Archive for September 14th, 2006

Sex Column at So. Miss. Raising Some Hackles

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

This “anything goes” additude on colleges campuses is going to hurt a lot of people. It honestly doesn’t have to be this way. College students are capable of self control, they just need to actually do it.

(AgapePress) – Some faculty and staff members at the University of Southern Mississippi are raising objections to a vulgar sex column in the student-run newspaper on campus.
Last Thursday The Student Printz published a graphic “how to” article on oral sex titled “Pillow Talk: College a Time to Experiment.” The paper’s executive editor, David McCraney, says “Pillow Talk” will be a regular column and “will probably get racier by degrees each edition.”
Although the column was rated the most popular article on the newspaper’s website, it is not sitting well with everyone on the Hattiesburg campus. Cheryl Burnette, an account specialist in the Music Department at USM, says she was offended by the content of the article.
“I’m aware that most young people do experiment with sex,” Burnette acknowledges, “but when you print it on a university campus, you’re just opening the doors to so much more.” She says college students already have enough issues to deal with. “They don’t need the pressures of sex involved; they need to concentrate on education,” she says. “I mean, there’s too much sex in today’s world anyway. That’s not what life is all about.”
The account specialist believes USM President Shelby Thames needs to intervene. “I would like for him to sit down and have a discussion with the executive editor to see where he thinks this may be going,” she suggests.
“I feel that if some parents get hold of this and read it, it could maybe affect enrollment here on campus, especially with what we just went through with [Hurricane] Katrina last year,” she continues. “Our enrollments are down just a little bit, and you don’t need something like that giving the campus negative publicity.”
Burnette says she understands there is freedom of the press, but believes Southern Miss administrators need to exercise some control over what is printed in a newspaper bearing the university’s imprimatur.

School Should Take Action
Meanwhile, a constitutional attorney says it is incumbent upon the USM officials to take action regarding the column. Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the Mississippi-based Center for Law & Policy, says although the article itself is not obscene, it is clearly inappropriate for a college or local newspaper.
Crampton believes President Thames and USM administrators should condemn the article and ensure the executive editor’s plan to publish even racier material is short-circuited.
“If they don’t take action, I suggest that we need to take our concerns to the State Legislature,” says the attorney. “There are ways to curb this sort of action short of trying to shut it down with kind of a heavy censor’s hand. The long and the short of it is, it’s not good for the university.” And it is also not good for the students, Crampton adds, “however much they may enjoy being the little rebels for the moment.”
Crampton also notes that although the newspaper received its funding from advertisers, it still has a responsibility to reflect the mores and values of the community.
“Even that advertising policy specifically states that the newspaper reserves the right to reject any advertising copy based on the guidelines adopted for advertising by the University of Southern MS Board of Publications,” he points out. “So the University can’t have it both ways. [The paper] is connected to the university, and consequently, I think the university needs to be held responsible for this baseless and offensive sort of material.”
Advertisers for The Student Printz include campus ministries such as the Presbyterian Fellowship, the Reformed University Fellowship, the Wesley Foundation, and St. Thomas Catholic Church.

Original Link.

Sharia Law in the Netherlands

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

The Netherlands has come one step closer to Sharia (Islamic) Law. The Dutch Justice Minister is advocating that Sharia Law could be put in place by “democratic means”. “It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed!” said Minister Piet Hein Donner.
This is how Islam works. If they can’t force you into Islam by threatening your life, they will force you by using your very laws against you. I pray that our laws are strong enough here in the U.S. to withstand their attacks.
Let me remind everyone again, what Sharia Law means:
1. Women are subservient to men in every way. A married woman is the property of her husband. Her rights are given a weight of one-third as opposed to the rights of a man in every legal argument…if she even gets the chance to have a legal argument.
2. The head scarf (called a Hijab) is mandatory. Any man can “punish” (usually by beating) any woman found in public not wearing her head scarf. Also under Sharia Law a face covering called a nikab may be required. If the total Law is enforced, a burkha, or full body length gown with head and face covering could be mandated.
3. Public events with mixed male and female interaction would be forbidden. The public pool, as we know it, would be gone ( as well as some of the swim suits people wear these days). School dances would be gone. Public movies with mixed male/female audiences would be gone.
4. Anyone choosing not to endorse Islam and Sharia Law, would be treated as a second class citizen, if they were even allowed to live. They would pay extra taxes and be persecuted at will, at any time.
5. You would not be allowed to worship or go to church anymore.
Is this really something we want in our country? It’s too late for the Netherlands, but understand that there are a growing number of people here in the U.S. who want Sharia Law brought here.

