Once part 1 is finished, nine embedded screens will appear. Click on the top left screen to start part 2.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKQ1xXobJc&w=560&h=420]
Posted in family, politics, religion
Tagged American values, biblical values, economy, Election 2012, life, moral values, Ron Paul, war
The 2012 World Day of Prayer will be held on Friday the 2nd of March and will be prepared by the women of Malaysia with the theme “Let Justice Prevail”. Malaysia is a nation of diverse cultures, races and religions. About 7 % of Malaysians are Christians.
The World Day of Prayer is a worldwide movement of Christian women of many traditions who come together to observe a common day of prayer each year, and who, in many countries, have a continuing relationship in prayer and service. Women from over 170 different countries and regions over various races and cultures celebrate on the first Friday of March in prayer to make a more just world in which to live.
Through World Day of Prayer, women affirm that prayer and action are inseparable and that both have immeasurable influence in the world. The motto of the World Day of Prayer is “Informed Prayer and Prayerful Action”.
For more information about World Prayer Day, go to hwww.worlddayofprayer.net or www.wdp-usa.org
By Dallas Henry
Have you been asked the question yet? The questions are coming from members of the church I serve. “Pastor, who are you voting for?” Of course, by law, we are not permitted to endorse candidates from the pulpit, but when people ask us, we can legally share our opinions with them and why we have them.
There was a talk show that included a discussion of candidates for president and their faith. The host remarked, “What a person believes really shouldn’t matter because religion and politics don’t mix.”
That is a well known phrase. In any group of people there will be varying political opinions, but it incorrect to say that religion and politics do not mix. In fact, the Bible addresses many political issues. Government was an issue that Biblical writers frequently addressed. Scriptures talk about the role of government, how we should respond to government and, in besides, much of our laws are taken from the Bible. It is fair to say that Christians should be concerned about politics because God seems to be concerned about politics. I Peter 2:13 tells us that we are to submit to the governing authorities and I Timothy 2:1 urges us to pray for those who lead us. Saying that religion and politics do not mix is often an excuse for people who are not involved. It’s interesting that it is okay to sing patriotic hymns in church and politics and religion can mix on that realm, but they cannot mix when we talk about elections and the issues.
It is vital that Christians be involved in the process. We should be concerned about all elections. We should be concerned about who is leading us because they decide what freedoms we have and don’t have and what rights we have and don’t have. But, just how do Christians interact with government? What does the Bible say about issues that relate to this? In this critical time in the history of our country, it is important to be informed and to see what our Biblical responsibility is with government and not to simply withdraw and avoid it all. Remember government is; “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
All citizens have been given the freedom and the responsibility to vote. This freedom is our only chance to voice our opinion. We are all influenced to vote the way that we do for different reasons, but Christians, especially, must guard against the false notion that voting and religion do not mix. A Christian’s faith does come into play in the decision making while voting.
It is important to remember that God, His Word and His Son Jesus Christ are foundational parts of our government and that should never be forgotten. There’s a good reason that In God We Trust is on our currency and a good reason our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “One nation Under God” and there is a good reason that The Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and of certain unalienable Rights endowed on them by their Creator. We hear a lot today about the separation of Church and state, which is not in our constitution, no matter who many claim that it is.
In a few months the primaries will be over and the various candidates for each political party will have been chosen, on the national, state and local levels. The campaign ads will be over, the commercials will stop airing, for the time being, and then it’s time for Christians to do their homework.
It is important for us to take time and look into the Scriptures and see, first of all, what the Bible has to say regarding the purpose of government, secondly our responsibility as Christians, and thirdly how the church is called to Biblically interact with government.
Romans 13:1-7
“Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God. So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves. For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have praise from it. For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes. For they are God’s servants, always giving attention to this very thing. Therefore give to all their dues; to the one due tax, the tax; tribute to whom tribute is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due.”
Christians should not have an anti-government mindset because God has established governments that exist. God had a reason for appointing government. Continue reading
Posted in government, issues, politics, religion
Tagged biblical principles, God, principled public leadership, public morality, voting
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promoting a strong national defense, announced Tuesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit seeks to obtain records that the plaintiffs believe will show intentional deception by the Pentagon to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Prompting the lawsuit was a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality in the military (Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).
