Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Doing what we taught them


Freak dancing. That's what they call the clothed near-intercourse that goes on in some dancing. Not good even in a night club, but inexcusable at a school function.

From ABC:

Charles Salter has banned all dances until the kids clean up their act, and now parents and schools from California to Connecticut are cheering.

"It's basically when two people are like grinding against each other in a kind of sexual way," Aliso Niguel freshman Kori Roberts says.

Here's the truly sad part:

With steady diet of music videos featuring sexually expressive dance routines and revealing clothes, the kids don't understand why adults don't understand. "We don't really know what else to do," says 14-year-old Sara Saldino. "That's basically what we grew up with. In middle school we were already doing that and watching TV and seeing that. It's what we know."

And these kids are absolutely right in that this kind of behavior is "what we know." Why? Because that's what our society has taught them. That's what we've taught them by allowing it to happen.

A situation where human sexuality is on a level with animals. It's hazardous both to the physical health, and the emotion and spiritual well being. It also does nothing for the nobility and stability of our civilization

It's not only a sad statement on the moral status of the upcoming generation, it's an indictment of the moral failure of our current generation.


Friday, November 17, 2006

Why Kill It?

There was an interesting Letter to the Editor in the Rapid City Journal today. It pertains primarily to partial birth abortions, but has applicability to other types of abortions as well.

I'd like folks who voted against Referred Law 6 to think it over and answer this question:


Why kill it?

I would appreciate if someone could help me understand better the following:

If abortion isn't murder, why must an abortion doctor first kill a baby before it is yanked from its mother's womb? If it's not alive, why isn't it just yanked out and thrown right in the trash?

AUTUMN LYONS

Sturgis

If it isn't alive, what does it matter if we poke a hole in its skull and suck it out right before the head is all the way out of the mother? If it isn't alive, why bother ripping it apart before extracting it--after all, wouldn't it be safer to extract "it" in one piece? For that matter, if we aren't ending a human life, why bother with the facade that abortion should be "rare" at all?

If you voted against RL6, please think these questions over. You don't need to answer me; just answer them for yourself...and your God.


Thursday, November 16, 2006

Leaving the Wolves Den

Two more Episcopal churches are leaving their denomination over that denomination's support of homosexuality and radical feminism, among other things.

There are still lots of good Christians left in denominations such as the Episcopal church, ELCA Lutherans and some of the other denominations that have chosen the politically correct agenda of men rather than God's way.

Some have stuck around in the hopes of bringing their denominations back to the Word, but many, like these churches, are reaching the conclusion that sometimes the heresy is so entrenched in the leadership that they're wasting their time.

2 Timothy 4:3 said the time would come when some people wouldn't tolerate God's word and would substitute whatever flavor-of-the-day that makes them feel good. Acts 20 and Matthew 7 also warned us that wolves in sheep's clothing would come and try to lead people astray.

Those times are upon us. Fortunately, these are two churches that have decided to get away from the wolves den.


Rudy Doesn't Make the Grade

I'm hearing more and more about Rudy Giuliani gearing up for a 2008 presidential run.

First let me acknowledge and tip my hat to his leadership to New York City (and to an extent, the rest of the country) on 911 and the dark days immediately following. He was decisive at a time when anything less would have made the disaster even worse. He's to be commended for that.

However, if Guiliani wants to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, he should proceed with his efforts to make a full-fledged bid for the presidency.

Conservatives--who make up the base of the Republican Party--will never support Guiliani. His liberal stance on abortion and the homosexual agenda are not going to cut it with the base. No matter how much he may try to cash in his 911 capital, conservatives aren't going to make the exchange.

Remember Bob Dole in 1996? As dissatisfied as most of us were with philanderer-in-chief Bill Clinton, there wasn't much in Dole for conservatives to get fired up about; he, too, was too liberal.

And if the base doesn't get fired up about a candidate, then those malleable moderates who vote whichever way the wind blows, they're not going to see the energy for that candidate they need to help them detect wind direction.

We just saw that this election season; can we learn the lesson before 2008?


Talk About Not Getting It

Some Left wingers have been asking of the still-upbeat pro-life movement "Don't they get it?" since the defeat of the abortion ban in South Dakota.

I have an answer to that one, but perhaps they should look in their own camp before asking that question.

From a Sky Valley Journal report on passage of the marriage protection amendment in Wisconsin:

Gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say they might quit their jobs because of the state's passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.

And more:
Some employees vowed to lobby state lawmakers for domestic partner benefits despite the overwhelming vote last week for the amendment.

And finally the piste de resistance:
Trekell said he has received e-mails from people "as they are crying at their computers and students just enraged and vowing vengeance."

Crying at your computer just because someone won't pat you on the head and call you a "good boy" for sodomizing your buddy? Give me a break.

That last part gives me a little concern, though. Vengeance? In what form? If it's a political effort to sway public sentiment, then that's their First Amendment right. But if it's something else, they'd better cool their heels and get a grip.


Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Fathers and Daughters: Children Aren't Ornaments

Carrie Lukas has a good piece on the importance of fathers at National Review Online.

Our society (through movies, TV shows and commercials) sends the message that fathers are just bunglers at best, who wouldn't be able to make it out the door in the morning if there wives weren't there to correct them and do everything for them. Without undermining the importance of wives and mothers, most fathers are better than the media gives them credit for.

As my daughter (just turned 9) grows, more and more I'm amazed at what she is learning from me--and at times it's very scary. It's sobering if nothing else, because while I try to be a good father to my children, sometimes I let "urgent" things crowd in and I don't try as hard as they deserve. But with God's help and continual reminders to get back to my primary duty, I think my children have a good shot at turning out alright.

Why? At the risk of sounding like we're tooting our own horns, our family takes Deuteronomy chapter 6 seriously and tries to live by it:

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

We constantly look for opportunities--even driving to McDonald's--when we see some relevant life-lesson to bring it up and discuss it with our children (our son has just turned 4, so he doesn't get most of it, but you'd be amazed at what he does remember and put together later). I usually throw some comments about something we see as we drive around, or hear on the radio, and let my daughter ask questions and express her own thoughts and observations on things.

Children desperately need their parents to point them toward the truth and help them internalize it to the point that they develop "ownership" of that truth. They don't need some liberal idiot of a parent who's more interested in being their "friend" than they are in equipping their children to become responsible members of the next generation.

Children also don't need to be the subjects of liberal experiments to remake reality in their own permissive image. They need to know right from wrong, they need to know what the truth is and what the lies are that lurk in waiting to overtake them.

Children need a safe and stable environment, and some adults need to grow up themselves and provide it for their children. Children aren't just an accessory for the annual Christmas postcard. They are real human beings that deserve responsibility out of their parents, instead of being treated as afterthoughts falling somewhere far behind the recreational and sexual priorities of a parent who never learned to put someone else ahead of their own basest hungers.

Parenting isn't just a job--though we would all do well to remember that it is that--that we do whether we like it or not. It's a charge from God to provide for and guide and protect a young human being that God has placed in our care.

If you're a parent, God has left something very important to him in our care. If we want His favor, we would do well to remember how much he cares about children, and would be good stewards of those he has entrusted to us. I tremble for some of the mistakes I've already made, and some of the things I've already neglected to do; how much more should I be afraid if I only saw my children as ornaments at best, or even nuisances to be endured?

Parents: don't leave your children to fend for themselves. Protect them from the lies that would destroy them. Protect them from people who would use them for their own ends. And protect them from their own sinful nature. The day will come when they're grown that they'll have to choose right or wrong on their own. When that day comes, it's no longer up to you what they do. But if you've equipped them well and taught them right, even though they'll surely make some mistakes, they'll likely come out alright.

Now go and read Lukas' column if you haven't already. She makes the case for caring for our daughters (and all our children) far better than I have here.


Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Rewriting History

WorldNetDaily features an article today about the ongoing liberal attempt to rewrite history.

This is nothing new overall, since they've been trying to rewrite America's Christian heritage out of our history for decades, but it is a very detailed accounting of some of those attempts--and certainly in the running for the most brazen attempt at it.

I've often pondered the multitude of Christian symbols and emblems in our national capitol, and how the secularists must have to turn a blind eye to them. This article reveals that they've managed to come up with a lie that might sound plausible at first glance--especially to those dumbed-down by our liberal secularist public school system.

These revisionists are actually trying to claim that the relief of Moses and the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court are not the Ten Commandments, but represent the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The man who compiled this research, Pastor Todd DuBord of Lake Almanor Community Church in California, actually had to dig and go back a ways to find

a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court Handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said, "Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments…"

The WorldNetDaily article is good, but read the pastor's report to get the full picture of the historical cover-up.


Sibby's Right

It pains me to say this, but I have to agree with my friend Sibby on his "When moderation is extreme" post (actually it doesn't pain me, but I thought the split-second of disorientation it caused you libs would be worth it). :-)

Sibby is absolutely correct. Truth isn't built on "warm fuzzies." Warm fuzzies from the Right are nothing more than white flags in the face of nonstop aggression from the Left--and make no mistake: the Left is unimpressed.

I don't agree with Barry Goldwater on everything, but one thing he said is a truth you can take to the bank:

-Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
-Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.

The Lord I follow said the same thing a little differently: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

By the grace of God, I have this same reaction when I encounter secular "moderation." This is why I have more respect for a committed liberal--as unhinged as they are--than I do a mealy-mouthed "moderate" any day. Such a pansy approach to right and wrong makes me sick, and I have an overwhelming urge to spit it out.

Moderation when using alcohol is a good thing; moderation in pursuit of justice is a cop-out.


Fight for Life Goes On

Letters continue to come in to the Rapid City Journal on either side of the Referred Law 6/abortion issue. I know some of them are trickling in from before the election, but it's obvious that some of them were sent afterward. This issue isn't going to go away.

In the week since the election, I've seen lots of libs bellyache that pro-lifers "just don't get it."

Actually, it's you, the pro-abortion lib, who doesn't get it. Right and wrong doesn't hinge on 51% (or 54% or even 100%) of the vote. It hinges on a universal truth that human beings are created in the image of God and are sacred from conception. That universal truth transcends human opinion, and it always will.

Liberals love to mock Christian conservatives about science and the "omniscience" of science. While science isn't all knowing (it's the search for truth, not truth itself), there is a greater truth that flies over their heads at mach 3: liberals are the ones who ignore science in favor of their religion--the religion of secular humanism.

In this particular case, science overwhelmingly points to the unborn child as a unique human being, even from conception. From the fact that the child has DNA completely unique from the mother or father (from the moment of conception), to the fact that it has a beating heart in about 22 days, to the fact that it can feel pain in just a few weeks (ironically, right around the time when most abortions occur).

The pro-life effort suffered an unmistakable defeat on Nov. 7. But we're not going away. We cannot--and we will not--look at a vote and say, "Okay, that's settled then. The majority has decided the murder of human beings at certain developmental stages is morally correct now, so we can all go home." (How very "scientific" that would be, huh?)

This campaign was the best opportunity in 33 years to educate people about the human dignity of unborn humans. Obviously, the job isn't done, and those of us who value human life--both spiritually and scientifically--will be here to finish the job.

Don't you get it?


 
Clicky Web Analytics