AMSTERDAM — Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner has provoked an angry response by stating it has to be possible for Sharia Law to be introduced in the Netherlands via democratic means.
The Christian Democrat (CDA) minister made the suggestion during an interview for the book ‘Het land van haat en nijd’ (the land of hate and malice) which was published on Wednesday.
Donner indicated he was not happy with the tone of the integration debate in the Netherlands.
Muslims, he said, just like Protestants and Roman Catholics, have a right to the perceptions of their religion, even if that included dissenting rules of behaviour such as imams refusing to shake hands with women.
He went on to say: “It must be possible for Muslim groups to come to power [in the Netherlands] via democratic means. Every citizen may argue why the law should be changed, as long as he sticks to the law.
“It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed!
“The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.”
His remarks are contrary to the stance taken by MP Maxime Verhagen, leader of the CDA in parliament. Verhagen had expressed concern Sharia Law could be introduced in city districts where Muslims are already in the majority.
Right-wing MP Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom has posed written questions to Donner.
Wilders said Donner should be defending Dutch norms and values and resisting the introduction of “barbarous Sharia Law” in the Netherlands. The minister will face a motion of no confidence if he sticks to his views, Wilders warned.
Labour (PvdA), the largest opposition party, has also expressed surprise at Donner. MP Jeroen Dijsselbloem said Donner seemed to be forgetting that several points of Sharia Law are in conflict with the Dutch Constitution. “The Minister for Justice must invest his energies in opposing these sorts of opinions rather than signalling that such ideas can form part of our democracy,” Dijsselbloem said.

Original Link.

Wiccan Sign Allowed on Soldier’s Grave

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

I thought this was “One Nation Under God”, but apparently I was wrong. All the soldiers in our military are not fighting for God and country, some are fighting for satan. Most Wiccans claim that they do not worship satan, but they worship the earth and “her spirits” – whatever that means. There has been a battle going on over the right of a Wiccan soldier’s family to put a plaque with Wiccan symblols on his grave. Apparently the US Department of Veterans Affairs now recognizes the Wiccan religion and has allowed the family to place the plaque at the soldier’s grave. I realize that the US is known for its freedom of religion, but this is not what our founding fathers meant when they established this country. Their idea was for people to be able to worship GOD in they way they choose, not worship satan, mother earth, or anything else.

The widow of a soldier killed in Afghanistan won state approval Wednesday to place a Wiccan religious symbol on his memorial plaque, something the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had refused.
“I’m honored and ecstatic. I’ve been waiting a year for this,” Roberta Stewart said from her home in Fernley, about 30 miles east of Reno.

Sgt. Patrick Stewart, 34, was killed in Afghanistan last September when a rocket-propelled grenade struck his helicopter. Four others also died. Stewart was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

He was a follower of the Wiccan religion, which the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does not recognize and therefore prohibits on veterans’ headstones in national cemeteries.

Original Link

“Where the Illiberal Is in Liberalism” by Bruce Thornton

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

The whining of Democrats and ex-Clintonistas about the “docudrama” The Path to 9/11 has given us all another example of liberal mendacity and hypocrisy. Start with the total silence of the usual civil liberties suspects to say a word about this attempt at stifling someone’s First Amendment right to free speech. Where are the ACLU and its usual clichés about the “chilling effects” of such attempts? Where are all the blowhard academics who noisily defended the noxious Ward Churchill? Where are all the quotes from John Stuart Mill usually trotted out on these occasions?