Erin E. Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, explained the reason for the lawsuit, “The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Plaintiffs Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). Plaintiffs are seeking information to determine the extent to which the Department of the Navy engaged in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.
The Plaintiffs are also seeking the information to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy fulfilled the requirements mandated by Congress for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to become valid law. Congress required specific regulations and procedures be implemented to protect national security prior to the repeal taking effect. [See lawsuit here]
CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that concentrates on military issues. CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, has done extensive reporting on and analysis of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and the consequences of repealing that law.
Plaintiffs first submitted their FOIA requests on August 31, 2011 requesting all records, documents and e-mails concerning the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shared among the military Chiefs of Staff, various combatant commanders, and political appointees at the Pentagon and White House. To date, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide any of the requested documents.
Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “ Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.”
Contrary to media headlines based on selective misleading leaks about the survey, the actual survey numbers show that nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units, and among Marine combat arms the number was 67%, thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.
Concerns of Senior Military Leaders Disregarded
During 2010 hearings prior to the rushed lame-duck vote for repeal, both the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway, and the incoming Commandant, General James Amos, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.
However, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific Command, was publicly reprimanded by both Gates and Mullen for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.
To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.
An Anti-Christian Policy
Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian, the Pentagon brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. The Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery to go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Moreover, recognizing that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Pentagon claimed that their objections, based upon deeply held religious beliefs, could be overcome through education and training. Ongoing controversies about the Defense Department’s attempts to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act by authorizing same-sex “ceremonies,” which are simulated marriages on military bases, remain unresolved. Documents obtained by this FOIA lawsuit will improve public understanding of what happened during the lame-duck Congress in 2010, and what must be done to repair the damage.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdBTuUH5AAA&w=560&h=315]
You have to watch the Third Jihad video to understand difference between moderate and radical Islam. If you watch the video, remember the scene of Muslim celebrating Islam Day and Jasser’s comment about it.
By Daniel Downs
In the previous post, Raymond Ibrahim revealed the extent of persecutions of Christians for the month of January throughout the Muslim Middle East. Syrian Christians are concerned about similar persecution, if not genocide, if Al-Assad falls to Islamic fundamentalists, according to a recent article published in The New American.
They are concerned for good reason: homes, businesses, churches, and many persons have been attacked and destroyed by angry Muslims in Iraq and Egypt.
Why are Muslim persecuting Christians? For the same reasons Americans attacked American Arabs and those who liked Arabs, their homes and business after 9-11. (see UMC’s article Post 9/11 Hate Crimes)
Persecution of Jews also has a long history. Jews have been impoverished, abused, and killed by Arabs, Europeans, and even Americans. Hitler may killed more Jews in a shorter period of time than other Europeans but the German Nazis were not the only Europeans to do so. When the Christian church ruled the empire, Jews and rebellious Christians were killed as well.
Regarding anti-anti-Semitism, Americans also have been guilty of persecuting the Jews. I remember stories about Americans harassing Jews while sleeping in their home in the middle of the night. That was during the 1960s fascists and communist movements in Europe and America. More recently, a rabbi was attacked and beaten while traveling near his synagogue in New Jersey, the homes of several others rabbis were fire bombed, and anti-Semitic graffiti was painted on several local synagogues.
While Americans persecute Jews, Muslims and others, Israeli orthodox Jews are persecuting Messianic Jews. According to the Caspari Media Review, local residents in Arad Israel report Orthodox Jews (haeridi) harassing Messianic neighbors and disturbing the peace in their local neighborhood.
Why? For the same reason others of various ideologies and religions persecuted them.
A complex linkage of perceived differences contribute a sense of enmity towards those previously mentioned. Among those factors are contradictory religious or secular beliefs, the legitimation of those beliefs by the state, and current and historical events all of which culminate into a perception that persons of the “other” group are somehow a dire threat or complicit in an evil act. For example, all Arabs are regarded as evil as those involved in the 9-11 terrorism. All Christians deserve punishment because one or a few blasphemed Mohammed or Allah. All Jews are evil because of some injustice perpetrated by some other Jews.
