Michigan Vaccine Waivers….

OK, folks.  I'm going to weigh in on this controversial topic.

We NEED to maintain free access to vaccine waivers.  I know that some of the medicos with whom I am friends may disagree with me, but I have already heard the medical profession's side of this issue.

Now it is MY turn.

There are two very basic reasons why we need to maintain free access to these waivers here in Michigan.

First, is the issue of Constitutionality.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 of the Michigan Constitution both guarantee freedom of religion - NOT WORSHIP; this is a critical distinction.

First Amendment: "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," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 2: "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 4: "Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion… The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief," emphasis added.

 Our Constitutions guarantee us the right to follow the dictates of our INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES with regard to religious belief and practice.

As this applies to this particular issue, many of us believe the Bible teaches, and I have posted regarding this before, that life originates with the creative act of God.  We believe, and is taught in the Psalms, that life begins at the moment of conception.  Everything necessary for the formation of a new human life is present at that moment, and that life has been ordained by God.

As a result, we refuse to participate in anything related to abortion.

That includes certain vaccines.

As can be seen in the two photos, the following vaccines have their origins in the cells and tissues of aborted babies:

Polio

MMR

Varicella/chicken pox/shingles

Rabies

Hepatitis-A

Cell lines originating in abortion are also in use for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis and severe sepsis.

Of these vaccinations, ethical, non-abortion alternatives are only available for polio and rabies.

Because of this, many of us are going to request vaccination waivers so that we are not forced to participate in the encouragement of abortion by using vaccines having their origins in abortion.  We object due to our religious convictions.  According to the two Constitutions, we cannot be discriminated against or demeaned in any way for the free exercise of those convictions, nor can our right to practice our religious convictions be limited in any way by the government (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment).

Second, waivers must be kept freely available due to problems with the SCIENCE underlying these abortion-related vaccines.

Yes, that's right, problems with the medical science.

Of the required vaccinations, box inserts for five of the name brands disclose measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue (accompanying the viruses when harvested for processing) in each dosage.  Now, it is not required under federal law that manufacturers disclose this particular information, so it is entirely likely that other vaccines may also contain measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue, but the manufacturer has chosen not to disclose it.

Why is this important?

There is a small body of research that indicates that what is happening with autism spectrum dysfunction is an immune response that causes inflammation of the brain.  The research postulates that it is these DNA fragments and quantities of human tissue, remnants of the human tissue matrices upon which the viruses used in the manufacture of vaccines are grown, are foreign proteins that trigger an immune response that, in turn, triggers inflammation of the brain and may lead to autism.

The operating hypothesis of the research stands to reason.

One cannot receive blood transfusions or tissue/organ transplants unless they are appropriately typed to the person receiving it.

Why?

Because transplanting or transfusing an individual with tissue or blood that doesn't match their own blood type can cause an immune response - rejection.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that vaccines containing human DNA fragments and tissue can be injected into the bodies of individuals UNIVERSALLY, regardless of the blood type of the recipient, and no immune reaction will occur.  This runs completely contrary to established, documented scientific medical research.

As parents, we must maintain the ability to determine what is best for our own children, not because the UN Conference on the Rights of the Child, or the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, or the county health department have made a determination, but because WE as parents, in accordance with our own religious convictions and research, have made that decision.  That is our right under both the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

One last thought.

Having a right under the Constitution or a sincerely-held religious conviction does not give you the right to send your children to school sick.

To the contrary, it means that you have a responsibility to insure, to the best of your ability, that the practice of your conviction or right doesn't jeopardize the health of those around your children.

Yes, I know this gets difficult considering the need to take time off from work to care for sick children, but that is where God is responsible to meet the resulting need as you faithfully live your conviction.  If He has led you to it, He will also provide.

S. Truett Cathy, 1921 - 2014

Thank you, sir, for standing true to our Savior and His Word!

Chuck Schumer: Choose One, Your Faith Or Your Business; You Can't Have Both...

"You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion AND THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation," Schumer said (emphasis added).

Wrong answer. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US NOTHING!!! The Constitution PROTECTS what is already ours.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

According to Schumer, John Adams had no idea what he was talking about.

This is one more attack on our First Amendment rights by the administration, which is seeking to re-interpret the First Amendment as a "freedom to worship," rather than freedom of religion.

Schumer: religious americans pick one your faith or your business

SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CONTRACEPTION MANDATE!!!