Of course these are rhetorical questions, because we all know that those lofty liberal principles always come down to whose political ox is being gored. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty — unless they happen to be privileged white kids whose alleged victim is a black woman. Leaking protected information is a heinous crime deserving of a special prosecutor and a relentless hounding in the press — unless it’s the press itself leaking information about a government program trying to keep us from getting blown up in our cubicles or airplane seats. Judging people by their race or gender is a horrible affront to justice and morality — unless you’re a college admissions officer desperate to prove his “commitment to diversity” by giving a leg up to affluent minorities and women. Tolerance of those different from us is the highest good — unless “those different” are “fundamentalist” Christians, observant Jews, people who like guns, or poor Southern whites.

———-

You can almost pick movies at random and find propaganda as historically fantastical as Birth of a Nation. Arthur Penn’s much praised Bonnie and Clyde took a pair of homely psychopaths — mad-dog killers who preyed mostly on small shopkeepers and who murdered lawmen in cold blood — and turned them into glamorous Robin Hoods, thus validating the sixties fashion of glorifying violence as long as it is directed at villains (bankers, cops, etc) approved by the left. This same attitude still exists today, evident in the lefty girlish gushing over a thug like convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Or how about Warren Beatty’s bloated bit of communist agitprop Reds, a kitschy valentine to one of the most useful of useful idiots, John Reed, who labored on behalf of an ideology that murdered a 100 million people? More recently, Kingdom of Heaven was a perfect storm of Orwellian history, transforming the intolerant Muslims into proto-humanist apostles of tolerance, and depicting every Christian who doesn’t abjure his faith as an intolerant fanatic. And how can we ignore the mother of all liars, Michael Moore, whose fabrications and historical distortions were rewarded with an Academy Award?

Original Link.

Christians in India Ask for Police Help, But Receive Beatings

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

We truly have no idea what Christians in other countries must go through in order to fulfill the Great Commission. We must pray dilligently for these missionaries and converts who are in harms way every day just because they claim the name of Jesus.

Christian pastors in India’s “beautiful country” district in Karnataka state, where the government website highlights a native dance as a “common form of worship,” are facing an apparently organized pattern of arrest, destruction of property and beatings for their faith.

A recent series of episodes highlighted by Voice of the Martyrs, which works with persecuted Christians worldwide, illustrates the concern.

The attacks started late one recent evening when a pastor’s rented house was broken into by a gang of militant Hindus who accused Pastor Joseph of not bowing before Hindu gods, officials said.