The underlying problem is the propensity of people to violate the laws of God; that is what sin and evil is. It is the opinion of this blogger that America’s founding generation advanced the solution to this problem. They believed that a universal law–the law of God–was already evident in human nature and society, and it was at least possible for human to identify what those laws are. However, the human problem colors and corrupts that human ability, which is why revealed law was deemed necessary. Because all human beings have violated God’s laws, human reason alone cannot be trusted. Moreover, it was understood that most major religions and the societies influenced and shaped by them possessed at least some part of the revealed laws of God. Like the Hebrew prophets and Mohammed as well, the founders of all major religions experienced the moral reforming presence of God. It was in that experience that the laws of God were perceived and the need for their people to conform to the right way of living realized.
The issue is not that all religions are equal or irrelevant as many secularists believe. As a Christian, this blogger believes God’s holiness requires the fulfillment of absolute justice. The just dessert for sin is death. However, the perpetual love of His holiness toward people created in His own likeness drove God to remedy human sin. That remedy is the death of the sinless for all other sinners. Only one man was sinless–Jesus of Nazareth. God offered His only sinless son for all of humanity. Those who reject God’s provision cannot be forgiven for their sin. Even though humanity consistently lives according to the laws of God, past sin or one present sin render him or her worthy of sin’s just dessert. Just as human justice merely forgives a murder who one act was followed with exemplary good citizenship, so too a sinner cannot be merely forgiven for good behavior. Of course, I could be wrong, but those who have experienced life-after-death suggest otherwise.
Another reason for doctrinal differences of various religions is the institutionalization of their original experiences of God and their interpretations and applications of them.
Still another reason for doctrinal differences is simply survival. Both Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others developed different doctrines as a result of challenges and threats posed by problems within their own societies including problems of moral decline and threats of other religious and secular authorities. Thus, the distinctive doctrinal beliefs have been means to protect the religious institution and the followers from external threats. This does not mean all doctrines are either mere human concoctions nor all are divine revelations. It means the real problem is not merely religious dogma but rather keeping God law and applying its principles to social relationships in a mutually beneficial environment of His redemptive love and grace.
If all religious people took God up on his challenge to come and reason with Him about these matters (Isaiah 1:11-20; 55:1-11), could there still exist enduring conflict and injustice? Would the differences matter as much as living in accordance with God’s actual law? The result would be a greater measure of peace than now exists, would it not?
By Raymond Ibrahim
Stonegate Institute
February 9, 2012
The beginning of the New Year saw only an increase in the oppression of Christians under Islam, from Nigeria, where an all-out jihad has been declared in an effort to eradicate the Muslim north of all Christians, to Europe, where Muslim converts to Christianity are still hounded and attacked as apostates. According to the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year”; in our life time alone, he predicts “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”
An international report found that Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the “most severe” persecution. In response to these findings, a Vatican spokesman said that “Among the most serious concerns, the increase in Islamic extremism merits special attention. Persons and organizations dedicated to extremist Islamic ideology perpetrate terrible acts of violence in many places throughout the world: the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria is but one example. Then there is the climate of insecurity that unfortunately in some countries accompanies the so-called “Arab spring”—a climate that drives many Christians to flee and even to emigrate.”
Categorized by theme, January’s batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity of anecdote.
APOSTASY
Iran: A Christian convert who was arrested in her home has been sentenced to two years in prison. Previously she endured five months of uncertainty detained in the notorious Evin prison, where the government hoped she would come to her senses and renounce Christianity. She was convicted of “broad anti-Islamic propaganda, deceiving citizens by formation of what is called a house church, insulting sacred figures and action against national security.” Likewise, Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani continues to suffer in prison. Most recently, he rejected an offer to be released if he publicly acknowledged Islam’s prophet Muhammad as “a messenger sent by God,” which would amount to rejecting Christianity, as Muhammad/Koran reject it.
Kenya: Muslim apostates seeking refuge in Kenya are being tracked and attacked by Muslims from their countries of origin: An Ethiopian who, upon converting to Christianity, was shot by his father, kidnapped and almost killed, is now receiving threatening text messages. Likewise, a Ugandan convert to Christianity is in hiding, his movements severely restricted since “the Muslims are looking to kill me. I need protection and help.”
Kuwait: A royal prince who openly declared that he has converted to Christianity, confirmed the reality that he now might be targeted for killing as an apostate.
Norway: While out for a walk, two Iranian converts to Christianity were stabbed with knives by masked men shouting “infidels!” One of the men stabbed had converted in Iran, was threatened there, and immigrated to Norway, thinking he could escape persecution there.
Somalia: A female convert to Christianity was paraded before a cheering crowd and publicly flogged as punishment for embracing a “foreign religion.” Imprisoned since November, “the public whipping was meant to mark her release.” She received 40 lashes as hundreds of Muslim spectators jeered. An eyewitness said: “I saw her faint. I thought she had died, but soon she regained consciousness and her family took her away.” Likewise, “Somali Islamists arrested a Muslim father after two of his children converted to Christianity” and fled. He is accused of “failing to raise his sons as good Muslims, because “good Muslims cannot convert to Christianity.”
Zanzibar: After being robbed, a Muslim convert to Christianity called police to his house; they discovered a Bible during their inspection. The course of inquiry immediately changed from searching for the thieves to asking why he “was practicing a forbidden faith.” He was imprisoned for eight months without trial, and, since being released, has been rejected by his family and is now homeless and diseased.
CHURCH ATTACKS Continue reading
By Rev. Dallas Henry
We don’t usually think of Valentine’s Day as an explicitly Christian holiday. Other major holidays have obvious Christian origins: Christmas (Christ’s incarnation) and Easter (Christ’s resurrection), but Valentine’s Day? It’s true that Valentine’s Day is not connected with an event in the life of our Lord like Christmas and Easter are, but Valentine’s Day does have some intriguing Christian roots. Along with most holidays, Valentine’s Day has suffered from its share of commercialization and confusion, yet the moving story of the original Valentine’s Day is worth remembering.
After about 1,700 years of history, it’s kind of hard to know exactly who St. Valentine was and what he did. The story is embedded somewhere in the depths of history, never to be known until we get to heaven. What follows may be part tradition and part truth, but completely fascinating.
The year was 270. The Roman Empire was engaged in a desperate attempt to retain the Pax Romana that had endured for centuries. Christianity was active during the 3rd century. Although Christ had died over two centuries prior, Christians were eagerly propagating their faith and churches were springing up everywhere. These early centuries of the church were the times of the great apologists such as Clement, Ignatius, Origen, Polycarp, Athanasius, and Chrysostom. But the 3rd century was also the time of the Christian martyrs. Prior to Constantine, the empire was not friendly to Christianity – not at all. Claudius, the reigning emperor of the time, was a warlord, intent only upon preserving his empire and routing out his enemies. Christianity was not on his “like” list. His primary interests were military, and he would stoop to nothing to ensure that his mighty army remained loyal to him.
It was Claudius’s grip on the military that led him to install a very foolish policy empire-wide. Claudius had a problem on his hands when it came to his army. He discovered that his men actually preferred to get married and stay home with their wives and families rather than risk their lives and sacrifice for their country! Military recruiting was suffering because of the affection between man and wife. Love was getting in the way of patriotism! Claudius would have none of it. Being the man with the big stick, he could make laws and enforce them, too.
So he did. Claudius passed a law forbidding marriage. Obviously, this was an outrage but he was serious.
Living in this anti-Christian and anti-marriage climate, was Valentine. Valentine was a Christian priest in Rome. He knew from the Bible that marriage was good and honored by God. He knew that marriage was lawful according to the Christian faith, so he took it upon himself to perform Christian marriages -contrary to the law. As a priest, he performed secret marriages for couples who desired to be married bravely defying the anti-marriage edict. It wasn’t just marriages that Valentine was working on. He was also trying to protect persecuted Christians who were being chased down and hunted by the aggressive Roman leaders. Christians knew that they could flee to Valentine to find protection.
Valentine was taking a huge risk in performing marriages in secret. Not only was it absolutely forbidden to marry or to perform marriages, but it was also a criminal offense to aid or abet Christians – especially ones whom the Roman Empire had on their hit list!
Valentine was enmeshed in what the Roman Empire considered high treason and traitorous activity. Although he was being loyal to his faith, he was flying in the face of Roman law.
One story reported that one evening he was performing a wedding at his church with the doors locked, no lights burning, and all speaking done in whispers. The soldiers first knocked on the doors and eventually broke them down. He quickly finished his last wedding, sent the new couple fleeing out the side door just as the soldiers came running down the aisle to apprehend him.
The Roman government locked him up in prison. Now, Valentine – protector of Christians and performer of marriages – was himself suffering for his love and devotion to God.
It got worse. Valentine, true to his bold character, tried to convert Emperor Claudius to Christianity. That was just too much. Claudius demanded that Valentine recant his faith and submit to the cruel and godless tyranny of Rome. Valentine staunchly refused. Then Claudius condemned him to torture and death.
While in prison St. Valentine was popular with the young people. One of these young people was the daughter of the prison guard. Her father allowed her to visit Valentine in the cell. Sometimes they would sit and talk for hours. She was an encouragement to him. She agreed that Valentine did the right thing by ignoring the Emperor and going ahead with the secret marriages. She and others would write Valentine little notes. On the day he was to die, February 14, 269 A.D., he left a little note thanking her for her friendship and loyalty and signed it, “Love from your Valentine.” The first “Valentine” card.
Although the story of Valentine’s Day is shrouded in mystery, buried in tradition, and (thanks to commercialism) stripped of its significance, we can bring some of the truth back. The truth is, love can’t be squelched, outlawed, or stamped out. The significance of Valentine’s life was not only that he defended love and romance and performed secret marriages. He chose to obey God rather than man. Remembering St. Valentine today, is besmirched by cupids, chocolate, and candlelit dinners – a day founded upon the life of a martyr. Valentine died a bloody death, beaten and beheaded. The truth is, Valentine was in love with his Savior, Jesus Christ. Love for Jesus trumped his love of self. Valentine nobly gave his life for the God he loved.
That is true love. But true love is deeper still. It goes beyond our love for God. I John 4:10; “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” John 3:16 defines love: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Valentine’s Day is all about love.
The greatest love of all is that which sent Jesus to a cross. That kind of love goes beyond mere comfortable Christian existence. That is the kind of love that is willing to take risks, to sacrifice everything, and even to give our lives, if necessary, for Him who loved us.
God, please help your Church to love like that.
This article was first published in Leadership Post, a publication by Rev Dallas Henry.
The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,” said Smith. “The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
Source: Life Site News, Feb. 10, 2012.
Posted in health care, news, politics, religion
Tagged deception, freedom of conscience, Obamacare, pro-abortion (non) compromise, religious liberty
(COLUMBUS) – Today Congressman Steve Austria (R – Beavercreek) sent a letter to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army questioning the Army Chief of Chaplains’ recent decision to disregard a letter sent to them by Archbishop Timothy Broglio on behalf of the Catholic Church. Bishop Broglio’s letter expresses concern
over the Department of Health and Human Services’ rule requiring coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient services.
“The Obama administration has entirely overstepped its boundaries once again by outwardly censoring the voice of a religious institution,” said Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis. “This is an attack on American freedom unlike any we have seen in recent years. Ohio Right to Life is grateful to Congressman Austria for
taking a stand against this blatant and direct threat to religious liberty.”
The rule announced last month by the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services requires health plans to cover all FDA-approved forms of contraception which include both Plan B and Ella, forms of “emergency contraception” or the morning-after pill. There is significant evidence that these drugs can act as abortifacients by preventing a human embryo from implanting in the womb.
Ohio Right to Life thanks Congressman Austria for his immediate action in response to such injustices as those related to the Obama rule. To read Congressman Austria’s letter, click here.
Posted in government, news, politics, religion