MICHIGAN PASSES ABORTION OPT-OUT!!!

By a vote of 62-46 in the House, and 27-11 in the Senate, Michigan has passed the abortion opt-out!!! It failed to achieve a 2/3 majority by just a few votes, so it goes into effect 90 days after the close of this legislative session instead of taking immediate effect.

This vote makes Michigan the 24th state to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage, meaning that women who desire such coverage must elect to receive it and pay for it themselves, instead of forcing EVERY insurance customer to pay for a medical procedure that is reprehensible morally and Biblically.

THANK YOU, LORD!!!

An Open Letter to Pre. Obama Regarding His Administration's Blatant Violations of the Constitution

Mr. President,

Your administration has taken surveillance of American citizens farther than any administration to-date. And since the NSA is monitoring everything these days, particularly the postings of conservatives, I feel relatively certain that they will stumble across this posting.

I agree with a past leader of our country who was far wiser than you regarding the lengths to which you are going to "keep us safe:" 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

I am well aware that your predecessor set up a system whereby he thought he could skirt the Bill of Rights with impunity, a system your administration is now taking to lengths never before imagined. I am aware that it was the republicans who pushed through the so-called "patriot act," an act which you condemned as a senator, but of which you take full advantage today. I condemned your predecessor's and the republicans' attempts to skirt the Constitution, as I condemn yours today. I will state this plainly: an unConstitutional law is an illegal law. A law that purports to protect the Constitution by violating it is an illegal law. A law that infringes upon the rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the name of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Sovereignty Clauses is an illegal law. That this is true is declared in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Cruikshank, 1875:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PARTICULAR STATE OF WHICH HE IS A CITIZEN TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE THEM, AND TO DO NAUGHT TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THEIR FULL ENJOYMENT. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE." 

These attempts to circumvent the Constitution, to implement unConstitutional laws, must end now, and those who have promulgated these policies must be held accountable for breaking their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They have become what they profess to hate.

Romeike Family Amnesty Resolution, Michigan House of Representatives....

The following resolution in support of the Romeike family was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives today by Rep. Tom Hooker, along with 16 co-sponsors; it was sent to the Committee on Gov't Operations, or as Rep Hooker termed it, the place where bills go to die:

Rep. Hooker offered the following resolution:

House Resolution No. 159.

A resolution to call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested.

Whereas, In our nation's past, we have celebrated immigrants who came to this country in order to escape the persecution that was brought against them. Furthermore, the United States Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has stated that "...creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the eleven million unauthorized immigrants in this country...is a matter of civil and human rights"; and

Whereas, The Romeike family, which consists of Uwe, Hannelore, and their six children, have deeply held religious beliefs and convictions regarding how their children should be educated. Over the course of time the Romeikes came to believe that the state school system in Germany, which does not permit homeschooling as an alternative to the public school system, was educating their children in ways that were at odds with their beliefs. Upon making their decision to pull their children out of the state education system, they were heavily fined, their children were taken to school under police escort, and they faced litigation from the state; and

Whereas, The Romeike family immigrated to the United States in 2008 and in 2010 were granted initial asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. In 2012, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals overruled this decision and denied asylum. In 2013, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the family's appeal; and

Whereas, Our society has held for the better part of the last two hundred and twenty-four years that, as expressed by Albert Gallatin, "[T]he whole Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority have the right to deprive them of"; and

Whereas, The ruling against the permanent grant of asylum to the Romeike family will have the effect of establishing a legal precedent of divesting certain parents of the fundamental right to direct the education of their children by choosing homeschooling, thus limiting their ability to practice their freedom of religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, explicitly states:  "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;" and

Whereas, The youngest daughter of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike is entitled to all of the rights and protections afforded to all citizens of our country under the United States Constitution. She was born within the United States and is a United States citizen. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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;" now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

"We need your honor..."

Fine, then let's see that honor demonstrated by the Commander in Chief first.

“We need your honor, that inner compass that guides you, not when the path is easy and obvious, but it’s hard and uncertain, that tells you the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong,” Obama said. “Perhaps it will be the moment when you think nobody’s watching. But never forget that honor, like character, is what you do when nobody’s looking.”

Practice what you preach, Mr. President.  You have no moral authority to make such a demand.

Let me paraphrase your other relevant remark from this address:

“Those who commit dereliction of duty after receiving numerous please for help, who order troops to stand down when our ambassador and his staff are being murdered, who direct the IRS to target conservatives and others with whose ideology you personally disagree, who tell Christians that they must fund abortion and give vocal approval to homosexuality in violation of their First Amendment Rights, who direct the Department of State to provide funding and weapons to islamic terrorist organizations and hostile governments, and who direct immigration and other law enforcement agencies not to enforce our laws regarding illegal aliens, just to give a few examples, are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that makes our country strong.” 

True leadership doesn't make demands of others that it doesn't first make of itself.

Pres. Obama to West Point Grads: "We need your honor..."

Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?

"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…"  B.H. Obama

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg 

At every turn, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. It's amazing that the words "unalienable" or "shall not be infringed" could ever be interpreted as, "at the government's whim."

If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.

The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."

Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.

The Romeike Deportation Battle - Responding to a Grossly Uninformed Critic...

The following was posted to the wall of the Facebook Group, Stop the DOJ's Persecution of the Romeike Family, last night: "They came here to escape proscecution for NOTt sending their children to school which is the Law.. not for religious proscecution" (copied here EXACTLY as it was posted to the wall).

This is our response:  And the reason for which they objected to the law and the teaching of the schools that led to their decision to homeschool was based on their religious convictions. Acts 5:27-28, "And when they had brought them [the apostles], they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." The lawmakers of their day forbad the apostles to teach about Jesus; you can see their response. 

There comes a point where we must obey the Bible over man's laws. 

This country was founded, in no small part, by individuals who came here to worship according to their convictions regarding what the Bible taught. The law of their day outlawed all but the state religion. Using Holder's argument, the pilgrims didn't have a claim of religious persecution, because the law applied equally to everyone - it didn't single out any particular religious sect. Furthermore, Holder argues that the Romeike's decision to flee the country must be consistent with the general beliefs of their religion; since their religion requires neither homeschooling nor fleeing the country, they have no right to do either of those things, either. They have no individual right to freedom of religion. So according to Holder's arguments, the pilgrims had no right to flee the country because their religion didn't require such action of them. 

We, however, believe in the pre-eminence of the individual conscience and hold, along with Gallatin, that the Bill of Rights protects the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms of religion, conscience, association, and self-determination as unalienable rights. Holder's arguments are disturbing because he is, in fact, arguing the WE don't have an individual right to these things, either. This case establishes the precedent for the demolition of individual liberties and the supremacy of the individual conscience.

The Romeike Family Deportation Battle and Why it Matters to ALL OF US...

Why is the Romeike homeschooling deportation case important? In a word, PRECEDENT.

The foundation for the DOJ case is two-fold.

First, AG Holder argues that the Romeike family has no right to asylum because German law bans homeschooling for everyone, not just religious families. Since the law applies to everyone, he argues, no one can claim they are being persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Second, he argues that the Romeike family failed to prove that ALL RELIGIONS, or even their own religion, require homeschooling.

The underlying idea, then, is that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to freedom of religion in the US, only a GENERAL right to worship - and the interests of the state supersede the individual conscience. As such, AG Holder is using a relatively obscure case to establish a precedent that will effect ALL OF US.

This is contrary to our history. We have taught that the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution; under the Holder doctrine, this teaching must be revised. Adherence to the state religion was mandatory for all citizens at the time the pilgrims came to the New World, so under the Holder doctrine, they had no legitimate claim to religious persecution since the law was binding on all and did not target any specific religious group.

Further, it is contrary to the understanding of the Founders, expressed so eloquently by Albert Gallatin, member of congress in the late 1700's and Treasure Secretary from 1801 - 1813: 

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large OR CONSIDERED AS INDIVIDUALS... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

If AG Holder is successful in having this family deported based on these arguments, he will establish a ruinous precedent regarding our individual liberties. Supporting this family's battle to retain their asylum is support for ALL of us.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-DOJs-Persecution-of-the-Romeike-Family/489996021048844

That Offensive Nativity Scene....

Kristin Terheqes, "Pro-Life Illustrator", recently published the following picture on Facebook:

As one might expect, the picture generated a few responses, including the following:

"Misses the point completely.  Whether the nativity scene is offensive is behind the point - in the US, governments granting public space for religious displays is a violation of the first amendment..."

To which I replied, 

No, SCOTUS missed the point entirely. This is exactly what happens when something is lifted out of its context and made to say something it was never intended to communicate. I offer the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists, from which the now-infamous quote originates - with one major exception: I have put it back into its original context, in which Thomas Jefferson explains the true nature of the "wall of separation."

'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 and 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the executive authorised only to execute their acts...' (bolding added).

The "wall of eternal separation" prevents Congress from passing any legislation interfering with religious practices, and the president, who is only authorized by the Constitution to execute acts passed by the legislature, is powerless to execute any law of his own initiative that would have the effect of infringing the right to - and free exercise thereof - religion guaranteed in the first amendment of the constitution.

As an example, THE ABORTIFACIENT MANDATE ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY ON "PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY PRES. THOMAS JEFFERSON, MAIN AUTHOR OF BOTH THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Two Tragedies of 9/11...

Eleven years ago, on the morning of September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked by Islamic terrorists in an effort to bring our country to its knees.  Nearly 3,000 people died in the resulting attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, the Pentagon, and an attempted attack on the White House that was stopped by the passengers of United Airlines flight 93.  Despite protests to the contrary, our nation was changed that day as the God-given rights of citizens recognized and protected by our Constitution were scrapped. The terrorists won.  While we may have finally gotten bin Laden, there is nothing to suggest that the freedoms that have been taken from us over the course of the last eleven years are ever going to be restored.  bin Laden may have lost the battle, but in bringing about fundamental changes in our Constitutionally-protected freedoms, he won the war.

On September 11, 2012, a new tragedy is slated to occur.  It is the premier of a new program on NBC entitled, "The New Normal."

This is a "comedy" about a single mom who becomes the surrogate for a same-sex couple.  It is an attempt to mainstream the idea that same-sex couples are like everyone else, and should be just as acceptable as heterosexual couples.  The use of comedy is the sugar coating that is intended to take the edge off that message and make the medicine easier to swallow.

There is, however, nothing "new" or "normal" about the message of this show.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, same-sex couples have been around for thousands of years, and both have historically been viewed as taboo by most cultures across the world, not just the "christian" cultures of the West.

More to the point, it is a violation of God's Word.

The Old Testament has this to say:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."  Leviticus 20:13

God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of this sin.

"But that was the Old Testament," some say.  "The New Testament has nothing to say about the subject.  Jesus, in particular, never addressed the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  You can't apply such outdated laws to people who were born this way,  or who are living in committed, loving relationships."

OK.

Let’s assume for the moment that the argument put forward by homosexuals is correct, and they really are born this way.  The assertion today is, if they were born this way, then it is wrong to expect them to change.  They can’t change who they are.

For the sake of discussion, let’s accept that premise.

There is even scripture to back it up.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”  Sin is an inbred part of the human condition.  It is part and parcel of who we are by birth and by inclination.  And according to Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.") and Titus 3:5 ("he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"), there is nothing we can do to change our predisposition on our own.

We are predisposed to lie, cheat, gossip, kill, fornicate, adulterate, and steal - just to name a few.  The name of the sin doesn’t matter; it is axiomatic that the predisposition to do such things is part of who we are because of the fallen nature of the human condition.

Using the logic put forward by the homosexual lobby, then, we shouldn’t designate anything as illegal, nor should we expect that people have the ability to change.  After all, the person who engages in these activities, all declared sin by the Bible and held to be violations of the moral codes of society, is simply following the inclination with which they were born.

But we don’t think like that.  We expect people to change their predisposition to conform to societal, and more importantly, moral and Biblical norms.  We expect them to stop stealing, lying, cheating, fornicating, adulterating, or killing.  And we have no problem saying that GOD can change them.  After all, that is why God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us - to deliver us from our sins (“...the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age…”, Gal. 1:3-4)

Homosexuality, in this respect, is no different than any other predisposition declared by the Bible to be sin.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin.  Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  That doesn’t get much clearer.  Oh, but you say, that was the OLD TESTAMENT; we live under the NEW TESTAMENT, and it doesn’t say anything like that.  For me to accept that line of reasoning first requires me to believe that Malachi 3:6 (“For I the Lord do not change...”) and James 1:17 (“...the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.) are wrong, and God’s character is variable and changing.  Since God says His character doesn’t change, I have to reject that line of reasoning.  

So let's see what the New Testament tells us.  

Romans 1 tells us that, because man rejects the revealed Truth of God contained in His Word AND in creation (verses 18-21) and professes himself to be wise according to his own ideological and intellectual constructs - setting himself up as the ultimate measure of truth (verses 22-23) - GOD GAVE HIM UP (verse 24).  What was one of the many results? 

  

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (verses 24-27)

Men having intercourse with men and women having intercourse with women.  Today this is known as homosexuality; it used to be known as sodomy.  That is the NEW Testament teaching.  Paul doesn’t stop there, though.  He goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul explicitly names homosexuality in these verses.  Yes, he lists a whole lot of others as well (remember what we said at the beginning about other sins?), but he specifically names homosexuality.  But wait a minute - I thought all sins were the same!  Paul puts that notion to rest in this chapter as well.  Take a look at verses 13 and 18:

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality...Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (verses 13, 18).

Yes, all sins are reprehensible to God, but He takes special exception to sins of a sexual nature - that’s not MY interpretation, those are the explicit words of God through the Apostle Paul!

So let’s go back to where we began.  We are all predisposed to different sins.  In that respect, homosexuality is no different than any other sin.  But just as we expect people to change, to stop practicing all of the other sins we listed previously, so the Bible says there is hope for the homosexual!  Regardless of what is being spouted by psychiatrists and psychologists today, one’s predisposition can be changed.

You see, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t leave us in our sin without any recourse or hope of redemption.  Remember verses 9-10, the verses that specifically name homosexuality along with the laundry list of other sins?  They are followed by verse 12:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (bolding added).

The Bible, contrary to politically correct social theory, tells us that, just as it is possible for our predisposition toward all other sins to be changed, so can one’s predisposition toward homosexuality!!!  Is this just my interpretation?  NO!  Read the verses for yourself!

You see, there is no parallel between homosexuality and being African-American, even though this is one of the most prevalent arguments used by the homosexual lobby to garner support.  And an article published by ABC News tells us that there are many African-American pastors - even those who regularly advise the President - who aren’t buying it ("Obama calls pastors to explain gay marriage support; black churches 'conflicted' by president's decision.").  Being black - or yellow, or red - is not a sinful predisposition.  Christ didn’t die to save one from being a different color or ethnicity.  But the Bible tells us that He DID die to save us from our sinful predispositions so that we could live lives that please God.  He saved us to DESTROY our old predispositions so that He can give us NEW ones, predispositions that desire to follow the revealed Truth of God’s Word.  As Paul tells us in Romans 5:6-7,

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

As this debate continues to unfold, there are many who assert that this has nothing to do with religion, or Christianity, or the Bible, that the Bible really doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing it - as if God has to say something many times in order for us to take Him seriously.  And after all, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.  You’re right.  He didn’t.  When given the perfect opportunity to change or expand the one man/one woman paradigm to include same-sex couples, as recorded in Matthew and Mark, He went right back to the truth given in Genesis 2:23-24, 

“Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Is this about hating homosexuals?  No.  This is about loving them by giving them the Truth of God’s Word.  You see, Proverbs 26:28 tells us that ”A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”  We don’t accuse the doctor of hating us when he or she gives us truth that we would rather not hear.  We acknowledge that he or she is looking out for our welfare.  If we accept this as true in the context of human wisdom, then how much more true is it when the wisdom we share is of divine origin? 

And in the context of this new show, the Truth tells us that there is nothing "new" or "normal" about same-sex couples raising children together.  It is a tragedy that this show has even been allowed to air.  

Hence, the second tragedy of 9/11. 

A Theology of Church and Personal Security.....

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing concealed carry in churches.  For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia.  After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe.  For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.


And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek,  there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.


Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils.  These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities.  They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day.  They guarded the finances and foodstuffs.  So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection.  This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it."  A literal translation of the term, "hides",  indicates covering one's self,  taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.


OK, but that was the Old Testament.  The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek.  Again, this is true.  As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response.  But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also commanded His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.  Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest.  An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:  

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" 

They said, "Nothing." 

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.


Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them.  They were to take nothing with them - no   money, knapsack, sandals.  Not even their staves.  This is significant.  The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense.  The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel.  But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God. With His impending death, however, something changed.  I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us.  I simply acknowledge that something changed.  As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition.  Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection.  This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek, commanded His disciples to sell some of their clothing if necessary to provide it.  His command had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment.  Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.


Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection?  Absolutely.  Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection?  Again, the answer is yes.  Romans 13 teaches this clearly.  And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches.  So when human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides, more of that responsibility falls on the individual.  Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves.  The right granted by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.