Original Link

“Homosexuality: It isn’t ‘God’s best?'” by Michael G. Mickey

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

A Boston Herald article on Pastor Joel Osteen begins as follows:
He’s the most popular preacher in the country right now – a best-selling author and the “most watched minister” in America.
But when asked yesterday about gay marriage during a trip to the bluest state in the land of the free – and the only one where same-sex nuptuals are legal – the Rev. Joel Osteen suddenly got sheepish.
“I don’t think it’s God’s best,” the handsome Holy Roller said of homosexuality. “I never feel like homosexuality is God’s best.”
When pressed on the issue, Osteen said, “I don’t feel like that’s my thrust . . . you know, some of the issues that divide us, and I’m here to let people know that God is for them and he’s on their side.”
Joel Osteen may well be the most popular preacher in America as the article indicates, but he is one of the weakest defenders of God’s Word I have ever seen! What would I have said if asked the same question? I would have had no problem saying that God doesn’t approve of gay marriage nor the practice of homosexuality without so much as blinking an eye. Why? Because that’s what the Word of God tells us! The same goes for committing adultery, stealing, lying, and many other behaviors the Father has told us to steer clear of!
Joel Osteen’s problem is one that is becoming more and more prevalent here in these end times. The Church of the end times spends far more time trying to figure out how it can fit into the world than it does transforming the world into a place that is acceptable to God! It’s a pity to say the least as that strategy is going to lead many a person to take their accountability to the Most High lightly! Way too lightly!
How would anyone discern, for example, that God calls the practice of homosexuality an abomination from hearing Joel Osteen say it isn’t “God’s best”? I have a news flash for Joel Osteen. Homosexuality isn’t God’s anything! It is as removed from the will of God as the east is from the west! This he should know and have no problem saying! He is, after all, a minister of God’s Word, right?
Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Osteen, who is clearly tap dancing all over the place, trying to avoid directly answering the reporter’s questions, is quoted in the Boston Herald as saying homosexuality isn’t his “thrust.” When someone asks him what the Word of God has to say on the topic of same-sex marriage, it doesn’t matter if it’s his “thrust” or not. He, as a minister of God’s Word, should be ready with an answer or be prepared to find an answer. That answer, when he gives it, should be clear as crystal, not muddied up and gutless.
1st Peter 3:15: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
2nd Timothy 2:15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
James 5:12: But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
While the Joel Osteens of the world may be wildly popular, particularly due to the fact they ignore warning their fellow man of God’s judgment to come in favor of telling everyone that God is “on their side”, they’re not doing those who think they’re great any favors. By trivializing the Word of God’s stern disapproval of homosexuality, for example, those of an Osteen mindset are suggesting that living one’s life outside the will of God is no big deal. Not only that, they’re culpritizing those of us who are holding the line for the Word of God in these end times as religious fanatics, giving the enemies of the Church a base from which to allege that true believers hold a radical and mean-spirited view of the teachings of the Word of God, something the Church’s enemies are already looking to do when given the opportunity.
Soon, as seen in a CNS News article, Stephen Green, who heads a small but active Christian lobby group called Christian Voice, is going to appear in a court in Britain to answer to charges he is guilty of “threatening, abusive or insulting behavior.” What did Stephen do to result in this charge being placed against him? He was handing out Christian tracts at a homosexual rally entitled “Same-sex love, same-sex sex: What does the Bible say?”
According to the CNS News article, the tracts contain verses from Leviticus in the Old Testament and Romans in the New Testament which characterize homosexual acts as sinful, as well as a “basic gospel message” that includes “the promise of God’s forgiveness and eternal life for those who turn from their sins and “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.””
Christians, as I often state on this website, we are going to have to make some decisions concerning where we stand here in these end times. Barring the Lord’s return coming soon, I believe the time is coming when Christians are going to be persecuted to the point we’re going to have little choice but to stand our ground — or kow tow to the enemy. If that day comes on this side of the Rapture, are we going to stand up for the Word of God or are we going to tuck tail and run? Are we going to be bold witnesses for Christ or render the Word of God of no effect by waffling on every key issue of the times we’re living in, in a meaningless effort to gain popularity and acceptance with the world?
Which is more important to us? To fill the pews of our churches at the expense of men’s souls or to maintain the integrity of the Word of God, even if it means hurting some people’s feelings along the way? It needs to be the latter, regardless of the cost. It’s far better for us to save those we can by telling them the Truth than to make a million think everything is going to be okay only to have them appear before God in judgment someday to discover it isn’t!

Original Link.

Princeton Bioethicist Says Ok To Kill Babies After They Are Born

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

A bioethicist at Princeton says it is okay to kill babies even after they are born. He says he sees no distinction in the babies whether they are born or not. This man is a well-known animal rights activist. Isn’t it sick how some people value animals over humans? This story just gives us another example of the depraved culture that is being cultivated right here in “The Land of the Free”. As Christians we should be outraged by this story.

An internationally known Princeton “bioethicist” and animal-rights activist says he’d kill disabled babies if it were in the “best interests” of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child’s life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week.

Earlier, WND reported that Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only “a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists” still protecting life as sacrosanct.

To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth.

Original Post

“The New ‘Christian’ Democrats” by Jack Kinsella

Thursday, September 14th, 2006

I get emails all the time from Democrats who jump all over me, telling me that they are life-long Christians and saying ‘how dare I suggest that being a Christian and being a Democrat are mutually exclusive?’ Did I say that? (I believe it, but I don’t remember saying so. No matter. I am saying so now.)
I suppose it is possible to be a Christian AND a Democrat, but I don’t believe it is possible for anyone to be sincere about either and make a credible claim to be both.
How can one be a sincere Christian and support the ACLU’s efforts to ban God from public schools, for example. How can one support the appointment of judicial candidates based solely on the criteria that they have a philosophical agreement with Roe v. Wade while still claiming to be a Christian? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
It is incomprehensible to me that the Democrats can oppose a candidate based on his personal philosophy and then deny that is the criteria they are using, at the same time SAYING that is the criteria they are basing their opposition on?
The Democrats oppose virtually every single major teaching of Christianity, but take great offense at any suggestion that they are not just as devout in their Christianity as ‘the other guys’.
One of the first arguments offered is that Republicans ‘aren’t any better.’ To prove it, they trot out endless examples of poor Christian witness among Republicans. I am not sure how that is relevant, but it does fit into the overall worldview of the US Democratic party.
If you can’t defend yourself, attack the other guy. They don’t actually see it themselves, but all they are really doing when they do that is presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.
I can understand their doing that politically, but when they attempt to establish themselves as good Christians by arguing they are less evil than bad Christians, it makes me wonder if they can tell the difference.

———-

[David] Wilhelm says: “In the next presidential election, a winning Democratic nominee is going to have to prove that he can navigate the shoals of the faith issue. That doesn’t mean you have to go around spouting biblical verses. You should have the ability to speak from your heart on those values that come from religious traditions.”
Ahem. Which values that come from religious traditions? Gay marriage? Abortion rights? Criminalizing school prayer? Removing crosses from public lands?
In a poll released Aug. 24, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says, “The Democratic Party continues to face a serious ‘God problem.’ ”
The nationwide survey showed 47% perceived the Republican Party as friendly to religion, but only 26% saw Democrats that way.

———-

Under the title, “To Believe that Jesus Rode a Donkey”, Democrat Jesse Lava writes in the Huffington Post;
“The truth is millions of us Christians are Democrats not in spite of our faith, but precisely because of it — and millions more would be open to the Democratic Party if it engaged them on their level, presenting political ideas in the context of religious values.”
Note that Lava switched horses in mid-stream, jumping from Christianity to ‘religious values’ as if they are one and the same.

———-

The point I am making is not ‘Republicans good, Democrats bad.’ If you think it is, you must be a Democrat. Let me sort it out for you.
The point I am making is ‘Democrats bad’. Clear enough?
To co-opt Jesus Christ as a political spokesman while opposing everything the Bible teaches is not just bad. It is disgusting.
Jesus is a Democrat? The same Jesus Who inspired the Bible? The same Jesus John 1:1 calls “the Word”? What sayeth the Word?
The Bible teaches the sanctity of life — from the womb…
The Bible teaches about gay marriage:…
The Bible teaches of the Great Commission: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19)
How does that square with the Democratic principle that forbids little children to pray in public schools?

———-

I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here.
Don’t email me to tell me some Republicans are no better.
Declaring yourselves to be the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn’t about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ.
Correct me on the issues. Am I misunderstanding the Democratic platform on abortion, gay rights, judicial appointments, the ACLU and separation of church and state issues?
Am I misunderstanding the teachings of Scripture on those issues? Am I wrong in my distinction between religion and Christianity? If I am wrong, I really want to know.
What I don’t want to know is that you are right because the other guy isn’t any better.
I am not a partisan. I am a Christian. I am not defending the Republican party. I am opposing the co-opting of my Lord and Savior as a cheap partisan symbol and a political spokesman for an anti-Christian agenda dressed up as a form of Christianity but rooted in a sliding scale of principles.
It is possible to be a saved Christian and be a Democrat. Being a Christian means trusting in the Shed Blood of Christ for one’s personal salvation. But it is NOT possible to be a good Democrat without opposing the central teachings of Christianity.
If you are going to claim Him, claim Him as your personal Savior. Don’t try to claim Him as your political savior. It cheapens Him — and it cheapens you.

Original Link.