Tag: Biblical Christianity

Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans’ Conscience


I read this CBN article rapidly and did not notice President Trump’s name in it. BUT the theme of this article is the very reason the Dems, the RINOs and various forms of Leftists want Trump gone by any means necessary. The theme is Biblical-minded Christians are being placed in a position to choose between their Biblical Christian conscience and the ever increasing government mandate to de-Christianize American culture. President Trump is an obstacle to this Leftist de-Christianizing transformation.

 

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be [a]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the [b]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. –Romans 8: 5-8 NKJV

 

JRH 12/13/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

********************************

Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans’ Conscience

 

By Paul Strand

December 11, 2019

CBN News

 

SCOTUS building

 

WASHINGTON – Religious liberty today faces more challenges than ever.  If you pay attention to the headlines, you know these are dangerous days. The battleground is often in the courtroom, where a frequent defender of religious liberty there sees new reasons for hope.

 

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Senior Counsel Luke Goodrich points out every human has a conscience, and the government shouldn’t be messing with it.

 

“It’s that inner voice that urges us to choose the good and reject evil,” Goodrich told CBN News.

 

Big-Time Battler for Conscience Rights

 

He has fought for the right of conscience several times before the US Supreme Court, and writes about huge challenges to it in his new book titled Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America.

 

“When the government comes in and forces us to violate our conscience, it’s forcing us to go against our human nature and violating a fundamental human right,” Goodrich said.

 

But as America moves toward a post-Christian era, issues long felt by believers and their conscience as wrong are now exalted.  Therefore any opposition to them is condemned as rank discrimination.

 

‘Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government?’

 

Goodrich explained, “We have experienced a major cultural shift in the last 10 to 20 years where traditional Christian beliefs about truth, about human life, about human sexuality…they used to be fairly broadly accepted or at least uncontroversial, but now those long-standing Christian beliefs are actually viewed as a threat.”

 

He added, “We’re seeing all kinds of new religious liberty conflicts and Christians really being put to the choice: will you obey God or will you obey the government?”

 

The biggest current battleground: homosexual and transgender rights.

 

“If you’re a Bible-believing Christian and you hold a traditional view on sex and marriage, then the rapid advance of gay rights is certainly the most significant religious liberty threat today.  And we’re seeing conflicts in multiple areas all across the country,” Goodrich noted.

 

The government long ago said you can’t discriminate based on someone’s race or sex. If the Supreme Court this term rules “sex” includes sexual orientation or transgender status, it could mean real trouble for those with biblical views on human sexuality.

 

Jack Phillips x Thousands

 

You could likely multiply by the thousands new legal problems of the kind suffered by Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake celebrating gay marriage and ended up in a legal battle over his conscience rights for years.

 

“Thousands of religious organizations will face new lawsuits and new liability simply for acting on their long-standing beliefs about human sexuality,” Goodrich predicted.

 

At one point, supporters promised same-sex marriage wouldn’t harm anyone. Well, depending on how the high court rules, Goodrich pointed out those same people could go all out, claws bared, to get their opponents.

 

“There’s a strong effort right now, particularly among progressives, to brand traditional Christian beliefs about marriage as a form of bigotry, and then use the power of the state to punish those religious beliefs and practices,” he said.

 

Bigotry or Believing in What’s Actually Best?

 

On the other hand, Frank Wright of D. James Kennedy Ministries maintains believers back only one-man, one-woman marriage because it’s healthy for families.

 

“The Bible says it because it’s for our welfare. It’s what enables families to flourish,” Wright told CBN News. “The secular research going back decades is irrefutable. Children do better when they have a mom and a dad.  And they are safer, they are more economically secure, they have less bad outcomes in life in terms of drugs and crime and all these things. It’s God’s design because it’s what’s best for us.”

 

He’s sad that homosexuals and their allies view the conservative support of one-man, one-woman marriage as bigotry and hatred.

 

Wright explained, “If they were to come to me and say ‘Why do you hate me?’ I would explain to them that I don’t. ‘You and I see this issue totally differently.  I don’t hate you.  Why should I hate you?   And why should you hate me because we disagree?'”

 

How Culture Views ‘Good’ Religion vs. ‘Bad’ Religion

 

Goodrich believes some of this comes from how modern society views religion.

 

“I think our culture is not really hostile to religion per se, but rather draws a distinction between good religion and bad religion,” he explained.

 

Goodrich added the culture sees so-called “good religion” as, “Fairly relativistic. You keep it private. You don’t make absolute truth claims and you don’t make any intense moral claims.”

 

On the other hand, this same culture sees bad religion as one that makes moral judgments among other things.

 

“Makes absolute truth claims. It doesn’t stay confined to the four walls of the home or the church, and it gets out there,” he said. “It evangelizes. It claims truth and it actually makes moral judgments.  And that kind of religion really today is deemed to be bad, and folks are much more willing to use government power to punish those sorts of belief.”

 

Forced to do the Transgenders’ Bidding

 

As for the transgender issue, the Obama administration mandated that doctors and hospitals provide surgery for men who wanted to be turned into women and women into men.

 

Goodrich explained the government was ordering doctors to perform those surgeries, “Even when it violated their religious beliefs and their medical judgment.  And if they didn’t do that, they would be deemed to be discriminating and would be subject to government penalties.”

 

Abortion is another battleground where supporters try to demonize those who can’t and won’t back it.

 

Those Against Abortion Labeled as Discriminators

 

“If you as a Christian, whether you’re a doctor or an employer, if you oppose abortion, you’re somehow denying health care to women and discriminating against women,” Goodrich explained.

 

This Becket lawyer fought for both the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby’s pro-life stand before the Supreme Court.

 

“The government was trying to force them to provide abortion-causing drugs in their health insurance plans or in their businesses, even when their conscience told them ‘you cannot participate in an abortion,'” Goodrich said of his clients.

 

Many Dark Clouds, But a Silver Lining

 

The high court ruled in favor of both, and Goodrich says believers can take hope in how often their conscience rights win in court.

 

“There are some real difficulties ahead, and we should take stock of where we’re at and be realistic. But at the same time, there’s a lot of reason for hope.  We have a 90 percent win rate and we’re undefeated at the US Supreme Court,” Goodrich said.

 

He warned, however, Christians need to prepare for defeats and learn how to show Christ’s love even to a culture that’s turning more and more against them.

 

How the Bible Can Guide Us in Such a Time

 

“Much of scripture is written to Christians who are facing suffering and persecution for their faith.  And as Christians, we need to recall those teachings and let those influence us,” Goodrich argued. “And it’s not just about winning or fighting a culture war.  It’s actually more about being like Christ in the midst of these conflicts.”

 

What this attorney hopes for is a government that just leaves religion alone as much as possible.

 

For instance, in public schools, it shouldn’t force students to pray, but can allow a time where they can pray if they want. It shouldn’t build a cross on government property, but it can let those there stand. It shouldn’t oppose religion OR promote it. It should just let it be.

+++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

____________________

© 2019 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.

 

SUPPORT CBN News

 

Guns or Bibles or Both


Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk

© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

VIDEO: Fundamentally Transform America- the Obama Promise

Posted by obamacare

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How’s He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives’ attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at http://freedomist.com

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and … Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities:

1. A bedrock of principles

2. A moral compass

3. A vision

4. The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in … READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett & Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Please Support NCCR

In Support of Conservative Principles and Biblical Christianity


Ben Franklin praising Christian Morality quote

 

John R. Houk

© August 15, 2014

 

I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.

 

Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.

 

Thus begins my response:

 

Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.

 

Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I’ll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another’s faith or lack thereof.

 

The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray – so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith – so be it. Don’t force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.

 

The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman’s free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman’s womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of “fetus” is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.

 

The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.

 

The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.

 

Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.

 

JRH 8/15/14

Please Support NCCR

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION


Brian Camenker 2

Brian Comenker – MassResistance

 

Bob Unruh writing for WorldNetDaily lets Americans (especially Biblical-Christian Americans) become aware of the activist work of MassResistance. MassResistance actively fights the Homosexual Agenda (AFA explanation) on normalizing the unbiblical lifestyle. Largely thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama and activist Left Wing Courts homosexuality has been jammed down the throat of Americans. Today all across the media (News and Entertainment) Biblical Christian beliefs are disparaged particularly referencing homosexuality.

 

Rather than being upheld as people of high moral virtues Biblical Christians are now stigmatized as homophobic bigots that should be villainized rather than praised. I encourage Biblical Christians to visit MassResistance.org and invest in supporting the activist work going on to combat the Homosexual Agenda (a different link from AFA above).

 

JRH 6/2/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION

Hong Kong, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Australia learn how to fight ‘gay’ agenda

By Bob Unruh

May 31, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

The few workaholics at the pro-family MassResistance long have been fighting for traditional values, parental involvement in schools, and responsible education system decisions.

 

Until now, they’ve focused much of their attention on Massachusetts, which has provided no lack of work.

 

But now their outreach is touching those who want to pull the reins on “gay-straight” clubs, promotions of books like “King and King” to children, and other components of a strategy pursued by homosexuals to make those lifestyle choices mainstream in Estonia.

 

And Hong Kong.

 

And Finland.

 

And more.

 

The organization created a straightforward video presentation a few months ago simply describing the changes in their state because of the advance of homosexual “marriage” and more.

 

For example, people getting fired for their personal beliefs about lifestyle choices:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that lawyers can fail their bar exam if they don’t know the proper way to deal with “gay marriage,” and its inevitable breakup:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that the taxpayers, through their state and local health departments, are teaching children “how to perform sex acts on other males” and giving them a list of “bars in Boston where men can meet for anonymous sex.”

 

And taxpayers are distributing the “black book.”

 

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Word started spreading.

 

Officials with Mass Resistance soon were contacted by activists in Australia, and now the group’s report is being produced on a DVD in order to provide to churches and other organizations trying to enlighten the nation about the impact of making the lifestyle choice mainstream.

 

“Simply put, its designed to be a tool for individuals, activist groups, and churches to help show the unvarnished and disturbing consequences of ‘gay marriage’ on a society once it’s forced on the population,” the organization reported.

 

“The video is packed with not only descriptions, but actual first-hand documents, photos, and footage. Much of it exclusively shot by MassResistance or gathered in our undercover research, as well as from public documents.”

 

It addresses the impact on schools, the legal and judicial system, politics and government, hospitals and public health, churches and “the slippery slope – further consequences affecting children and society.”

 

“At the beginning of the year the well-funded international homosexual lobby began their lobbying push in Hong Kong to legalize “gay marriage,’” MassResistance said. “Pro-family activists there began working with MassResistance in February.

 

The result? A Cantonese version of the video.

 

“It is now being widely shown in Hong Kong. They told us that they are very pleased that now people can watch the video and it will ‘help them to understand’ what they are really facing,” MassResistance reported.

 

“On Monday, we received the following message from one of the Hong Kong activists: ‘The issue on gender recognition is creeping in as there is a recent court ruling to recognize the reassigned gender after sex reassignment surgery. I saw that transgenderism is also forcing its way to school education at your side. The battle is getting increasingly tough…’”

 

Then when the Finnish parliament began debating “gay marriage,” religious leaders wanted help.

 

“They began using our materials to educate their people. A few days ago they posted a version of our MassResistance video with Finnish sub-titles and began promoting it across the country,” the report said.

 

“We have also just been informed that Swedish and Estonian language versions of the MassResistance video are being prepared for broadcast on national TV in those countries,” the report said.

 

The material also is being used to fight various state campaigns in the U.S. to institutionalize “gay marriage.”

 

“For many across the country and around the world, MassResistance is the go-to place for pro-family activism and information. In addition to the above, in just the last several months we’ve worked with pro-family activists in Australia, Croatia, Jamaica, England, France, Ghana, Uganda, and Canada. And here in the U.S. we’ve worked with activists in Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana. We get more calls every week.”

 

See the full video:

 

[Blog Editor WND used their video format to share the MassResistance video; however below is the Youtube version.]

 

VIDEO: What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!

 

 

Posted by MassResistance

Published: Oct 18, 2013

 

This is the update to the blockbuster report and video done previously by MassResistance. Most people don’t know what REALLY happens when same-sex “marriage” is imposed. The effects on society are outrageous and far-reaching.

__________________________________

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

%d bloggers like this: