Tag: Homosexuality

Responding to Revisionist Critic


John R. Houk

© July 21, 2017

 

On June 26, 2013 I posted at my NCCR blog (one of three blogs) entitled “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness”. The Supreme Court had just struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enabling homosexuals to legally marry in the same manner as heterosexuals. I was very displeased that SCOTUS extra-Constitutionally circumvented traditional marriage that a majority of States upheld, meaning a majority of the voting We the People.

 

In the comment section to the post “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness” a person identifying themselves as Debbs was quite upset with my Biblical stand and embarked on a path of criticism of my interpretation of the Bible as unsound theology on July 17, 2017. I am assuming “Debbs” is a female.

 

Here is a refresher to my thoughts roughly four years ago.

 

I cited Scripture from the Holy Bible justifying my disagreement with SCOTUS and the American Left in general. I even found a photo of a Bible page highlighting Leviticus 18: 22:

 

 

I shared the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis 19 (verses 1, 4-11, 13, 24-25 for brevity’s sake). In case you listen to Biblical revisionists, here is God’s perspective: God obliterated the two city areas because of moral depravity which included primarily but not limited to homosexuality.

 

Now from the Christian perspective Jesus Christ the Son of God has Redeemed Believers from the curse of the Law which God gave through Moses. Redemption in Christ means the penalty of sin is not held as judgment for the person who has turned their life to Christ abandoning the ways of the unredeemed individual. (I just slipped into the realm of the politically correct to make the Left happy. The Bible uses the word “man” which means instead of “person” I could have written “man”. And yet, “man” is used as in the sense of mankind which is inclusive of both males and females. And yes, I realize the word “mankind” is repugnant to the PC Left who might rather use “humankind”. Get over it. 😊)

 

The Law’s penalty for homosexuality was death. Thank God Jesus has Redeemed believing humanity from that penalty. Enforcing that penalty would mean the State would have to locate a lot of rocks. Thank God Christianity has been an influence on Western Culture enough that our society has abandoned the penalty of the Old Testament Law in the Western Criminal Justice System.

 

You would do well to read all the Epistle to the Galatians, but here is the part on the Law, the Curse and Redemption in Chapter 3:

 

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[a] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[b] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[c]

 

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[d]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Bold text Editor’s – Gal. 3: 10-14 NKJV)

 

And yet if one lives an unredeemed life (Christian or sinner), there is a price that one pays in the flesh. The Mercy of God is eternal for those who ask for forgiveness with a true heart (God knows the true heart from the false heart. It’s not like you can lie for forgiveness and fool God like you might another person).

 

The New Testament makes it quite clear on what is true morality from the false morality that claims if it feels good it is okay to do. Romans the sixth chapter is one place:

 

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

 

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (Bold text Editor’s – Rom. 6: 1-4, 12-19 NKJV)

 

I am perturbed on how activist Courts make laws rather than adjudicating the text of the Original meaning of the Constitution. Spiritual minded Leftists do the same revisionism to God’s Word, in this case pertaining to homosexuality. Romans chapter one affirms that God still is extremely displeased with homosexuality. AND God is the Creator of ALL that exists, thus He sets the rules:

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Bold Text Editor’s – Rom. 1: 18, 24, 26-27, 32 NKJV)

 

Take note that “deserving of death” is the penalty under the Law. The Redemptive Blood of Christ expiates the penalty of the Law, but God Almighty still considers homosexuality a sin that separates a person from the Presence of God. Eternal separation from God is the Second Death that occurs at the Last Judgment when one is sent to hell in permanent separation from the Presence of God.

 

People! Always choose life rather than any rule of man that will separate you from God. That has been the path of Activist Judges for decades and not just in 2013 with DOMA. Revisionist theologians have been doing the same harm to the Holy Bible.

 

Debbs uses the standard theology argument that comes from Leftist theologians that are attempting to revise God’s intent much like Activist Judges are revising the Constitution’s Original Intent by creating law the Constitution reserves ONLY for Congress or Amended by the sovereign States via ratification or Convention.

 

Unlike the Constitution, God’s Word cannot be amended to suit the creation over the intent of the Creator. Hence, homosexuality was wrong in the Old Testament Law but only the penalty is forgiven in the age of Grace that Redeems humanity by faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

So, I am going to refute the revisionist theology that Debbs uses to contradict my agreement with the Word of God. From this point on, my thoughts and responses will be in bold text and Debbs comments at NCCR will be in plain text and indented as a quote.

 

First Debbs goes on a bit of a rant on me misusing “ORIGINAL words” because the English translation has a different meaning than the ancient Hebrew:

 

Only cowards print articles and don’t allow comments on the page.

 

Well, I guess I’m not a coward because her comment exists.

I could write plenty of things with conviction from the Bible that would cause people’s heads to spin. Anyone can copy passages from an ENGLISH translation of a bible (and anyone can use a variation of translations for key words to0); but the ORIGINAL words and what they mean are important and cannot be overlooked. If the Bible is the Word of God, then there is no other book that is more important to have its original Hebrew words translated correctly. Otherwise, they aren’t the God’s words, they are the words of the translators. Not only do you have to get the translation correct, but a study of the same word should include comparisons where that word is used again and again.

 

I actually concur with Debbs that the context of the most original manuscripts is quite important to making written content current, but as in the proper interpretation as opposed to revisionism.

 

And, is it not dishonest for “Christians”- those who follow His teachings, to completely ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say on any given subject? Is it not dishonest to draw a conclusion about one story, yet ignore the explanation from a biblical Prophet that contradicts that conclusion? And if one thing is an abomination and “Christians” go out of their way to demonize and dehumanize a group of persons (ignoring the Prophet Ezekiel and the Saviour) and even try to pass laws to subjugate and oppress that group based on their “Christianity”; should they not do the same with every single “abomination” listed in the same Biblical books? Shouldn’t they be even more aggressively attacking violations of the 10 Commandment or the things the Lord HATES and Detests?

 

Yes Debbs, it would be dishonest to ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say as long as you realize what He didn’t say is in context as being viewed as a fellow Jew by most of His listeners. Jesus does not terminate the Torah or the Tanakh, rather He affirms them. I also concur whatever was detestable in the Old Testament is still detestable before God today. As far as Christians are concerned, what is detestable in the Old Testament is forgiven in the New Testament by virtue the penalty of the Law is paid for by the Blood of Jesus.

 

Abominations (list sourced from All 613 Commandments in the Old Testament Law):

 

 

  • Women not to dress as a man (the context being to look like a man) – Deuteronomy 22:5

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Don’t eat unclean birds; example in Scripture: eagles, vultures, buzzards, ravens, owls, storks, herons, bats and their kind – Leviticus 11:13-19

 

  • Don’t eat creeping things that creep. According to Pulpit Commentary found at BibleHub.com: Verses 41-43. – The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (verses 29, 30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders. – Leviticus 11: 41-44

 

 

  • If divorce wife and she marries another and for whatever she becomes marriage eligible, can’t remarry her – Deuteronomy 24: 1-4

 

Some of these abominations seem quite ridiculous in this day and age. I have no idea if observant Jews adhere to the abomination list except I can confidently say the Temple burnt offering are not a concern today. Much of the dietary abominations could be reasoned with a gentile-Christian Redemption from Law’s penalty. A cursory examination shows that of the abomination list above only homosexuality (and some other sex no-nos) was a death sentence. Of the death sentences only homosexuality is a sex-sin abomination specifically listed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out sex-sins are bad, but homosexuality is really bad – Leviticus chapter 20. Pertaining to homosexuality is Leviticus 20: 13 (NKJV):

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

++

And, if the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants- then are they not “Sodomites” according to the Prophet Ezekiel?

 

Debbs you need to read Ezekiel a little better I think. In referencing sodomites and social programs to the poor, is NOT what Ezekiel said in which the context is the Jewish rulers living in Jerusalem:

 

46 “Your elder sister is Samaria, who dwells with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who dwells to the south of you, is Sodom and her daughters. 47 You did not walk in their ways nor act according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you became more corrupt than they in all your ways.

 

48 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.[a] (Ezekiel 16: 46-50 NKJV)

 

History lesson time: Samaria was the capital city of the 10 northern Hebrew tribes who retained the name Israel when the ten tribes separated from the two southern tribes which went by the name Judah. The northern tribal rulers had taken on the corrupt nature of their surrounding neighbor nations in becoming polytheistic which included temple prostitutes (male and female), sacrificing children in burnt offerings and other manners of social oppression.

 

Sodom had been destroyed long before the 12 Hebrew tribes formed a Jewish nation ultimately called Israel under the kings Saul. David and Solomon. Sodom’s destruction was in the days of Abraham. And we have already discussed the perversions that became so evil that God destroyed the people living in Sodom and its sister city-state Gomorrah. A clue to the most repulsive sin is that the homosexual sex-act of sodomy is named after Sodom.

 

In referencing Sodom and Samaria, Ezekiel is telling the rulers based in Jerusalem that they too will be destroyed as a nation. Sodom’s perversions resulted in obliteration by fire and brimstone. Samaria’s rejection of the God that freed them Egyptian slavery, resulted in a massive deportation of the ruling elite to an uncertain destination left to historical guess work.

 

Judah’s rulers had morally devolved as well and Ezekiel warned the end of the kingdom was coming unless they changed their ways. Judah’s rulers did not change and later during the days of the Prophet Isaiah the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar did to Judah what the Assyrian kings did to the northern tribes of Israel – deported the ruling elite:

 

The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian monarchs, Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) and Shalmaneser V. The later Assyrian rulers Sargon II and his son and successor, Sennacherib, were responsible for finishing the twenty-year demise of Israel’s northern ten-tribe kingdom, although they did not overtake the Southern Kingdom. Jerusalem was besieged, but not taken. The tribes forcibly resettled by Assyria later became known as the Ten Lost Tribes. … READ ENTIRE HISTORY (Assyrian captivity; Wikipedia; page was last edited 7/15/17 18:04)

 

As to your accusation against Conservatives: “… the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants”.

 

That is a load of hogwash. Cutting social programs is not the aim of Conservatives, rather ending fraud and waste inherent in the slave-making version of social programs. The religious right is highly involved in food for the poor and elderly without taxpayer dollars. The disabled will not have benefits cut and more than likely under Conservative management will have better access to effective healthcare rather than the bureaucratic delays and mismanagement occurring under Leftist management. AND your linkage of the poor and elderly in ancient Judah had no connection to the context Ezekiel made pertaining to Sodomites.

 

Ezekiel 16:49 ► Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. [They were Republican, right-wing conservative Christians].

 

Debbs a truer statement the “sister Sodom” was Dem Party Left-Wing morally depraved Secular Humanists

 

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
[Again, right wing conservatives, Donald Trump. Paul Ryan and Mitch Mcconnell]

Again, a better moral equivalence is the Left-Wing Dems like the corrupt Obama, Crooked Hillary, Loretta Lynch, other Obamaites and the lying Fake News Media.

My Republican Christian mother woke up in 2016 and was disgusted by all of the blatant lies, the hate, the racism, “religious people” ignoring their own moral standards, and her party’s determination to harm the middle class, disabled, and poor– while they give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and Billions in subsidies to corporations like Ford, GM, Intel, Alcoah, BofA, Exxon, Chevron, Goldman Sachs, etc. They serve corporations and only care about corporate profits- they do not serve the PEOPLE.

 

Your mother was lied to since most of 2016 was under the Leftist big government corrupt Obama, who taxed the crap out of the rich meaning he drove jobs to foreign nations further ruining the tax revenue to help support those bloated and often fraud-infested social programs you unwittingly serve.

 

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
So, every time a republican tells a lie, they should be stoned to death.

Again, the abominable lying lips are the Dems and Fake News propagandists trying to exact an unconstitutional coup against making America great rather than the empty and morally deficient such as Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Judah.

 

Clearly, if you look up the word “abomination” in an English dictionary, you will find that the word means “vile”, “wicked”, “wrong” and “hateful”. It is equally clear that the Bible was not written in English (but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). The 17th century translation of the Bible known as the King James Version (KJV) translates the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 in this way: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The term translated as “abomination” is the Hebrew expression תֹּועֵבָה (tō’ē’bā, a noun which may be pronounced “toevah”).

There is widespread agreement among Hebrew scholars that the word “toevah” as used in Leviticus is not, in fact, a moral term; instead, it is a cultic term which indicates “ritual uncleanness”. Any action that is said to be “toevah” is an action which requires a person to engage in ritual purification before they may come to worship. Sometimes, the term “toevah” can be used in the Bible to refer simply to sinful behaviour in general, but in the case of the text in question, scholars agree that ritual uncleanness is implied.

 

Debbs since you insist on using a theological revisionist evaluation of “abomination” translated toevah in Hebrew, I will use the respected and much touted Biblical lexicon (except among theological revisionists) called Strong’s Concordance (Make sure to click “Read More”):

 

it is abomination
tow`ebah (to-ay-baw’)
something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol — abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (Leviticus 18:22; BibleHub.com)

 

Did you see the word “morally”?

 

Skip Moen has an interesting take on “toevah”:

 

Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Leviticus 18:22 JPS [Blog Editor: Jewish Publication Society of America Version]

 

Abhorrence – When it comes to the Hebrew word to’evah (abomination, abhorrence), most discussions move immediately to this verse.  Why?  Because homosexuality is such a hot political/religious topic.  The incendiary comments on both sides offer plenty of garbage and confusion.  But little progress can be made without first understanding the framework and intention of the biblical concept of to’evot (plural).  After you have digested what we will discover, you might want to look at Jay Michaelson’s article claiming a mistranslation of the term (he misses the point of to’evot because he stands outside the culture).

 

To’evot are prohibitions within the cultural framework of Israel.  What is an abomination for those in the household of Israel is what God calls an abomination, period.  It doesn’t matter what the other nations do or what other arguments suggest.  If you are part of Israel, the things God calls abominations are prohibited to you.  Claims that other nations would not call some of these practices abhorrent are correct.  Other nations have different prohibitions.  But that is beside the point.  As followers of YHWH, we are not held accountable to the standards of other nations.  We are held accountable to the standards God sets for His nation.  In fact, the biblical record specifically demands that the followers of YHWH do not live as the other nations live in all kinds of areas, not just sexual practices.  With all of the contemporary fuss over homosexuality, we may overlook that fact that eating pork and forsaking the Torah are also considered to’evot.  The Tanakh lists several other practices, some considered perfectly acceptable in contemporary society, as abominations.  This should help us realize that we are not dealing with universalized human mores.  We are dealing with what God expects of His people.  And God expects that His people will not eat certain things, will not worship in certain ways, will not make certain vows and will not engage in certain sexual practices even if the rest of the world does so.  In other words, to’evot are marks of distinctive difference; the difference in behavior that accompanies being a citizen of the Kingdom.

 

Let’s set aside the claim that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. Frankly, it doesn’t matter.  The biblical issue with homosexuality is not about DNA, cultural mores or legality.  It is about identification with the tribe of Abraham.  Just as the tribe of Abraham is distinguished by its dietary restrictions, so it is distinguished by its sexual restrictions.  If you want to belong to the tribe, you live by the rules of the tribe.  You can live by other rules, but you won’t belong to the tribe.  You will belong to the “nations.”  You decide.  It’s still a choice.  It has always been a choice.  Of course, living by the mores of the nations ultimately means death, but that has always been the choice too. (Stepping In It – Rewind; By Skip Moen; SkipMoen.com; 11/17/16)

 

Moen’s assessment is that the Law of Moses is linked only to the Jews. His view is the Law has no applicability to people outside the covenant between God and Abraham. And he is correct. Except for one principle that makes people outside of God’s Promises to the Jews engrafted into a covenant. Ephesians 2: 11-18 tells how Jew and Gentile can be one through Jesus Christ. But for brevity read this portion:

 

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise …

 

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two …

 

Thus as I said, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God making the practice extremely immoral.

 

Thus, according to the same book of the Bible, eating pork is also said to be “toevah” (unclean). According to Leviticus 11:10, as rendered in the KJV, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.” This means that eating squid, prawns, lobsters and other shellfish is “toevah”. Similarly, according to this ancient text, any man who has sex with a menstruating woman has committed toevah (see Leviticus 20:18). [Blog Editor: I’m not Jewish but on a personal level I agree with the Bible – That is some nasty sex] And any person who commits toevah within ancient Israel could not join the community in its acts of worship until they had been ritually purified.

 

Answered with a combination of Skip Moen and Ephesians 2: 11-18 above.

 

Few today would regard shellfood [sic – she means shellfish] restaurants as abominations; not would most regard eating pork as an unclean act; and I don’t know anyone who believes a man has corrupted himself in any way by having sex with his wife during her menstrual cycle [Ibid. (grammar citation for dummies)]. Some may say that homosexuality is different, since the book of Leviticus also calls for the execution of those men who are found to have had sex with other men. But the Old Testament texts in question sanction the death penalty in all kinds of cases. The text tells us that a child (no age specified) who repeatedly disobeys his or her parents may be executed [ibid.]. The act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. And even having sex with a menstruating woman is worthy of death, according to this ancient body of literature (see Leviticus 20:18; Ezekiel 18:13, and many other texts to that effect). Who today regards any of these acts as unclean or meriting execution? [At least as far as Christians are concerned: Ibid.]

All of which brings us to a more central question. Why does the book of Leviticus describe sex between two men as “toevah”? Many people offer may answers to that question, and many of those answers have been aired recently on radio and elsewhere. But one possible explanation I haven’t heard outlined should be added to the mix. It is suggested by (amongst others) Rabbi Arthur Waskow (see his article: “Homosexuality and Torah Thought” [Blog Editor: Same author but similar title, “Emerging Torah of Same-Sex Marriage”]). He argues that the text of Leviticus itself reflects the world in which it was written, and this ancient world was a culture dominated by men which subordinated women [Blog Editor: A typical Leftist perspective of ignoring the origin in favor of present Leftist mandated cultural acceptance of man-made norms over the Creator]. This was a culture in which righteous men prayed daily giving thanks that they were not created female. Those who wrote this text would have regarded men having sex together as tantamount to one man playing (what was considered) a culturally inferior role (that of a woman) during sex [Blog Editor: Or men and women accepted the ordinance of God in their Jewish culture as mandated by the Law of Moses]. This would make a man less than a man, since he was making himself comparable to a woman. This would also explain why sex between two lesbians is not condemned in the Old Testament, since all women were thought to be of such inferior status that “neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters” [Blog Editor: OR culturally the women assumed what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Thus, the mandate for males would be presumed the same for females in a Jewish cultural setting honoring obedience to God’s Word].

 

Debbs is big with saying many theologians agree with her Left-Wing perspective of revised theology. When citing Rabbi Arthur Waskow she precedes his name in parenthesis the phrase “amongst others”. If the “amongst others” are of the same metal as her cited Rabbi let’s look at his theological credentials:

 

Arthur Ocean Waskow (born Arthur I. Waskow; 1933) is an American author, political activist, and rabbi associated with the Jewish Renewal movement. … READ THE REST OF WASKOW’S LEFTIST AFFILIATIONS AT WIKIPEDIA

 

My God, Waskow changed his middle name to “Ocean” probably due to the Marxist Globalist Green Movement of Climate Change (formerly called debunked Global Warming because the ice caps still exist and the East and West Coasts are not submerged by water).

 

Let’s examine just how revisionist the Jewish Renewal Movement is. This from a Jerusalem Post article that seems more favorable than critical. The JPost article is based on an interview with Rabbi i David Ingber of Romemu located in New York City (Manhattan):

 

On its website, Romemu describes itself as “attempting to transform the way Judaism is practiced and experienced by infusing aspects of Eastern spiritual practices with traditional Orthodox influences, so the ta’am, or taste, is unmistakably Jewish.”

Besides incorporating moments of meditation and early Saturday morning yoga, Romemu’s services are filled with music and Jewish chants in which the fully egalitarian congregation takes part, and to which it even dances or claps, as the mood strikes.

Several instruments are used each week, including a piano, darbuka drums, guitars and, on occasion, a double bass.

But the main characteristic of the Friday night and Saturday morning ceremonies, Ingber explained, is that the liturgy and traditional Jewish texts are made more accessible by juxtaposing Hebrew and English; focusing on less, but fully exploring prayers; and connecting texts with their meaning in modern times.

 

…

 

Romemu subscribes to a fairly recent approach to Judaism known as Jewish renewal, based on deep textual knowledge and a need to make the liturgy more accessible and relevant. (JEWISH RENEWAL: EXPERIMENTAL OR ESTABLISHED MOVEMENT? By DANIELLE ZIRI; Jerusalem Post; 12/26/16 01:51)

 

The key words and/or phrases that connect Jewish Renewal to a revisionist Judaism are: Eastern spiritual practices, modern times, fairly recent approach and relevant. All words justifying paths to replace the Creator with a human vision of spiritual reality. The same human attitudes that destroyed Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. When humans defy God, God withdraws His protective Hand.

 

These are the kinds of issues being debated by scholars [Blog Editor: as in revisionist scholars] of the Hebrew Bible, and their considerations should be included in our continuing public debate about the use of an ancient text in the 21st century. [Blog Editor: I say NO to human revisionism and YES to the will of the Creator!] There is much more to be said, of course [Blog Editor: More said to stop revisionism against God’s Word] — and this post does not consider, for example, the New Testament passages concerning same-sex sexual intercourse [Blog Editor: Probably because they are more specific about homosexuality and Redemption from the penalty of the Law]. Nevertheless, if the Bible is going to be drawn into public debates about controversial social and moral issues, we can surely all agree that it is important to try to do justice to what the Bible actually says.

 

Doing “justice” is another Socialist/Marxist/Leftist synonym for transforming society into Leftist Secular Humanism in order to disregard that which God calls Holy and replacing with that which is human carnality.

 

JRH 7/22/17

Please Support NCCR 

Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda


Gay Agenda Demands

Accuracy in Media (AIM) sent an email explaining the real stats on homosexuality and transgenderism in America.

 

In America these alternate lifestyle morons can choose this ungodly immoral path. The U.S. Constitution guarantees these individual rights – even for the ungodly. HOWEVER, the Constitution does not guarantee or entitle the ungodly and immoral to force their views or lifestyles on other Americans – Christian or otherwise.

 

The height of bigotry is when America’s significant and huge non-LGBT majority is forced to comply to the designs and accommodations of the significant and tiny minority. I realize that is my opinion and I can hardly wait for the few homosexuals and Leftists that will barrage me with disparaging profanity.

 

God tells me to reject the lifestyle of the ungodly and that works for me:

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. – Leviticus 18: 22 NKJV

 

+++

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. – Leviticus 20: 13 NKJV

 

+++

 

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

 

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

 

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. – (Bold Emphasis is mine) Romans 1: 16, 18, 20-22, 24-28, 32 NKJV

Would U Risk Soul for Gay Agenda

I am using the AIM email as an intro and/or summary to the report it is reporting which is by Peter LaBarbera. The LaBarbera Report looks at real stats and facts which Homosexual activists obfuscate or downright lie.

 

JRH 8/20/16

Please Support NCCR

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

AIM Special Report: Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda

 

Sent by AIM

Sent: 8/19/2016 9:11 AM

 

The mainstream media have promoted a number of myths about homosexuality and transgenderism, including that being gay has a genetic component. A new AIM Special Report by Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, explodes this and other myths that are harming American society by helping to promote the acceptance of sexual lifestyles that are both unsafe and immoral.

 

The LGBT media lobby is working overtime to convince Americans that gays are a major force in America, and that there are significant numbers of homosexuals and transgenders. In reality, these individuals account for about 3 percent of the population, yet have an oversized effect on popular culture and political correctness.

 

“Some researchers are coming forth with alternative theories linking the development of adult homosexual identity to childhood trauma, e.g., incest between twins or child molestation,” writes LaBarbera in the AIM Special Report. “Interestingly, two prominent openly homosexual TV personalities—CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts—were sexually assaulted as boys by homosexual adult predators.”

 

In this report you will learn that:

 

  • The assertion that 10 percent of the population are LGBT is an unsupported myth.

 

  • Transsexual “sex reassignment surgeries” often do not produce happiness, and many of these individuals consider suicide post-operation.

 

  • LGBT activists are pushing radical “transgender” ideology on children, even to the point of encouraging underage kids to get body-destroying surgeries.

 

  • Children who are raised in homosexual and transsexual households are suffering.

 

Instead of the media promoting this “alternative lifestyle,” Americans desperately need the press to educate society about its inherent risks.

 

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Peter LaBarbera, contact Spencer Irvine at 202-364-4401, ext. 103, or preferably by email at spencer.irvine@aim.org.

 

***********

Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda

 

By Peter LaBarbera

August 19, 2016

Accuracy in Media

 

Warning: This report contains some offensive descriptions

 

The purpose of this report is to expose and refute some of the longstanding statistical lies and propagandistic myths of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement. With media support, homosexual and leftist activists now openly campaign to banish dissenting conservative voices. This dangerous dynamic gives the homosexual-transgender lobby nearly full rein to advance its agenda, which now includes:

 

  • Levying large fines to punish Christians and traditionalists who do not want to participate with their small business in homosexual “weddings”;

 

  • Criminalizing pro-heterosexual change therapy for sexually confused minors;

 

  • Using the government to force schools and businesses to allow “transgenders”—e.g., men who think they are women—to use public female (opposite-sex) restrooms and locker rooms;

 

  • Using LGBT “nondiscrimination” laws to mandate that public schools and businesses punish anyone who does not adhere to politically-correct transgender-inclusive language—such as using “zir” instead of “her.” New York City now demands “respect” for 31 “gender identities,” including “genderqueer,” “third sex” and “pangender”;

 

  • Taxpayer-funding for horrifying, body-disfiguring “sex reassignment surgeries,” e.g., a woman having her healthy breasts surgically removed to look like a flat-chested “man,” or a man having his penis surgically destroyed to craft a makeshift “vagina”;

 

  • Allowing transsexuals into the U.S. military, and paying for their destructive, gender-bending “surgeries” in the name of “health care”;

 

 

  • Teaching very young children—even kindergartners—to accept homosexuality and the radical “transgender” idea that they can choose a “gender identity” that does not match their biological sex.

 

o awash is the public in pro-homosexual propaganda that a 2011 Gallup poll found the average American “guesstimated” that a whopping 25 percent of the population is “gay.” (Women and people under 30 put the number even higher, at around 30 percent.) The actual percentage of homosexual men, lesbians and bisexuals in the U.S. population is just 2.3 percent (see below).

 

The 10 Percent Myth

 

The “10 percent” myth is one of the most enduring propaganda claims of the homosexual activist movement. Concocted in the late 1970s by Bruce Voeller, founder of the National Gay Task Force (predecessor of today’s National LGBTQ Task Force), it was accompanied by the slogan, “We Are Everywhere.”

 

Thus, just as “gay” militants pressured and bullied America’s mental health professionals to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973, they greatly exaggerated the homosexual population to expand their political power in subsequent years. And the media duly cooperated by promoting the statistical sham. For decades American reporters treated the 10 percent claim—a misreading of deviant, pioneering “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey’s discredited research—as fact, using it to “report” huge numbers of alleged homosexuals in society.

 

The 10 percent myth served its purpose of projecting enormous “gay” political strength when the movement was still weak. But study after study came up with estimates of the homosexual-bisexual population under 5 percent. A massive 2014 survey of 35,557 Americans by the federal National Center for Health Statistics dealt a death blow to the Ten Percent claim. It found that only 1.6 percent of those polled identified as “gay or lesbian,” while 0.7 percent said they were “bisexual.” In 2011 the pro-LGBT Williams Institute at UCLA estimated that 0.3 percent identified as transgender. Thus a combined estimate for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders in America is around 3 percent.

 

Born Gay?—No Way

 

Another popular “gay” activist myth is the notion that homosexuals are “born that way.” This convenient narrative—stoked for many years by LGBT advocates—takes morality out of the homosexual debate by suggesting that homosexuals are not responsible for their sexual behaviors because “being gay” is a genetic part of “who they are.”

 

From a scientific perspective, however, the “born gay” myth—like its bogus “10 Percent Gay” counterpart—has fallen on hard times. In the 1990s, talk of a “gay gene” was all the rage after then-closeted homosexual researcher Dean Hamer published a media-ballyhooed 1993 study in the journal Science purporting to find a “genetic marker” for male homosexual “orientation.” But Science could not replicate its own study, and other attempts failed as well. Now genetic homosexuality is no longer in vogue, although the possibility of a “gay gene” still excites reporters.

 

The most serious blow to the “gay gene” theory has come from identical twin studies. Once used to promote the idea of inborn homosexuality, they are now widely seen as demonstrating the opposite. Dr. Neil Whitehead, one of the world’s leading conservative researchers on the issue states:

 

“From six studies (2000-2011): if an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances that the co-twin has it too, are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

 

“Because they have identical DNA [concordance on sexual orientation it] ought to be 100 percent” Dr. Whitehead told OrthodoxNet.com.

 

Childhood Trauma and “Gayness”

 

Finally, some researchers are coming forth with alternative theories linking the development of adult homosexual identity to childhood trauma, e.g., incest between twins or child molestation. (Interestingly, two prominent openly homosexual TV personalities—CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts—were sexually assaulted as boys by homosexual adult predators.)

 

A 2015 study led by Keith Beard and published in the journal Cogent Psychology found that, “Same-sex sibling incest also significantly increased the likelihood that participants would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning (rather than homosexual).”

 

Notably, the authors of the study took pains to issue a gay-affirming disclaimer: “Our results were consistent with the idea that the sexual orientation of adults cannot be changed.”

 

Is it not cruel to tell a man who was raped as a boy by an adult pervert—or seduced into incestuous sex by an older brother—that he is now destined to be stuck with a deviant and immoral sexual identity for the rest of his life? With so many ex-“gays” like Dennis Jernigan proclaiming freedom from past homosexuality, how can anyone—journalist, gay activist or scholar—claim that adults cannot change their “sexual orientation?”

 

The “Born Gay” Myth Is Still Popular

 

Tragically, despite growing evidence to the contrary, about half of Americans surveyed still believe that homosexuals are “born that way,” according to a 2015 Gallup poll. Gallup has polled on this and other homosexual issues every year since 1977. In that initial year, only 13 percent of Americans believed people were “born with” homosexuality while 56 percent cited a person’s “upbringing and environment” as the main causative factors. By 2013, those findings were reversed, and a record 51 percent of respondents believed homosexuals were born with that inclination while a record low of 30 percent cited environmental factors.

 

Such data shows the tremendous, suffocating power of the media to drive the “gay” debate. Now the same media are working overtime to mainstream transgenderism, which is also said to be an innate condition.

 

Homosexuals Can Change

 

There is no truth despised by homosexual activists more than the simple reality that people who once lived as “gay” or lesbian (or “transgender”) can change and live honorably according to the natural, created purpose of their bodies before God. Homosexual activists continue to assert that people cannot change their “sexual orientation”—ignoring the many testimonies of people like Stephen Black and Dr. Rosaria Butterfield who have overcome the pull of homosexuality in their lives. See this Mastering Life Ministries website for video testimonials of ex-homosexuals. Notably, ex-“gays” rarely get serious treatment in the media—rewarding the lobby efforts of powerful LGBT media pressure groups like GLAAD.

 

Now the pro-homosexual lobby, including leftist allied groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center—mislabeled as a “civil rights group” by news organizations—have taken it up a notch by pushing for state and national laws to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors. Such anti-freedom laws now exist in California, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont and the District of Columbia. President Obama has endorsed a federal bill designed to ban so-called “conversion” (change) therapy for minors. This highly dangerous legislation would curtail the freedom of parents and children—including those victimized by homosexual predators—to pursue the healthy change they desire.

 

Dangerous “Sex Reassignment” Surgeries

 

Walt Heyer is a former transsexual who went through “male-to-female” “sex reassignment surgery” to become his female alter ego (“Laura”). Heyer was not “born transgender” but instead the childhood victim of some tragic circumstances—including a grandmother who dressed him up in fancy dress when he was a little boy. Now he has regained his natural male identity and urges gender-confused men not to go through the radical operations and hormone therapy to pursue a fantasy. See Heyer’s website, SexChangeRegret.com.

 

Heyer cites the testimony of Dr. Paul McHugh, the Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who shut down the university’s “sex reassignment surgery” program after studying the outcomes of men who went through the “sex change” operations compared to those who did not. Wrote McHugh in 2014:

 

“Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as ‘satisfied’ by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

 

Transgenderism Harms Children

 

Dr. McHugh saves his most devastating critique for those adults who would foist radical transsexual surgeries and hormone treatments on the very young and gender-confused teenagers (emphasis added):

 

“Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

 

“Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80 percent of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.”

 

To echo Dr. McHugh’s warning, the American College of Pediatricians, a pro-family alternative to the reliably pro-homosexual American Academy of Pediatricians, recently put out an outstanding statement, “Gender Ideology Harms Children,” which includes among its points:

 

  • Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous…

 

  • According to the DSM-V [the APA’s diagnostic manual for mental disorders] as many as 98 percent of gender confused boys and 88 percent of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

 

  • Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

 

  • Rates of suicide are 20 times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ—affirming countries.

 

  • Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthy is child abuse.

 

Children of Homosexuals and Transgenders Suffer

 

Homosexual activists rely on “gay”-authored research with sloppy methodology to claim that there is “no difference” between homosexual and normal, mom-and-dad households—and sometimes assert that “gay”-led parenting is superior to the traditional variety. But again, the facts suggest otherwise.

 

Writes Jamie Bryan Hall, citing the work of Catholic University sociology professor Dr. Paul Sullins, who analyzed data from the federal National Health Interview Survey from 1997 to 2013:

 

“Controlling for child sex, age, and race and parents’ education and income, Dr. Sullins finds that children of parents in same-sex relationships fare significantly worse than those of opposite-sex parents on nine of 12 measures of emotional or developmental problems and their use of mental health treatment. In general, children of parents in same-sex relationships are about two to three times more likely to experience such problems.

 

In his most extensive statistical analysis, in which he also takes into account relationship stability, stigmatization, and parents’ psychological distress, Sullins finds the prevalence of emotional problems among children living with same-sex parents to be 4.5 times as high as among children living with their married biological parents, three times as high as children living with a married stepparent, 2.5 times as high as those with cohabiting parents, and three times as high as children with a single parent.”

 

There are now many moving firsthand testimonies available from men and women who grew up in homes with homosexual or transsexual parents. See Dawn Stefanowicz’s testimony of life with her promiscuous “gay” dad, and Denise Shick’s story of living with a selfish, cross-dressing father.

 

Homosexuals and Health Problems

 

In every area of life, “gay” activists apply their egalitarian formula to posit a moral equivalence between homosexuality and normalcy (heterosexuality). But what Dr. Sullins wrote in 2004 remains true today:

 

“Like abortion, homosexuality is associated with increased problems of mental health and distress. Though rarely acknowledged in popular media or discourse, emerging epidemiological evidence in the past decade has clearly established a link between homosexuality and mental illness or emotional problems.”

 

The Obama administration’s successful campaign to allow male homosexuals to donate blood has exposed how the LGBT lobby is more concerned about scoring another “gay rights” win than protecting our nation’s blood supply. It is as if the many thousands of stories over the last few decades including those about the AIDS crisis—showing the high correlation between “Men who have Sex with Men” (MSM) and various diseases—had never been published. Consider these facts from the Centers for Disease Control CDC (emphasis added):

 

 

 

  • Hepatitis—“New research shows that gay men who are HIV-positive and have multiple sex partners may increase their risk for Hepatitis C.”

 

  • Shigellosis—“Anyone can get shigellosis but it is recognized more often in young children. Those who may be at greater risk include children in daycare centers, foreign travelers to certain countries, institutionalized people and people exposed to human feces through sexual contact.”

 

 

More than 25 years ago, Americans were shocked as “gay” activists and educators introduced children’s picture books like Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexual behavior and “gay families” as natural and harmless. Now a new generation of very young children is growing up with picture books like My Princess Boy (available at Walmart.com) that popularize and glamorize extreme gender confusion.

 

Unless citizens demand an end to the media’s incessant promotion of the gay and transgender agenda, it will be too late to return America to a state of sexual sanity, in which the health and well-being of our children is protected, instead of being undermined.

 

Helpful Websites

 

American College of Pediatricians (ACOP)—A pro-family alternative to the pro-LGBT American Association of Pediatrics (AAP); Excellent resource: “Gender Ideology Harms Children”

 

SexChangeRegret.com—A website by former transsexual Walt Heyer

 

MassResistance.org—A site that does excellent work exposing LGBTQ activism

 

FactsAboutYouth.com—Produced by the American College of Pediatricians (ACOP)

 

NARTH.com and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity—Websites that present scholarly research from opponents of “gay” advocates; provide evidence for pro-heterosexual change through therapy; defend right to treatment for people seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions

 

Mastering Life Ministries—Features dozens of heart-warming ex-“gay” video testimonials and is founded by former homosexual David Kyle Foster; a Christian site that also contains resources on overcoming: sex and porn addiction, child sexual abuse and transgender confusion

 

CDC has a site on STDs and Gay & Bisexual Men—The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is strongly pro-homosexual, but its reports provide ample evidence on the relationship between homosexual/bisexual behavior and disease. Start here.

 

RobGagnon.net—A site by Prof. Robert Gagnon, a leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality

 

Help 4 Families—A transgender resource, a Christian ministry to families of transsexuals headed up by Denise Shick, whose own father desired to be a woman

 

mygenes.co.nz—Dr. Neil Whitehead’s “My Genes” website; a leading site presenting academic research debunking genetic homosexuality; Dr. Whitehead is the author of My Genes Made Me Do It: Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence

 

Public Discourse—Witherspoon Institute site with excellent essays on homosexuality and gender issues

 

Heritage Foundation—Heritage Foundation discusses family and marriage issues; has excellent public policy research

 

AmericansForTruth.org – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reports on and confronts the homosexual/transgender agenda.

 

____________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), and a former reporter for the Washington Times. He can be reached by email: americansfortruth@gmail.com

 

©2016 by Accuracy in Media. All Right Reserved.

 

Donate to AIM

 

 

Homosexuality & Islam in Light of the Orlando Massacre


Profiles with Christian and Islamic symbols

John R. Houk

© June 17, 2016

 

The Orlando Massacre conducted by the Muslim Omar Mateen opens all sorts controversial issues among the American people.

 

Among my fellow Conservatives it was an easy guess before details were released. it was another Muslim on a killing spree in which President Barack Hussein Obama would not acknowledge Islamic terrorism.

 

Among the Leftists the massacre was all about gun control and those crazy Right Wingers insisting the 2nd Amendment allowing citizens to arm themselves to the teeth for protection.

 

Of course those to knee jerk reactions probably have some middle ground in which of course I lean more toward pro-2nd Amendment Conservatives. (We who believe the government has become a huge albatross rather than a limited government. We simply do not trust how big government hijacks individual Liberty.)

 

The Orlando Massacre has evolved into so much more than the first knee jerk reactions of the Left and Right. We can add to the controversial list:

 

  • Homosexual activism vs. Christian Morality.

 

  • Muslim immigration (even though Mateen was a natural born American of Afghan parentage) vs. Homeland Security.

 

  • Are so-called Muslim moderates condemning the massacre out Taqiyya (deception) to America’s non-Muslim majority while secretly praising the statutes of Islamic Sharia and Allah’s will toward homosexuals?

 

  • Is ISIS directly pulling terrorist puppet strings among young Muslim immigrants and homegrown Muslims?

 

  • Are Muslims in America (citizen or not) following the Caliphate agenda that is propagated by more than just ISIS? Such as the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates, Wahhabi proponents, various foreign Salafist groups and the Twelver Shias of Iran. In this case the issue is the S. Constitution Liberties vs. Caliphate Sharia Law.

 

  • Biblical Christians vs. Progressive Christians on defining morality based on the Bible vs. Modern Humanistic Multicultural mores.

 

  • These are just some issues off the top of my head, I am confident you could add to this list.

 

 

I’d like to address two issues that I am constantly criticized for by the Left. Those two issues are the epithetical words Homophobia and Islamophobia.

 

The literal meaning of those words is something I find umbrage with, which is likely one reason Leftists love to cast the words as grenades designed to shut someone up.

 

A Homophobe literally is one who has an unnatural fear of homosexuals. And an Islamophobe is one who has an unnatural fear of Muslims or the Islamic theopolitical religion. Most dictionaries take the epithet version that may run something like hatred, fear, prejudice and so on toward homosexuals or Muslims.

 

Let’s define phobia to get to my point.

 

The Free Dictionary Phobia definitions:

 

pho·bi·a -n

 

  1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite theawareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

 

  1. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

 

Phobia -n [C19: from Greek phobos fear]

 

(Psychiatry) psychiatry an abnormal intense and irrational fear of a given situation, organism, or object, also phobism

 

pho•bi•a  –n., pl. -bi•as. [1780–90; extracted from nouns ending in -phobia]

 

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

 

-phobia [< Latin < Greek, =-phob(os) -phobe + -ia -ia]

 

A combining form meaning “dread of,” “phobic aversion toward,” “unreasonable antipathy toward” a given object: agoraphobia; xenophobia

 

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA phobia excerpt:

 

Phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer. Phobias are thought to be learned emotional responses. It is generally held that phobias occur when fear produced by an original threatening situation is transferred to other similar situations, with the original fear often repressed or forgotten. An excessive, unreasoning fear of water, for example, may be based on a forgotten childhood experience of almost drowning. The person accordingly tries to avoid that situation in the future, a response that, while reducing anxiety in the short term, reinforces the person’s association of the situation with the onset of anxiety.

 

The point is a phobia has more to do with fear and anxiety than hatred and prejudice. I neither have fear nor anxiety around homosexuals and Muslims (except perhaps in cases of the threat of physical violence which certainly comes from both groups when their agenda or ideology has openly been criticized.) Neither do I hate homosexuals and Muslims. However, there might be some benign prejudice against both groups but not for their lifestyles or beliefs. Rather my prejudice stems from both groups having militant factions that castigate Christianity.

 

Among homosexual activists their hate is seen in imposing their lifestyle to point forcing a Christian to submit to accepting the homosexuality even though specifically condemned by the Word of God.

 

Among Muslims, their considered holy and revered writings specifically call out Jews and Christians (aka People of the Book in the Quran) as people to despise and kill if they do not submit to the supremacy of Islam.

 

Homosexuality and the Bible

 

The Bible is fairly specific that only amending the words changes the intended meanings. (But Leftist-oriented people enjoy changing Original Intent [See Also HERE] wording to imposed Humanistic evolving meanings.)

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24, 26-28; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 (NKJV)

 

Leviticus 18:22

 

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Leviticus 20:13

 

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans 1:24, 26-28

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

After reading these Holy Scriptures, Homosexuals typically hurl profanity my way in the comment section or the more civilized Homosexuals begin a lecture telling me I am bigoted in no uncertain terms. I never receive the animosity of condemnation from homosexuals because – well, the Creator of all that exists spoke the Words. I just shared them. Their real problem is not being accepted by the Creator so typically they deny the Creator exists or vainly attempt to redefine the Original Intent of God’s Word.

 

To save a little time in the comment section, I do have some Good News from the Word of God:

 

Romans 7:21-25; 8:1-4, 11-14, 22-25, 31-39 (NKJV)

 

Romans 7:21-25

 

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

Romans 8:1-4

 

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

Romans 8:11-14

 

11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

 

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

 

 

Romans 8:22-25

 

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

 

Romans 8:31-39

 

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:

 

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”[a]

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

If you are subject to any action separating you from God Almighty in Christ and have read down this far, you are probably interested in this Good News that we can all be Redeemed through the same Resurrection power that raised our Lord from the dead. If that be the case I encourage you to read Romans chapters 1-16. Herein is the true Love of God that unfortunately longtime Christians too often forget themselves.

 

I realize that contrasting the homosexual lifestyle with Biblical Morality smacks of Christian Supremacism. The thing is the Christian Supremacism I advocate is absolutely non-violent. When a person claiming to be a Christian responds to the homosexual lifestyle with violence, that is just as ungodly as homosexuality. The only justification for violence is self-defense against violent actions.

 

Which leads me to the difference between Christian Supremacism and Islamic Supremacism.

 

Christianity vs. Islam

 

The difference between Christian (i.e. Biblical) Supremacism and Islamic Supremacism is that Christians are to share the Good News of the Redemptive act of Jesus Christ the Son of God in which hearer freely chooses to believe or disbelieve with no consequence until the Last Judgment. After sifting through all the abrogated suras of the Quran, Muslims share the supremacy of their Prophet and their deity Allah and if you choose reject the Muslim invitation you have three Quranic choices: Convert, not convert but acknowledge Islam is superior to your beliefs OR die.

 

Here are some annotated Quran suras that highlight how Muslims are to treat Jews, Christians and polytheists from The Religion of Peace:

 

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

 

…

 

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

 

…

 

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

 

…

 

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

 

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”

 

…

 

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

 

…

 

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions. “This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

 

…

 

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

 

…

 

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

 

… READ ENTIRETY (What Does Islam Teach About… Violence; The Religion of Peace; ©2002 – 2016 All Rights Reserved)

 

Trust me there is more in website list of the Quran. I tried to focus on Islam’s perspective on non-Muslims, but the website also addresses violence against Muslims who apostate their religion or do not properly follow its directives. Then The Religion of Peace examines violence against non-Muslims found in the revered (but not considered words of Allah via Mohammed) writings of the Hadith and Sira.

 

Now if directed violence against Jews, Christians and polytheists is not bad enough, there are the Quranic suras that blaspheme Christianity in particular (But again the New Testament does not command to render for evil but only in self-defense from physical violence).

 

The centrality of Christian faith is that Jesus is the Son of God born from a human vessel Mary who at the time was a virgin. Thus Jesus is fully God and fully man in nature. Jesus’ divine nature made him the perfect sacrifice to pay for Adam’s fall and reunite humanity with God Almighty. (Yes, I’m aware my Jewish friends disagree with this, but they don’t want to kill me over our disagreement) That sacrifice was seen in Jesus unjustly accused of crimes he didn’t commit and being killed on the Cross. THEN three days later the Power of the Father resurrects the Son in bodily form clothed with the Divine glory Jesus had before he was incarnated as a human in Mary’s womb.

 

Christians disagree on various points but the above is what all sects and Denominations agree on as a matter of faith in God’s Grace in Jesus Christ. So what does the Quran say about the central faith of Christianity? From a Christian perspective it is blasphemous:

 

JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD

 

The Qu’ran clearly states that Allah has NO son.

 

“They say, ‘God has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Whould you say of God what you know not?” — Qur’an 10:68

 

“Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is.” —Qur’an 19:35

 

“Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!” — Qur’an 19:88

 

“Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods!” — Qur’an 23:91

 

Clearly, the Qu’ran denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (THE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE VS. THE ALLAH OF THE QU’RAN; By Geri Ungurean; Now The End Begins; 5/8/15)

 

Quran on Death and Resurrection

 

Quran 4:156-158 (SAHIH INTERNATIONAL)

 

And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

 

There Islamic theologians that have developed a view of a substitution theory in that Judas was crucified in place of Jesus. Which includes a later death of Jesus and “Allah” raising the natural death body of Jesus into Islam’s heaven. Here are some excerpts:

 

… Even so, the Jews were not satisfied, and they went to the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars. They told him that there was a man in Bayt Al-Maqdis misguiding and dividing the people in Jerusalem and stirring unrest among the king’s subjects. The king became angry and wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest the rebel leader, stop him from causing unrest, crucify him and make him wear a crown of thorns. When the king’s deputy in Jerusalem received these orders, he went with some Jews to the house that `Isa was residing in, and he was then with twelve, thirteen or seventeen of his companions. That day was a Friday, in the evening. They surrounded `Isa in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, “Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise” A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, “Well then, you will be that man.” Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said,

(And (remember) when Allah said: “O `Isa! I will take you and raise you to Myself.”) When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur’an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence. …

… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 4:157)

 

Tafsir al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant tafsirs for the study of the Qur’an. … Tafsir al-Jalalayn is generally regarded as one of the most easily accessible works of Qur’anic exegesis because of its simple style and one volume length. …

 

Al-Jalalayn on [Quran] 4:157

 

… And yet they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but he, the one slain and crucified, who was an associate of theirs [the Jews], was given the resemblance, of Jesus. In other words, God cast his [Jesus’s] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus]. And those who disagree concerning him, that is, concerning Jesus, are surely in doubt regarding, the slaying of him, for some of them said, when they saw the slain man: the face is that of Jesus, but the body is not his, and so it is not he; and others said: no, it is he. They do not have any knowledge of, the slaying of, him, only the pursuit of conjecture … (Tafsir Al Jalalayn on 4:157)

 

As pointed out elsewhere on Answering-Islam (*), there is disagreement on who substituted Christ:

 

“1. God made someone look like Jesus who was then crucified in the place of Christ. This is known as the substitution theory, but this interpretation is beset with many problems. First, who in fact was made to look like Christ? Muslims were not unanimous:

A. Some say that it was Judas.

B. Others say it was one of Jesus’ disciples.

C. Still others say that it was a Roman soldier named Titawus.”

 

The Swoon Theory

 

2. Jesus was crucified but did not die. He swooned on the cross and later recovered.

Although the swoon theory is held mainly by the Ahmaddiyas and the Nation of Islam, groups that are considered heretical, there are also orthodox Sunni Muslims who have adopted this theory as well. The most famous Sunni to adopt and embrace this view for polemical purposes is Ahmed Deedat.

Akbarally Meherally is another one who has decided to embrace this theory (Article 1, Article 2). Meherally even goes so far as to deny the substitution theory.

Muslim apologist Shabir Ally tried to defend this theory (quite unsuccessfully I might add) in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus of Nazareth Physically Rise from the Dead?”, held on Monday, March 4, 2003 at the University of Toronto. …

 

…

 

The Legend Theory

3. The crucifixion didn’t even happen but was a later invention/legend. The late Muhammad Asad held this view:

Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many FANCIFUL LEGENDS telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these LEGENDS finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-sakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as “but it only appeared to them as if it had been so” – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). … (see Qamas, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500). (p. 134, fn. 171, online source; capital and underlined emphasis ours)

 

The Natural Death Theory

Moiz Amjad of Understanding-Islam.com defends his theory that the Qur’an teaches Jesus died naturally here.

 

9th Century Muslim Historian Al Tabari:

 

… This article establishes the view of Al-Tabari and his position that Jesus was crucified and raised into heaven.

 

… READ ENTIRETY (The Confusion of Islam regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ; By Derik Adams; Answering Islam)

 

Yeah, I don’t care whichever Muslim tells you the Allah of the Quran is the same as God Almighty of the Bible. The discrepancies and the time period that Mohammed lived in simply discredits Quran as at the very least a collection of Mohammed sayings he copied to entice Jews and Christians to accept him as a Prophet and enough Arab theo-philosophy to convince medieval Arab minds that there must be something to this desert pirate – after all he keeps winning and supplying his adherents with blood-bought booty.

 

But here is the clincher why every Christian should disdain Islam. That theopolitical religion is an antichrist ideology designed to fool Christians into denying the Son of God as the Resurrected expiation of the fall of Adam.

 

Matthew 24:4-5, 23-25; 1 John 2:18, 22-25; 4:1-3 (NKJV)

 

Matthew 24:4-5, 23-25

 

4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.

 

23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

 

1 John 2:18, 22-25

 

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a]Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

 

1 John 4:1-3

 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

 

I have some Good News for Muslim adherents. That news is the exact same as that above to those who choose a homosexual lifestyle. Makes Jesus Christ the Son of God, Who arose from the dead to everlasting life on the third after His Crucifixion and now sits at the right hand of the Father making continuous intercession on behalf who believe on Him as their Lord – one of the three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Who is ONE GOD.

 

Romans 7:21-25; 8:1-4, 11-14, 22-25, 31-39 (NKJV)

 

JRH 6/17/16

Please Support NCCR

 

Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks


Gay Agenda Attack Plan Results

 

Intro to ‘Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks’

Edited by John R. Houk

Essay by Mychal Massie

May 13, 2016

 

As a Christian Right kind of guy I usually condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a Biblical ungodly act. God’s Word settles that for me regardless of how many Leftists, Multiculturalists and homosexual activists call me a bigot.

 

Leviticus 18:22New King James Version (NKJV)

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Leviticus 20:13New King James Version (NKJV)

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans 1:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,

 

1 Timothy 1:9-10New King James Version (NKJV)

9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 6: 9; 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 NKJV – h/t Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!)

 

Like I said, the Word of God works for me.

 

Thanks to Donald Moore of the Blind Conservative private group, I found a fantastic essay that goes beyond the Word of God. Mychal Massie analyzes the Civil Rights Act showing how he disagrees with homosexual activists that the Constitution AND the Civil Rights Act guarantees civil rights for homosexuals (a lifestyle choice not biology). The Civil Rights Act secures equal rights for American citizens of women, creed, race and/or religion.

 

JRH 5/13/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks

Civil Rights Movement banner 

By Mychal Massie

May 12, 2016

The Daily Rant

 

The following is my [i.e. Mychal Massie] syndicated column dated June 5, 2013. I present it again as a favor to a subscriber. It is also a reminder that the battle is ongoing.
**************************

 

Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.

 

Blacks were prevented based on the color of their skin alone in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, to vote, to purchase property where they chose, eat wherever they desired, attend events, ad nauseum.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as same. It reads:

“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

 

The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the 14th Amendment.

 

Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent, and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of their race and/or color.

 

While discrimination based on sexual preference is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because they have an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest as long as it is legal is protected, and it should be.

 

But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that guards against discrimination, its [sic] not to be used as cover for a malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct. Christian organizations must hire homosexuals and I find that fair (after all what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to seek employment elsewhere.

 

There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of their clergy.

 

Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life and death decisions for those they co-habit with, etc. This too is a specious and fallacious argument. Heterosexuals co-habiting outside the bonds of marriage do not have the right to make such decisions either.

 

That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make decisions for them in the event of one or the other becoming unable to make the decision for themselves.

 

Two men can purchase a property together; they can get health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries, and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of heterosexuals.

 

I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social construct by redefining marriage and family.

 

Legislating an employment and social environment that codifies the ability of an employee to present themselves in ways that are detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.

 

It is maddening that a person can be discriminated against pursuant to employment and home renting because they smoke cigarettes. But nothing is said to address the fact that the Centers for Disease Control paint a horrifyingly high incidence for deadly disease with respect to the practice of homosexuality – including a staggeringly high rate of breast cancer incidences among lesbian women juxtaposed to heterosexual women.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent total of the population they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. (American Journal of Public Health; ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)

 

I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists to tell people to flea [sic] the practice than it does to claim they are being denied civil rights.

_____________________

About Mychal Massie

 

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. … Read the entire Bio here

 

The Daily Rant – A Mychal S. Massie Publication

 

Support Link for The Daily Rant 2016

 

How Many More Moral Dominoes Fall?


John R. Houk

© August 24, 2015

Tell me, does anyone recognize any of these moral condemnations found in Leviticus 18 that is considerable acceptable and not heinous in today’s American society?

6 ‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord.

19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. 20 Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her. 21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (Leviticus 18: 6, 19-23 NKJV)

Verse six addresses incest. The verses from six to eighteen specifically addresses the various incestuous relationships that God Almighty condemns as breaking His divine moral standards for living for God rather than against God.

Verse nineteen addresses having sex (with your own wife – duh) with a woman while on her period is not approved by God.

Verse twenty addresses having sex with a woman married to someone else; i.e. adultery. Yeah I know, this Scripture doesn’t address a woman sleeping with another woman’s husband. But again – duh – do the math.

Verse twenty-one addresses taking your babies and sacrificing them alive (as in burning them to death in homage to the fake-god or perhaps demon entity, Molech. ALSO in the same verse – as in the same breath – DO NOT profane the NAME of GOD.

Verse twenty-two addresses male homosexuality and again – duh – by doing the math and utilizing other Scriptures in the Word of God (viz. Romans), female homosexuality or lesbianism is also an abomination.

Verse twenty-three says for males or females having sex with animals is perversion.

Acceptance of Incest in American Society

Incest is criminalized in 48 out of 50 States. The fact that two states does not criminalize consensual adult incest of whatever nature is a disturbing example of how something defined as immoral in the eyes of God is slowly normalized in a society that sheds the moral authority of God’s standard. Without rhetoric but simply an examination of State laws and incest, here is an excerpt pertaining to the legal issue in the USA:

The crime of incest is committed when people who are related to one another engage in sexual activity, get married, or live together as man and wife. … In the United States, child sexual abuse is always a crime, and incest between adults is a crime in all but a few states.

How is Incest Defined?

Incest is defined differently in different states. In some states, incest is limited to sexual activity. In other states, people can commit the crime of incest by engaging in sexual activity, marrying, or living together romantically.

Generally, in the U.S., incest laws ban intimate relations between children and parents, brothers and sisters, and grandchildren and grandparents. Some states also ban relations between aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Laws vary as to half- and step-relatives and adopted relatives. Second and third cousins are generally free to marry and first cousins are free to be together in most states.

Some state’s incest laws are limited to heterosexual sexual relationships. For example, in Georgia, incest is defined as sexual intercourse between fathers and daughters and mothers and sons, including step-children; siblings and half-siblings; grandparents and grandchildren; aunts and nephews; and uncles and nieces. In North Dakota, incest includes not only sexual activity, but also marriage or cohabitation between first cousins, as well as people who are more closely related than first cousins, whether whole or half-relatives.

Is Incest Between Adults a Crime?

Almost all states criminalize incest between adult relatives. Some legal scholars have argued that incest laws as applied to adults should be rethought. Rhode Island repealed its criminal (adult) incest statute in 1989, and New Jersey law imposes no criminal penalties for incest where both parties are adults …

…

Punishment

Incest between adults is a felony, punishable by five years’ to life imprisonment, depending on state law. Incest against children is punished just as severely, if not more so, as other cases of child sexual abuse, usually by lengthy prison terms or life in prison. … (Incest Laws and Criminal Charges; By Ave Mince-Didier; Criminal Defense Lawyer – published by NOLO)

Adultery in USA

Adultery used to be so morally outrageous that it was a criminal offense. Not so today. The worst consequence for adultery today are the monetary damages are translated for the cheater – in courts the loser is usually the husband but not always these days. The largest consequence is if there are minor children involved – children lose no matter who the cheater is.

… As Eleanor Barkhorn reported last week, a survey of 1,535 American adults found that 91 percent considered extramarital infidelity to be morally wrong …

While this same poll showed growing acceptance of divorce, pre-marital sex, and having babies out of wedlock, the 91 percent disapproval rate for cheating is nearly twice what it was 40 years ago, when similar surveys showed that only half of American adults believed that having an affair was always wrong. As political scientist John Sides notes in a recent detailed analysis of changing attitudes towards adultery, “Americans, and especially better educated Americans, have become less accepting of adultery with the passage of time.” Pointing out the simultaneously growing acceptance for ending an unhappy union, Sides summarizes what he sees as our contemporary attitude: “If you’re in an unhappy marriage, don’t cheat. Just get divorced.” (How Marital Infidelity Became America’s Last Sexual Taboo; By HUGO SCHWYZER; The Atlantic; 5/29/13)

The USA Today ran an article in 2014 that implied it was shocking that twenty-one States still had criminal laws associated with adultery. It is this kind of media attitude that directs Americans away from Godly morals and to whatever is morally relative in the norm of Secular Humanism.

The New York Times ran an article in 2012 on adultery based on the high profile case of David Petraeus getting caught in an adulterous honey jar with mistress Paula Broadwell. The article goes on to the shocking fact that adultery is still on the criminal codes of States and U.S. Territories to the tune of twenty-four. Then uses the term American Exceptionalism in a negative connotation rather than positive:

This is yet another example of American exceptionalism: in nearly the entire rest of the industrialized world, adultery is not covered by the criminal code. (Adultery, an Ancient Crime That Remains on Many Books; By ETHAN BRONNER; NYT; 11/14/12)

“you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech”

Among Judaic theologians there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not the Children of Israel burnt their babies to death or simply ritualized a symbolic gesture of passing babies quickly through fire in dedication to a deity other than God almighty. Most theological scholars of both Judaism and Christianity agree that some kind of sacrificial death was enacted on babies regardless of burning to death or merely murdering the tike in the name of a foreign god. The Judaic view can be read at the Jewish Virtual Library or the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Here is an excerpt that is easy to read and represents a Christian perspective:

Molech was an ancient god worshiped by the people neighboring Israel during Old Testament times. While much about Molech’s nature and origin are uncertain, the Bible mentions Molech on eight occasions, providing some context regarding the problems associated with this ancient god.

The first mention of Molech is in Leviticus 18:21 in which the Lord commanded, “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” The worship of Molech clearly involved ritual child sacrifice, something God’s people were not to practice. This act was punishable by death according to Leviticus 20:2 which states, “Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death.”

Further, child sacrifice to Molech was considered profanity against God’s holy name. Leviticus 20:3 says, “I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.” Not only were those who sacrificed their children to be stoned to death, those who ignored such a sacrifice would be abandoned by God (Leviticus 20:5).

…

The final mention of Molech in the Old Testament is found in God’s words to Jeremiah. “They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:34-35).

Molech represents the most repulsive of acts in God’s sight, the ritual sacrifice of children to a pagan god, which was condemned in the strongest way by the Lord, including punishment by death. (Who was the Canaanite god Molech? From CompellingTruth.org; Copyright © 2011 – 2015 Got Questions Ministries, All Rights Reserved. Molech)

My take is baby-killing in the name of another faith or ideology that is contrary to God’s moral standard profanes God Almighty’s very name. It is my humble this addresses the abortion issue of killing unborn human beings in the name of defining a woman’s choice over their body is more important than a living person’s life dependent on a woman’s body for nutrition until a viable birth emerges.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Now we come to the crux of my moral outrage to societal acceptance of ungodly practices. I began this examination of the abandonment of God’s standards for morality by American society by reading a WordPress.com blog entry vocal support for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) agenda of brain washing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a loving normal path for humanity. I should point out that God himself calls homosexuality an abomination. Leftist multiculturalists, Secular Humanists and Homosexual Activist have gone to great lengths to discredit either God as irrelevant or that we Biblical Christians are not getting the Biblical Scriptures a correct interpretation. Either way – to use a British term – it’s all bollix.

Here is the WordPress.com post I found very disheartening:

Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, is committed to diversity: providing a platform for everyone to publish on the web and building a diverse, distributed workforce around the world.

A collaborative effort between Accelerate with Google and Automattic, the Accelerate.LGBT conference series is designed to help diverse businesses and nonprofits optimize their web presence, empowering professionals through focused workshops and hands-on, one-on-one support from Automattic and Google employees. We held our first event in San Francisco this past April, which was a great success.

We’re excited to announce the next free Accelerate.LGBT event on September 17, 2015, in Dublin, Ireland. Here’s a sneak peek of the sessions for this afternoon event:

· Get found on Google Search and Maps

· Optimize your website for business

· Engage a younger audience with your brand

· Find the best talent for your organization — inside Google’s hiring secrets

· Unlock your organization’s online potential

If you live in Dublin or plan to be in the area at this time, make sure to join us, follow us, and interact with us (#AccelerateLGBT)!

If you’d like to attend, please register for the September 17 event.

If you’d like Accelerate.LGBT to visit your area, tweet us! We’re also taking a poll to help us decide where to host our next event. [Blog Editor: At this point a poll vote is provided. I am not participating on my blog.]

We’re proud to partner with Google to offer this Accelerate.LGBT series to help businesses and nonprofits get the most out of the tools available on the web. We hope to see you in September! (Next Stop for Accelerate.LGBT: Dublin, Ireland; By Anne McCarthy; en.blog.wordpress.com; 8/21/15 3:00 PM)

At the end of a bunch of Accelerate.LGBT photos there is a subscription reminder to me:

“You are following this blog

You are following this blog, along with 21,462,995 other amazing people”.

That means Twenty-one MILLION plus people received a WordPress notification promoting an ungodly event.

I was tempted to not include the links promoting event and the people sponsoring the event but that would be disingenuous of me to use WordPress quote as it was intended to be read.

It is also not surprising that Google is a partner with WordPress in this “Accelerate.LGBT” agenda. If you type the letters LGBT in a Google search you will discover the initial search results are all positive for an LGBT agenda or critical of those who condemn an LGBT agenda.

Trust me. Google and WordPress are a drop in the bucket in media formats promoting acceptance of the ungodly Homosexual Lifestyle. The media is so supportive of homosexuality that I can count some Leftist or homosexual goofball posting a comment castigating my stand with God in some of the most horrific vitriol. That translates to it is okay to condemn a stand with the Word of God but I am a hate-filled homophobe for defending God’s morality.

I’m beginning to understand how early Christians may have felt some ostracism when Roman pagans condemned them as rebellious to the Emperor and Roman government. Or the ostracism from Jews who felt Christianity was a heresy that confronted the Law of Moses and dared to include the son of man in Jesus as co-equal with the ONE God as the Son of God. In the first hand Christians faced a Roman death sentence depending on its proximity and on the other hand faced the rage of devoted Jews who felt the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been blasphemed. In both cases those early Christians chose to face those condemnations without retribution knowing the Roman and Jewish perception was not an accurate picture. Frankly I may have a long ways to go to attain that Early Christian devotion since I have experienced a time in my life when a solid majority of Americans – whether devoted or nominal or agnostic – would have not accepted the homosexual lifestyle as a moral choice even if it was a Constitutional choice.

My how the Left Wing propaganda machine has influenced American thought.

I could on and on about how accepting homosexuality as normal will more than likely lead to other justifications for ungodly practices in America. Some to think about are:

o Polygamy

o Man/Boy sexual relationships

o Further normalizing Incest (Oh my God – even legitimizing homosexual incest … ewwww …

There are undoubtedly more consequences that I do not wish to dwell on but here’s consequence that may be on the road to societal acceptance condemned by God as perversion – BESTIALITY.

Leviticus 18:23 – ‘Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.’

Adultery is something people wag their heads about but the constraints on the practice drive people to anger to even think about making an adulterer pay a legal price for committing such an act.

Incest is not illegal in two American States. How many incest dominoes will fall?

Same-sex marriage was forced on the American culture by a SCOTUS majority unilaterally ignoring the Constitution and instituting the practice as a political right when in fact it is an ungodly act.

Polygamists were excited for the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage because much of the logic applies to the one man and many loving wives scenario.

I haven’t ran into it yet but the underground Man/Boy culture relationship is quietly huge in the Western World including the USA. It is underground only because the Man/Boy crowd doesn’t have enough media advocates shaming activist Courts to accept the perversion. Titles to read on Man/Boy homosexual movement:

o Brief history of the modern childlove movement – Free Republic; Posted on 3/3/2007, 11:23:28 AM

o Gay Rights and NAMBLA – By John R. Houk; SlantRight; 10/1/09 (some links within post are dead)

o Obama associates and the North American Man/Boy Love Association – By Bobbette Madonna; Broadside News; 5/3/14)

o NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part One – By Cliff Kincaid; Accuracy in Media; 1/4/10)

o NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part Two – By Cliff Kincaid; Accuracy in Media; 1/5/10)

If the trend continues I will not be surprised that it will no longer be a crime for a human being to have sex with an animal in my lifetime. After all homosexuality went through decades of promotional propaganda until the SCOTUS majority validated same-sex matrimony.

JRH 8/24/15

Please Support NCCR

Robert Smith Thoughts


Robert Smith takes on the issue of forcing the Boy Scouts of America to abandon its Christian morality which followed by the issue racism afflicting both White Americans and African Americans. Both are great food for thought.

JRH 6/3/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Robert Smith Thoughts

Posted June 3, 2015

 

The Scout Oath

Robert G. Smith

Sent: 5/23/2015 7:28 PM

Updated: 5/26/2015 4:55 PM

In recent days the Director of The Boy Scouts of America, the former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has determined that homosexuals must be allowed to become scouts.

As a former scout I know the oath that each scout must take on becoming a scout.

The oath: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to GOD and my country. To obey the scout laws. To help other people at all times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and MORALLY STRAIGHT.

[Blog Editor: Apparently Gates is pursuing the long term Obama agenda of transforming America into an immoral Left Wing paradigm.]

Homosexuality is a perversion and committing of immoral acts that are condemned by the Christian and Jewish faiths.

It should not be allowed to taint an honorable institution like The Boy Scouts of America. This sort of advocacy and advancement for immoral lifestyles to be inserted into heretofore morally guided and largely Christian institutions and organizations must be stopped. It is tearing down the fabric of our society.

+++++++++++

Racism

Robert G. Smith

Sent: Mon 6/1/2015 11:37 PM

A belief that some races are by nature superior to others has been with us since the different races began to intermingle.

Prior to that it was tribalism. An example are the Native Americans. Until the white man landed in America they only had seen others of their own race but were constantly at war with other tribes.

Racism is for those with lesser intellects and those with a need to be superior to other human beings. You will find racists in every color, white, black, red, yellow, and brown. I am sure if there were striped and polka dot [people] there would be racists among them.

I have served in three wars, two of them as a combat infantryman and I have seen many wounded and dead of all colors. The thing I noticed most all of them [is that they] bleed the same color.

I have met many racists and most of them had several things in common, a lack of common sense and intelligence. They also had a sense of superiority and the need to prove it and the need to be right in all things at all times.

Here in our country the largest showing of racism is between the blacks and whites.

There are however many blacks and whites who are endeavoring to end the racial divide and to help the races live together in peace and harmony. There are also those, both black and white, who keep agitating each other causing racial turmoil.

I will first name some of those who are trying to end the strife between the races that will allow us to coexist in a peaceful and friendly manner.

Some who are working toward those goals to name a few – Allen West, Dr. Carol Swain, Deneen Borelli, David Webb, Kelly Wright, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Niger Innis, A. B. Stoddard, Harris Faulkner, Sean Hannity, Ben Carson, Alveda King, Herman Cain, Sheriff David Clark, and the list goes on.

Some of those who are continually agitating and race baiting are, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and sundry others that make a living from it.

And yes black lives matter as the lives of any other race. However if you put yourself in a confrontational [posture] with law enforcement officers you are putting yourself in danger.

We know there are racists in all positions of authority. These people must be confronted and eliminated from the organizations they represent. All Americans of all races must take a stand to eliminate where ever it exists. Then and only then will we have conquered the ugly existence of racism.

PSG [ret] R. G. Smith

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4


Christ is the End of the Law

 

More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2015

 

I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.

 

Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.

 

With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):

 

I don’t understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” KJV (Comment by JP)

 

The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:

 

In Romans 10:4, Paul’s words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul’s intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

 

To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.

 

The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “’the aim or purpose’ of a thing” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version’s rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”

 

Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).

 

Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God’s law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul’s intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[What Did Paul Mean by ‘Christ Is the End of the Law’? From UCG.org; 2/2/11]

 

The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.

 

In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

Tenth Amendment

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:

 

DESCRIPTION

For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.

 

There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.

 

On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.

 

In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.

 

This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.

 

Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:

 

Leviticus

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.

 

If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.

 

Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?

 

People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.

 

People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.

 

NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.

 

The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.

 

If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.

 

America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.

 

Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

 

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

 

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

 

…

 

… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

 

…

 

… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …

 

…

 

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)

 

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:

 

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author – Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us; Copyright 2007-2014 – all rights reserved.)

 

Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:

 

The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.

…

 

In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.

 

This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

 

In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.

 

“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.

 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.

 

A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …

 

…

 

In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.

 

Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.

 

Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.

…

 

Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”

 

“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.

 

Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

… READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)

 

What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.

 

When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.

 

JRH 5/30/15

Please Support NCCR

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

See Also: “Focus on the Family President Reacts to Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Marriage Case”

 
“Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section”

“Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation”

“Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say”

 

“Homosexuality & Choice: Are Gay People ‘Born This Way?‘”

 

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations


Bible-- Homosexuality Ungodly Abomination

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

 

What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.

 

ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 

 

SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:

 

Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)

 

… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.

 

Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.

 

Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])

 

Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.

 

Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.

 

Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.

 

JRH 4/8/15

Please Support NCCR

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

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’

By BOB UNRUH

April 7, 2015

WND

 

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

 

And that’s probably not going to turn out well.

 

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

 

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

 

The new brief goes much further.

 

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

 

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

 

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

 

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.

 

“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.

 

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.

 

The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).

 

The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

 

The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”

 

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.

 

“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”

 

WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.

 

Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.

 

That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.

 

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”

 

“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.

 

When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.

 

In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”

 

The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

 

“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”

 

The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

 

“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”

 

The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.

 

“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.

 

But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”

 

On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”

 

“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”

 

The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.

 

“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”

 

The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”

 

Beware, the brief says.

 

“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”

 

Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.

 

And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”

 

“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

 

Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

 

That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.

 

The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”

 

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.

 

Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.

 

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.

 

The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.

 

Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.

 

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

__________________________________________

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

_________________________________

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

 

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.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

This is Why we Call the Gay Lobby Fascist!


Sodom_and_Gomorrah by John Martin

Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

“I have a dream today that gay people and lesbians will have a vested and inalienable right to universal marriage equality backed by the power of law. Gay marriage is not only a civil right to be enacted by governments, but it is a fundamental human right bestowed by the almighty hands of God.” (Bold Text Editor – Mark Charles Hardie quoted)

 

Now that is a quote of Mark Charles Hardie considering the very Words of God contradict that homosexual activist thought:

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.

 

24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. (Lev. 18: 22-29 NKJV)

 

Thank God we longer live under the Old Covenant for the penalty for disobeying God then was physical death by execution. Thank God we live under the New Covenant in which the sacrificial Blood of Jesus delivers humanity from the authority of Satan’s domain and transfers them to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son Jesus Christ. Sins are forgive in Christ and the penalty of violating the Old Covenant are remitted in Christ. This means unrepentant to the end humans are in Second Death (See Also HERE) danger of eternal damnation separated from the mercies, glory, presence and benefits of God’s Kingdom. ONLY believing in the Redemptive/Resurrection work of Jesus Christ saves any human from the Second Death.

 

AND YET the mercy and Grace discovered in the New Testament Word of God still testifies that homosexuality is an unacceptable abominable lifestyle.

 

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. (2 Peter 2: 4-11 NKJV)

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

 

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1: 18, 24-28, 32 NKJV; But you should read the entire Romans chapter one-NKJV)

 

JRH 3/11/15

Please Support NCCR

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

This is Why we Call the Gay Lobby Fascist!

By Matt Barber

March 10, 2015

EagleRising.com

 

While they always disguise it behind the euphemistic language of “tolerance,” “equality” and “social justice,” on occasion the homofascist left will admit to its designs on fascism. There are some who doubt those of us who have long warned that many homosexualists intend to compel, through any means possible (up to and including physical force), Christians and other dissenters to fully surrender to their radical homosexual activist agenda.

 

Mark Charles Hardie, a Huffington post columnist and 2016 candidate for the California Senate, is helping to make our point. In a February 25 column headlined, “Gay People Are Gods: Protecting LGBT Communities Is a Divine Right,” Hardie goes full Rainbow Shirt. Under the pretext of “minimizing troubling incidents of anti-gay violence,” he shares that he has submitted “an innovative proposal” to the California State Senate to create “LGBT Squads” to enforce the “gay” agenda.

 

“My proposal calls for the creation of ‘California LGBT Police Departments’ throughout the Golden State,” he writes. “These police departments, funded by the state, would be staffed exclusively by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender police officers.”

So much for ending “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation.” Heterosexuals need not apply. In order to earn your pink, taxpayer-funded jackboots in this lavender brute squad, you must possess an aberrant sexual appetite for members of the same sex.

 

Hardie then assumes the persona of Martin Luther King Jr.’s evil twin.

“I have a dream today that gay people and lesbians will have a vested and inalienable right to universal marriage equality backed by the power of law. Gay marriage is not only a civil right to be enacted by governments, but it is a fundamental human right bestowed by the almighty hands of God.”

 

Wow. Sodomy-based “marriage,” something that the very almighty God to whom Hardie refers has expressly called “an abomination,” is now, somehow, a “fundamental human right,” which He has “bestowed.”

 

The cray cray continues: “I am inspired with a new dream — not only an aspiration for LGBT equality — but a dream of gay empowerment. For without power there can be no true security or freedom of choice. I now understand that LGBT communities worldwide must be empowered with the weapons to fight for justice.”

 

To be clear, Hardie, a former staff attorney for CA governor Pete Wilson and “public affairs intern” for Senator Barbara Boxer, is not calling for metaphorical “weapons” to enforce the “gay” agenda. He means weapons weapons. You know… guns.

“Today, in a major step towards fulfilling this lofty dream of social justice, I submitted an innovative proposal to the offices of California State Senator Mark Leno and California Assembly Member David Chiu,” he continues. According to Hardie, in order to enforce his homofascist version of “social justice,” armed “LGBT squads” are “vital.” “[I]t is also vital for LGBT communities to wield police power backed by the force of law. In other words, we must not only demand ‘gay rights,’ but we must also demand ‘gay power.’”

 

Yikes.

Hardie concludes by dedicating his column to “the memory of Matthew Shepard.” Shepard has become a bit of a mythological figure in our culture. He is, ironically, the poster child for “anti-gay hate crimes.” I say ironically because, while the mainstream media perpetuated the myth that Matthew Shepard was murdered as a result of “homophobia” during the commission of an “anti-gay hate crime,” it has now been revealed that, in fact, Shepard was a young, HIV positive crystal meth addict who was in a homosexual relationship with two of his drug dealers. These fellow “gay” druggies brutally (and tragically) murdered him during a drug deal gone bad. They are both serving life sentences for their crimes. (Bold Text Editor’s)

 

And so here we are. A California senate proposal for armed “LGBT squads” built upon the phantasmic foundation of the world’s most famous “anti-gay violence” myth.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

______________________________

About the author: Matt Barber

 

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.

Copyright © 2015 Eagle Rising. All Rights Reserved.

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

Management

 

  • Gary DeMar, Founder, President & Editor-in-Chief
  • Brandon R. Vallorani, Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
  • James DeMar, Chief Information Officer

 

News Editors

 

  • Onan Coca
  • Gary DeMar
  • James DeMar

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

…

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

…

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

…

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

…

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

…

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage Foundation – Rule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

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

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

%d bloggers like this: