a thing as “inalienable rights” with which we have been “endowed by our Creator” and which our government is interdicted from transgressing. It is a question of whether or not western civilization still “holds” anything such as that to be “self-evident.”

    Humanists whine that they have the “right” to be unbelievers in God. Do they indeed have the right to refuse to take an oath before God? Of course they do! Atheists have the perfect right to be nontheists—but at the same time, the nation of citizens also has a “right” to place less or more confidence in one’s integrity if that person is not going to recognize any higher standard than himself as a basis upon which to perform a duty. An atheist may wish to take the “oath” on himself or herself, but oneself is not a very high bar.

    For this reason many Courts in early America distrusted the testimony of atheists. By what standard higher than oneself will one pledge to “tell the truth?” Seeing the plethora of modern atheistic scholastic ivory-tower material that vehemently argues that there is no ultimate standard of right or wrong by which to assess conduct, it seems the founding era of Americans knew whereof they spoke.

    The Obama Administration says it wishes “latitude” for Air Force inductees to disbelieve in God. But don’t hold your breath for that same type of latitude to be extended to believers who have a distrust of those who declare there is no such thing as an ultimate standard of conduct and duty. No, if I do not believe the integrity of the Mikey Weinstein’s of the world I will be ransacked as some kind of a bigot. Latitude of belief is reserved only for humanists and atheists who wish to attack the foundations of America.

    Second, our culture is ignoring the nature of an oath. What is an oath? Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary defined: “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.” By its very nature an oath invokes Deity.

    Webster was an influential founding father of America whose gifted labors helped ratify the Constitution. A lawyer who graduated from Yale, Webster fought in the Revolutionary War and became a member of the Massachusetts legislature. “In my view,” Webster wrote, “the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

    Because of the views set forward above he labored incessantly for the original Constitutional Convention. Showing that the basis of our entire Constitutional framework was in the Holy Scriptures, he added, “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

    An oath by its very definition encompasses a theistic world view. It also incorporates a concept of limited government that men might enjoy the freedoms that were given to us by God and it invokes the notion that I recognize that my actions will one day be brought into account before the bar of God. One might exemplify faithfulness to a country or a military promise without believing in God, but the deleterious effect of godless Humanism soaking through society erodes over time any ultimate standard of conduct—for citizens or soldiers.

     

     

    Share
  • September17th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    In the last I laid before the reader the question of Ultimate Authority in religion—whether it resides in the Scriptures or in some church body such as the Roman Church. I asserted that the Roman Church actually wrests authority from the Holy Scriptures and sets itself above the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4). In this the Roman Church is the “lawless one.”

    Before me are two recently published Catholic booklets which clearly demonstrate the truth of what I have above noted.  One of the booklets is entitled Catholic Answers to Fundamentalists’ Questions by Philip St. Romain and has upon it the “Imprimatur” of Edward J. O’Donnell, Vicar General Archdiocese of St. Louis (1984). A second pamphlet is Catholic Pocket Evangelist by Fr. Mario P. Romero with an “Imprimatur” stamped upon it by the same O’Donnell. An “imprimatur” means that it teaches official Catholic doctrine as approved by the machinery of the Roman Church. In other words, these are not just “somebody’s” statements about what that Church professes. Both of these booklets have been paper-clipped and highlighted to call our attention to specific pages. Let us see what we can learn. According to the Catholic Church:

    1. The Word of God (Bible) ALONE cannot serve as Sole Authority of Christian Belief and Practice. (Romero’s tract, p. 21). It is highly interesting that in order to support the idea that the Scriptures ALONE are insufficient many passages from the Bible are listed, e.g. Matt. 16:18,19; John 20:30; et. al. And the illustration that is used says that just as with our U.S. Constitution, “it cannot interpret itself, and thus, we need a Supreme Court to guide us in our understanding…” In other words, the argument is that we need the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to tell us what the Scriptures mean. What about this?
      1. Apparently the Catholic Church believes there are at least SOME passages that we can understand on our own without the authority of that Church—namely, the ones they listed that supposedly supports this idea! They think you can turn to those passages, read them, and come to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church—and all this without one particle of aid from the Catholic Church.
      2. Not one of those passages even mentions the Roman Catholic Church as being the authoritative Church. As a matter of fact, there is not a passage in the Bible that mentions it.
      3. Not one of the passages listed ever mentions Peter as Pope or that he ever had a successor.
      4. Regarding the U.S. Constitution, the Catholic Pocket Evangelist gets it wrong entirely. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788; but the Supreme Court was not created until 1789 and not organized until February 1790! Are we to believe that no one knew exactly what the Constitution meant or could not interpret it until two years after it was agreed upon by the States? Nonsense. As every state put it plainly, as well as was written in the Constitution itself, “All power is in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority.” The truth is, the Supreme Court was only to apply the ratified law to specific cases.
    2. According to the Catholic Church, “The Papacy attained its developed status in postbiblical times.” (Philip St. Romain, p. 18). Exactly. The entire doctrine of the papacy is NOT in the Bible itself, but was “developed” AFTER the days of the apostles. Even regarding Peter, who the Catholic Church wrongly assigns with being the first pope, “CAME TO BE CONSIDERED the first pope.” Precisely what I have written. The entire structure of the Roman Church is unbiblical, unscriptural, but was only an evolutionary development many years later. Not only that, but since the doctrine of the Papacy was a “development” of many years, how in the world did early Christians before this development ever read and understand the Scriptures? The same way we do today, without the “assistance” of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Share
  • September17th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The Bible claims for itself to be the ultimate authority in religious matters. “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

    The reason for the absolute authority of the Word of God is the fact that it is actually God speaking to man (1 Cor. 2:13). The passage above shows that the Scriptures are in reality “God breathed.” Paul wrote that the things he wrote were the commandment of God (1 Cor. 14:37). All of the apostles were promised that they would be guided unto “all the truth” in their own lifetime (John 14:26; 16:13). Therefore, the all-sufficient completed Word of God functions as the ultimate authority over man.

    It also functions as the ultimate authority over the church. Church doctrine, practice, and leadership is to be guided by this Word of God. However, the Roman Catholic Church declares that it is the ultimate authority. In an authoritative Roman Church book entitled Short History of the Catholic Church, “Brother Gustavus” tells us that “The dogmatic definition contained in the Bull (by Boniface VIII at the beginning of the fourteenth century) is the doctrine necessarily held by every Catholic, namely that by divine law all men are subject to the jurisdiction of Saint Peter and his successors, the Roman pontiffs.”

    Pope Leo XIII said: “We (the Pope) hold upon this earth the place of God almighty” (Great Encyclical Letters, 304). Again, the Roman church requires “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman pontiff as to God Himself” (193).

    One modern Catholic writer, Bob Sungenis, set the issue clearly before us. “As I studied the Catholic case against sola scriptura I knew instinctively that the whole debate between Catholicism and Protestantism could be boiled down to authority. Every doctrine one believes is based on the authority one accepts.” With this I agree. The entire issue is one of authority.

    The Bible, being the Word of God, claims that it is the sole authority in religious matters. The Roman Catholic Church declares that the authority resides in itself, and in its head, the Pope. It cannot be both. The Bible is right.

    Share
  • September11th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Society seems to be coming to the melting point. According to Christian Headlines.com there is currently an “internet challenge” which “calls upon people to post a clip of them cursing God or rejecting the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives.” Promoters of this “Blasphemy Challenge” bill it as a way to promote atheism.

    To encourage deeper ugliness the atheist sponsors are sending free DVD’s which demonstrates teenagers who complete the challenge and have posted their recordings on line. “It (the blasphemy challenge) exposes the crock that is Christian doctrine,” explained one of the promoters.

    One high school senior, Perri Frost, stated, “The online atheists and teens who are into the blasphemy challenge are almost exclusively opposed to Christianity. There are almost no complaints against other faiths. Virtually all of the atheists rail against Christians only.” What shall we say to these things?

    First, it is noteworthy that in order to promote atheism non-believers by-pass thoughtful discussion and argumentation by appealing directly to immoral behavior. One of the promoters state that cursing “exposes” Christian doctrine as being false; but thinking people know better. How does filthy language “expose” Christianity as true or false? Why is it that atheists tell us that to accept their worldview one has to begin to “think” and “reason?” How much “thinking” goes into vile language? On college campuses atheists name their clubs “Free Thinking” societies. The posture is that they arrive at their godless conclusions by reasonable discussion. But promoting blasphemy simply stirs mob-like action, via the internet. So much for promoting “free” thought.

    Second, America was founded as a Christian Nation and early courts prosecuted individuals for blasphemy. Rejecters of God despise this historical fact but that is only because they love to live not only in moral darkness, but historical darkness as well. Joseph Story, one of the “fathers of American jurisprudence,” appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, stated plainly that Christianity was part of the “common law of the land” and it ought to “receive encouragement from the state.” Today’s university students, indoctrinated with modernism, cannot understand this due to the fact they have been misinformed regarding the intent of the First Amendment. It was crafted, not to remove God from public, but to forbid the establishment of a National Denomination.

    Story’s view that Christianity was part of the “common law” was not simply his own “personal view” either. It was the fundamental understanding of the entire 13 original colonies. In 1892 the Supreme Court emphatically declared “Christianity was a part of the common law” of America: “this is a Christian nation.”

    How did this effect blasphemy? In 1824 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania indicted Abner Updegraph for “not having the fear of God before his eyes … contriving and intending to scandalize and bring into disrepute and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth in the presence and hearing of several persons… did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say … ‘The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable; that they were a contradiction … and that they contained a great many lies.” A guilty verdict was upheld.

    Why? Was it because the idea of a “Christian Nation” was like the Muslim idea of forcible conversion? Not at all. No one was forced to “go to church” or to honor God at worship. But Christianity was part of the “common law” and no one was permitted to denigrate Christianity. They debated openly God’s existence with atheists as well as the worth of the Bible—all on a public polemic platform. This was fine and acceptable. But to thoughtlessly blaspheme and promote sin while vilifying the religion of the people was disallowed.

    The exact same type of case was upheld in the Supreme Court of New York in 1811. In The People v. Ruggles the defendant was indicted for uttering a blasphemous statement in public about Jesus Christ. The Court explicitly stated that “an open discussion on any religious subject” was perfectly legitimate, even regarding God’s Existence and the Bible’s inspiration. But “to revile the religion professed by the community” was an abuse of that right.

    These cases could be cited continually, from all the colonies. The Supreme Courts of these states consistently upheld that this is a Christian Nation and that Christianity is a part of the common law of the land. Sad it is that the current challenge to high-schoolers noted above not only by-passes thoughtful discussion but violates the very core of our founding principles.

    Share
  • September9th

    Joe Herring & Dr. Mark Christian

     

    The “Arab Spring” changed seasons with Benghazi.  In the eyes of many Americans, the media-hyped chimera of democratic forces seeking freedom from dictatorships vanished with the reported sodomy and murder of our ambassador to Libya.

    The reality is, the impetus behind the Arab Spring was never really a desire for self-rule as we understand it, but rather a desire for Islamic rule. Each country that fell to that faux-organic sweep of protest shared a trait in common: aside from being brutal dictatorships, they were also secular governments.

    This essential point is missed by our major media, who, due to an irrepressible confirmation bias, assume that the only reason to upending a government is to throw off oppression.  Their failure to factor the all-encompassing influence of Islam leads inexorably to an inability to comprehend the willingness among many in the Middle East to replace repressive secular regimes with far more repressive Islamist regimes. Surprising as it appears to the Western mind, this frying pan-to-fire behavior is de rigueur in societies that credit the legitimacy of their governments to the seal of approval of their god.

    Apprehension of these truths require the West to confront the elephant in the room – the one that political correctness forbids us to address – that being Islam, and its ideology of supremacy.

    Terrorism is a tool, not an ideology.  “Terrorist” is a functional description of someone who employs this tool in furtherance of their agenda.

    The failure in the West to name that agenda is at the root of our failure to defeat it.  In the Middle East, that agenda is the re-birth of an Islamic caliphate.  In the West, it is a relentless Islamist agenda to mainstream Islamic doctrine in the mind of the average citizen, incrementally positioning Islam as an irreproachable inevitability, declaring any opposition as Islamophobic and anti-religion.

    Last year, the Obama administration wanted to nudge the stalled Arab Spring back into motion with the removal of Assad, but their trademark clumsiness attracted the attention of the Russian bear, who quickly turned the feckless Obama into a laughingstock over the whole “red line” fiasco.  Now, the rise of ISIS gives Obama the cover to resume his mission to remove Assad.  Benghazi halted the Arab Spring, but the beheading of James Foley may revive it.

    Already the Pentagon has openly discussed the need to enter Syria in order to pursue and eliminate ISIS fighters.  While such a need does exist, it also creates an exploitable circumstance where the scales may be tipped militarily in favor of anti-Assad forces.  If Christmas comes early to the White House, then the death or removal of Assad might come about as collateral damage.

    Three things previously stood in the way of a successful overthrow of Assad: Vladimir Putin, Iran, and the lack of a direct threat to Americans.

    Putin is presently engaged in Ukraine and becoming increasingly isolated for his behavior there.  Meanwhile, the clear lack of interest on our part in halting Iran’s nuclear program appears to have given the imprimatur of Obama for the mullahs to develop low-yield nuclear weapons, calming Iranian fears of a Sunni-dominated caliphate on their western border.

    Finally, the beheading of Foley and the ominous threats of a very mouthy ISIS leave Americans feeling the heat.

    So the question begs for an answer: is ISIS really the overlooked ragtag junior varsity of Obama’s description, or is it a legitimate threat to global stability – a threat of which this administration has been well aware?

    First, it is important to understand the intelligence-gathering capabilities of the United States.  According to multiple sources within the intelligence community, the growth and development of ISIS was not “overlooked.”

    ISIS may have been ignored, but it was certainly well-surveilled.  In a world where technology permits us to trace the source of an E. coli outbreak down to the person who failed to wash his hands, it is an impossibility that a major army was gathered, trained, and deployed outside America’s strategic and tactical awareness.

    So, given the fact of our foreknowledge, is it fair to ask this administration whether they might be playing a very dangerous game, allowing a brutal force to gather and deploy in order to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to Syrian adventurism?

    This particular game will be played on fields well outside the Middle East.  Putin has already thrown his lot in with Assad, and his Ukraine adventure notwithstanding, there is nothing to indicate that he would turn a blind eye to American intervention in Syria regardless of the pretext. Putin wants a warm-water port for year-round transport of his energy products, and Assad wants protection from Islamist rebels.  This dynamic has not been altered by the rise of ISIS.  If anything, Islamist expansionism in Syria and northern Iraq presents as much of an opportunity for adventurism by Putin as by Obama – perhaps more, considering Russia’s geographic proximity.

    It is entirely possible that Putin could be invited by Assad to assist in the elimination of ISIS, placing American and Russian forces in close proximity to each other.  This almost guarantees conflict.

    It is indeed a very dangerous game Obama is playing to further the expansion of his Brotherhood friends.

    If the above scenario is correct, then the application of significant “kinetic action” by American forces within the borders of Syria will occur almost immediately, setting a precedent for further incursions in weeks to come.  Assad will not allow this, and the Arab Spring hawks in the administration are likely giddily hoping he will engage American troops in combat, cementing his fate.

    The dynamic of alliance and ambition in that part of the world creates a nearly impenetrable and always unpredictable climate for diplomacy in the Middle East; the willingness of nations to shed their alliances like wet clothing on a cold night ensures that any successes will be short-lived.  The only constants in the region are Islam and oil.  Until we recognize that every action in the Middle East ultimately relates to one or both, we will continue to react to circumstances rather than anticipate them.

    The secular governments swept away by the Obama-supported Arab Spring posed far less of a threat than do the Islamists who have taken their place.  Negotiating about oil with secular governments interested in money and prestige was certainly to be preferred over fighting about religion with Islamist governments interested only in their supremacy and our death.

    Watch out, world.  The match is lit.

    About the Authors

    Joe Herring writes from Omaha, NE and welcomes visitors to his website at readmorejoe.com.
    Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim, is the executive director of the Global Faith Institute and the vice president of Arabs for Israel

    Share
  • September2nd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    President Obama stated this past Thursday that he had no strategy for taking on ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria). Today’s breaking news is that the Pentagon has been specifically warning the White House about this growing ISIS threat for over a year. Citizens from both end of the spectrum have expressed outrage to unbelief at such a naïve foreign policy that disregards the most serious current global threat of Islamic extremism. But I am going to defend Obama on this one. The naivete is not in Barack Obama. It is in the American people who have twice put a man in office who has promised, not to assert western influence around the globe, but to “fundamentally transform” the basic Christian premises of our nation. Comrade Obama is accomplishing precisely what he went to Washington to do. Read More

    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro