How We Pray - A little something different since it is Christmas

The question of how to pray is very important to creating a strong relationship with God. There are many myths about prayer that leave a great portion of today’s Christians with much less power than God intends for us to have. A strong relationship with anyone requires good communication, and the same can be said for our walk with God. One common myth about prayer is that praying is about asking God for what we desire. One scripture commonly used to back this idea up is found in the seventh chapter of Matthew, where Jesus, speaking to the multitude, stated that if you “ask, it shall be given to you.” So, it is that simple, just tell God what you want, and he will send it to you. That is not exactly what Jesus was saying, but many take this scripture out of context, and then they wonder why the new car they asked for has not arrived. If the scriptures surrounding these words from Jesus are analyzed, the true message becomes clear. In the eleventh verse, we can see that Jesus clarifies his statement by telling the multitude that the “Father, which is in heaven, (will) give good things to them that ask of him.” What are good things? When the entire message to the multitude is read, it becomes clear that good things are those things which can be used to glorify God, and to strengthen his kingdom. God is more than willing to provide for his people when they ask, but in return, we should work for the Father to bring him the glory. Asking for material wealth to glorify man is a selfish prayer, and that is not what God is looking for. Ok, so how are we supposed to pray? One good way to be successful in all aspects of life is to look at others who are successful, and learn from them. If you are poor, do not look for answers from other poor people, look to the successful, and learn from them. If you are depressed, do not ask other depressed people how to live happily, talk to happy people for guidance. It seems simple, and in effect it is, but too many people do not follow this common sense approach to a better life. When looking for guidance on prayer, who better to learn from than the one who’s prayers were always answered, Jesus. The New Testament is filled with instruction on prayer for anyone who takes the time to study the life, words, instruction, and even the actual prayers of Jesus. In the same message to the multitude from which many people cherry pick the “ask and it shall be given” message, Christ gives a vast amount of instruction on prayer.
In the sixth chapter of Matthew, Jesus instructs that we are not to “be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” He goes on to say that we should “enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Is Jesus instructing us to pray only when no other person is around? This is a scripture often used out of context by those who do not want to go to church, and insist that they are better served by praying alone at home. It is true that private prayer is needed, but corporate prayer and worship is modeled throughout the bible, and the most powerful appearances of God occur when many are gathered, praying and worshiping corporately. The message being conveyed by Jesus is that prayer is for the glorification of the Father, not for the glorification of man. Eloquent words in the public square are often uttered to impress man, but the Father hears the prayers of the humble that seek only to glorify him. Reading on, we see more instruction from Jesus regarding prayer. Jesus instructs that you should “use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” This again speaks to those who wish to gain acclaim with their beautifully rehearsed prayers. One look at the messenger God chose to lead his people from the bondage of Egypt shows how much credence he gives to how eloquently a man speaks. God is much more concerned with what is spoken from our hearts than how it is spoken. Jesus goes on to instruct that we should “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” This clearly touches on the concept of wasting our breath by asking God for what we think we need. It is vain repetition to tell God, who knows all, that we are in need of something, or that we want something.
It seems that Jesus has given much teaching to the multitude about how not to pray, but he does not stop there. As a demonstration that he is in fact a good shepherd, he goes on to instruct them on how to pray. The Lord’s prayer, as it has come to be known, is a wonderful example of how we are to pray, but many have turned it into vain repetition because they simply speak the words with no real understanding of what they are saying. To understand how we are to pray, it is best to look at the prayer one phrase at a time. He begins by addressing God as “Our Father, which art in heaven.” This is not just an arbitrary phrase that Jesus thought sounded impressive, it is an address to who the prayer is intended for. This simple phrase demonstrates that the emphasis of the prayer is God, not man. The phrase is also the beginning of a conversation, and Jesus makes this clear by addressing God, the figure he is communicating with. The next line is vitally important to understanding the purpose of prayer, and it is simply missed by the majority of Christians. Jesus says “Hallowed be thy name.” To understand this line, we must define the term “hallowed”. The term is defined as follows: to render sacred, to consecrate, to confess as holy, or to give reverence to. Therefore, Jesus begins his prayer by addressing God, and by confessing that his name is to be revered as holy. This is a model for how all prayers should begin; by giving praise to our father God, not by asking for material wealth and blessing when he already knows what we need, and in fact, as joint heirs with Christ, we were blessed before the foundation of the world. Evidence of this blessing can also be found in Matthew: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 25:34) From these two simple lines, it is clear that the focus of prayer is the praise and worship of God, not the needs of man. As Jesus continues to pray, he states, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, in Earth, as it is in heaven.” As with the previous phrases, Jesus has placed the emphasis on God, and on his will, not the will of man. In another of Jesus’ prayers, he continues this pattern when he prays, “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This statement again places the true purpose of prayer where it needs to be, on the will of our Father God. Not only does Jesus pray that God’s will be done on Earth, he also prays that God’s kingdom be set up on the Earth, making Earth like heaven. This is lost on millions of Christians that believe God wants to take his people off of the Earth, when in reality, he wishes to bring heaven to Earth so that he can dwell among his people. So, what have we learned after the first few statements of The Lord’s Prayer?

1. Prayer is for the edification of God, not man
2. Prayer is to be God centered, not man centered
3. The first purpose of prayer is to praise our Father God, not to ask for blessings that we already have
4. Prayer should focus on making the will of God a reality on Earth
5. It is the will of God that Earth be like Heaven

It is clear from only a few lines that the majority of people have completely missed the boat on prayer, but what else does Jesus pray? Continuing, Jesus next statement is, “Give us this day, our daily bread.” Is this an appeal to God for physical sustinence? The answer is a resounding no, for God has already promised to fulfill our physical needs as he does the bird’s of the air if we place him first. What is Jesus asking God to give us in his line of the prayer.?
Bread is a symbol of Chist, and of the salvation he represents for all of mankind. It is also symbolic of the word of God that we should daily feed upon to become more like Christ. In essence, Jesus is asking for his daily word from God, his instruction, and his salvation, not a physical meal. After this request, Jesus goes on to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” At first glance, it appears Jesus is asking God to forgive all of his debts, but the meaning is much more powerful when the sentence is completed. Jesus is asking for the judgement of God as a measure of his worth. That is, Jesus is asking the Father to give him the same mercy he shows his fellow man. Is this something you could ask God? Do you want God to treat you the way you treat those who owe you a debt? This ties into the surrounding teachings by Christ to the multitude, and in context, it is a powerful statement. Like much of the Lord’s Prayer, most Christians have no idea what they are praying when they uter these words, but the old adage definitely applies that you should be careful what you wish for. The next line of the prayer, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” seems to be straight forward, and in essence it is, but when looked at closely, it again places the emphasis on God. The line asks God, the only one who can , to give us divine guidance and protection. This is a request for covering, or intercession. It is also a foreshadowing of what Christ is doing now, after his assention: “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” The prayer is then finished by Jesus in a manner similar to how it began, with praise to the Father. Jesus prays, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.” In this line, Jesus is confessing that the Kingdom is God’s, he is giving glory to God, and he is announcing that God is all powerful. Sound familiar? It is simply more praise and reverence to the Father God. After studying the entire prayer, we can add to our list of what Jesus teaches us about prayer:

1. Prayer is for the edification of God, not man
2. Prayer is to be God centered, not man centered
3. The first purpose of prayer is to praise our Father God, not to ask for blessings that we already have
4. Prayer should focus on making the will of God a reality on Earth
5. It is the will of God that Earth be like Heaven
6. We are to pray for the divine guidance of God through his word
7. We are to pray for our salvation through Christ
8. We should ask our just God to show us the mercy that we show our fellow man (scary)
9. We should pray for not only guidance, but protection through the covering of Jesus (intercession)
10. Finally, we should again praise God, giving him the power as the all powerful Father that he is, and we should confess that his Kingdom is above all other

As you can see, the majority of the body of Christ needs prayer lessons. Many have relegated God to a spiritual Santa Claus, and in so doing, they have missed the whole point. Prayer is not to be man centered or selfish, it is intended to be God-centered, and the purpose is to give God praise for all of the blessings he has already bestowed upon us, not to ask for more.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

No room for Moderates in '08

Although the next presidential election is still two years away, the subject already monopolizes many political conversations. With Barak Obama gaining steam, Hillary steaming, and a battle shaping up between Rudy and McCain, it appears that the next two years will be, if nothing else, interesting. With these four wannabe moderates leading the way, one might assume that the theme of the 2008 election season will be moderation, but I for one see it differently. Much could happen to change my mind between now and November of ’08, but as of today, I believe that there will be no room for moderates in the race to the Whitehouse. In fact, the two men I think will represent their respective parties have not even announced they are running. On the side of the Democrats, I see a man that is far from moderate gathering steam and support. This man is a familiar face, and he is the anti-Bush, which will appeal strongly to the Democratic Party which has a leadership that seems to be sliding farther left by the minute. In my opinion, Al Gore will represent the Democrats in November of 2008. I know, I know, Obama mania has taken root in the Northeast, the Midwest, and even the far out West coast, but when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, the Democrats will choose Gore. Why? Other than his experience, which Obama lacks, Gore has begun leading the crusade on all things environmental. He has also cheered loudly for the cut and run crowd, and his sound bites are priceless. Remember this one…”He betrayed his country, he played on our fears…”? This Goreism brings up the major reason I believe Gore will be the Democratic candidate come ’08, he is the anti-Bush. As the left becomes even more and more opposed to everything the current administration does, Gore will become a stronger and stronger candidate. On the other side of the aisle, I see a true dark-horse emerging from the conservative right. When it comes down to it, the majority of the mainstream Republican Party votes conservative, especially on social issues. This is the main reason I do not see McCain, or the socially liberal Giuliani getting the nod. The man I truly believe will win the Republican nomination is Rick Santorum. Right now this prediction seems far fetched, but give it some time. While McCain and Rudy split each other’s vote in half, the ultra-conservative Santorum will find his niche among the conservative base. This will leave a general election with polar opposites gunning for the presidency. Who will win? That will be determined primarily by turnout. It will truly be a Conservative vs. Liberal election, and we will see once and for all where our country really lies.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Why Wal-Mart?

The newest “evil” being attacked by the left may be a surprise to many Americans. There is a full fledged attack on the Wal-Mart corporation that has actually gained endorsement from politicians such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and even the prodigal son of Democrats, Barak Obama. Upon hearing that this attack was being waged, I found myself a little bewildered. It just was not clear to me what the Left could possibly have against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart provides millions of consumers with affordable goods; and they provide millions of employees, many of which would otherwise be unemployed, with jobs. So, I decided to go to the source. The group leading this charge against Wal-Mart has a website titled Wake-Up Wal-Mart. In an attempt to find out what the big problem with Wal-Mart is, I went to the web site and did a little digging. It did not take me long to find enlightenment. In fact, here is a list of the ills of Wal-Mart in the eyes of its detractors:

Wal-Mart has a responsibility to all Americans to set the standard for customers, workers and communities, and to help build a better America.
The truth is that Wal-Mart has let America down by lowering wages, forcing good paying American jobs overseas, and cutting costs with total disregard for the values that have made this nation great
In Wal-Mart's America, workers are paid poverty level wages even when they work full-time; In our America, workers are paid a living wage with proper health and retirement benefits.
In Wal-Mart's America, wealthy companies shift their health care costs onto tax payers like you and your families; In our America, corporations live up to their responsibility and provide their employees with adequate and affordable health care coverage.
In Wal-Mart's America, suppliers are forced to make their goods cheaper even if it means shipping U.S. jobs overseas; In our America, we value U.S. jobs and companies that buy and sell "Made in America."
After reading this list, a few blog post by those against Wal-Mart, and a list of groups endorsing the web site, it became abundantly clear why the Left has become anti Wal-Mart. Let’s take a look at what the list is really saying, without the Wal-Mart slant:
1. America has the responsibility to take care of workers and communities.
2. America has let us down by not insuring higher wages regardless of the cost to business.
3. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure all people are paid high wages and granted healthcare coverage at no expense.
This is a much shorter list, but I think you get the idea. What is wrong with Wal-Mart? In a nutshell, it celebrates capitalism and personal responsibility. To the Left, this is the unforgivable sin. The argument is simply that Wal-Mart should run in a more socialistic manner. More evidence to the fact can be seen in some of the complaints of Wal-Mart employees who want change. One such comment stated that Wal-Mart will fire you if you get injured at home and can not go to work. Another stated that Wal-Mart no longer accepts doctor’s excuses for absences. In other words, if you do not go to work, you do not get paid, and you may be fired. In the world of the socialists, see France, there is no reason that a worker should have to be responsible to keep their job. It is all becoming clearer. The list of those endorsing the web site also brings clarity to the matter. The largest supporters all happen to be unions. Never would have guessed. So, is it really Wal-Mart that is under attack, or is it what Wal-Mart represents, the American way of life.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is the Democratic Leadership "above" the military?

There are many questions regarding the feelings and beliefs of the members of the Democratic party’s leadership, but one of these questions seems to be reiterated daily. Do the leaders of the party really have a disdain for all things military? It seems that these “leaders” are constantly making statements that lead one to believe they are above the troops, and in essence, believe they are on a higher moral ground. So, in their minds, it is ok to kill unborn babies to defend the reproductive rights of females, but defending the liberty and freedom that gives them the right to spew their rhetoric is immoral? How can I make such a vicious remark about our elected officials that lean to the left? Leys look at a few statements and actions from the Democratic leadership.

Charlie Rangle - “I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

Strong words from Rangle, but are they accurate? Unfortunately for Mr. Rangle, he is once again way off base. Then again, the truth has rarely stopped a politician from furthering his or her agenda. In reality, the members of the U.S. Armed forces are more educated and affluent than they have ever been.

John Kerry – “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So, only the uneducated, lazy, and stupid serve in the military? Sounds like disdain to me. Kerry later stated that he simply botched a joke that was aimed at the Commander and Chief, a part of the military. That makes it much better. To define the term hypocrit, John Kerry defended his remarks as true:

"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."

By insulting our troops, then stating that he was actually insulting the Commander in Chief, was John Kerry not reducing the lives of our soldiers to “raw politics”? Who is telling this guy what to say?

Our next quote came before an investigation was conducted, but it furthered the Democratic agenda, so it was stated as a “fact”.

John Murtha - "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Let’s review, our soldiers do not want to defend our country, they are poor, they are backward, they come from slums, they are uneducated, they are lazy, and lastly, they kill innocent civilians in cold blood. All of these statements were made from just three leaders in the Democratic party, I wonder what Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi think about the military. Considering that they represent the two most Secular Progressive states in the Union, there is little doubt.
Technorati Profile
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Media Bias?

One of the most argued points among those on either side of the culture war is whether or not there is a media bias in the United States. It is abundantly clear that anyone who states there is no media bias, primarily in the print media and on the major networks, either has their head in the sand, or they are being dishonest. Another example of this belief by the media that there is no war on Christmas. It seems that the media believes that if they say something often enough, it will be believed as truth. At the same time, there is currently a case before the Supreme Court, brought about by a group of parents in New York, to strike down a ruling by the 3rd circuit court in New York that makes it legal to display Jewish and Muslim symbols, but illegal to display Christian images. The New York Board of Education decided that it is perfectly OK to display a menorah fro Hanukkah and a crescent and star for Ramadan, but that it is unlawful to display a nativity scene for Christmas. You will not likely find coverage of this law suit in the print media, or on the big networks because it is inconvenient to their cause. Another example of media bias is evident in the most widely circulated newspaper in the state of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The editorial page and letters to the editor claim to give representation to the population of the state in the articles and letters they choose. Georgia is the most conservative state in the Union currently, as shown by the recent elections and the candidates chosen, so you would assume that the editorials and letters chosen by the paper would represent that fact. As a well known sports icon commonly states, "Not so fast my friend". In fact, one of the two editorials in today's AJC is based on the authors belief that the United States is the least trustworthy country in the world. A quote from the article states that "We (United States) have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict (late 1700's)". That does not seem like an opinion from a conservative electorate, more like a rallying cry from the "blame America first crowd". If this is true, what does the author make of our protection and liberation of Europe during the World Wars? The letters to the editor, sent in from actual members of the population that is approximately 60% conservative Republicans, is even more lop sided. Do you think that a population that is 2/3 conservative is represented by a Letter to the Editor page that contains five out of six anti-conservative letters? I think the AJC should work on its math. In any event, this is but one example of the bias found in much of the nation's media. So, am I missing it, or is this media bias idea holding water?



Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is Russia a threat?

The birth of my first child has slowed my writing, for good reason, but there is a question that has troubled me for sometime. It is true that no one country can threaten the United States militarily, and no terrorist organization alone is a significant long term threat (they can do serious damage, but they can not defeat us), but what would happen if a semi-super power joined forces, and sponsered a terror group? Would the partnership create cataclysmic problems for our country? For some time, the actions of Russia, and the relationship between Putin and Iran has caused a bit of concern, but it seems that the true character of the Russian government is coming to the forfront, and along with it, a troublesome relationship with the extremist regime in Tehran. It appears that for the first time since the coldwar, there was a state sponsered assasination this week orchestrated by the Russian government. The victim, an ex-KGB spy, was poisioned with radiation, and he had some very strong words before dying Thursday. Ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of his murder from beyond the grave on Friday, in a statement read out the morning after he died of an unknown poison in a London hospital. Litvinenko left a statement for the world stating the, "You (Putin) may succeed in silencing one man. But a howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life." Along with this development is the continued arms trade between Russia and Iran, and the pressure from Moscow to keep the UN from sanctioning Iran. Why? More evidence was revealed today when it was reported that
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran. So, what will happen with Russia? Is there any cause for concern?
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

How do you spell evil? A.C.L.U.

The American Civil Liberties Union; based on the name, it sounds like a wonderful organization created to protect the rights of all Americans. However, when you read a comment from the organization's founder regarding its purpose, the truth becomes a bit clearer. When asked about his goals for the organization, and its impact on the United States, founder Roger Baldwin had the following comments: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Communism? It is a bit confusing that the founder equates the protection of Civil Liberties with a final goal of Communism., but to process this information, we should define Communism. Communism is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Totalitarian....protection of Civil Liberties? Something does not add up, but can we equate the fact that the organization's name is deceiving to the assumption that it is evil? Probably not, but we can look a little deeper into the actions of the ACLU to determine if it is inherently evil. Just like a man, an organization can be judged by its works. First, let us see what Webster's has to say about the term evil. The term is defined as wicked, morally reprehensible, deceiving, harmful actions arising from bad character, or the absence of good (God), or the allowing of evil actions. Well, with its name alone, the ACLU has already hit one of the characteristics of evil, but let's dig a bit deeper. The first characteristic of evil listed is morally reprehensible actions, so we must determine if the ACLU fits into this category. It does not take long to find that the ACLU is a constant defender of actions that the majority of the population consider morally reprehensible. A look at some of the organization's policies discovered the following facts: the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion (not protection) of homosexuality (Policy 264); and the opposition of the rating of music and movies (Policy 18). To stress what I see as the worst of these policies, the ACLU has defended the NAMBLA organization on various occassions. As with the ACLU, much can be learned about NAMBLA by its name alone. The letters stand for: NAtional Man-Boy Love Association, and the organization's main goal is the promotion of sexual relationships between grown men and children, in this case little boys. This definitely fits into the definition of evil, and by supporting such an organization, the ACLU is guilty. If this is not enough evidence to support the idea that the ACLU is evil, let's look a little deeper. Another hallmark of evil is the presence of harmful actions that arise from a lack of character. Returning to the ACLU's stated policies, we find that they also support the opposition of parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); the opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); and the opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262). If it is a pro-abortion measure, the ACLU supports it. In fact, the organization is the nation's leading proponent of unfettered abortion at any point of pregnancy. They must be proud. Still not enough evidence, how about this. The ACLU is pro-death. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose both abortion and euthanasia. As long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it, unless of course it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death. This could go on and on, but there is one last bit of evidence I would like to examine. The definition of evil, at it's root, is the absence of good, or the absence of God. As an organization, no one has done more to make the absence of all things Godly a reality in the United States than the ACLU. In short, the ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are the most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, the ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history. In summation, is the ACLU evil? Yes.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

What does Nancy really represent?

Nancy Pelosi was chosen by the House Democrats today as the new Speaker of the House. No real surprise, when the party won the majority position in the House, it was just a formality to make Pelosi the Speaker. So, as representative from San Francisco, what does Nancy represent. The answer to this question is simple, for soild proof of her beliefs, look no farther than the district she represents. One thing we know about San Francisco is that there is a great disdain for all things military in the city. In fact, when questioned about the military, one of the city supervisors told Bill O'reilly that there was no need for a standing army, and that the presence of one only agitates the rest of the world. When questioned about what would happen if there were an attack with no standing army, the member calmly stated that the police and firemen could protect the city. What? That is just one example, so surely this hatred of the military is isolated in the city. This brings us to exhibit two. A few months ago, the Federal Government proposed a military museum in San Francisco. The proposal had a retired ship serving as a walk through museum to celebrate the Navy and it's importance to our country. I think the following excerpt clearly illustrates the matter: "Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco's anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city's Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year." Let's move on to exhibit number three. Earlier this year, the city of San Francisco voted on whether or not Military Recruiters should be allowed into High Schools and Colleges. Can you guess what the results of the vote were? That's right, recruiters were banned by a 60-40 vote. One last bit of evidence just for fun. Earlier this week, the San Francisco Board of Education made the decision to eliminate the Junior ROTC program from its public schools. This decision was handed down even though the program is extremely popular, and it is completely voluntary, or it was completely voluntary. What are these people thinking? So, how does everyone feel about the new Speaker of the House and her district?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Future of the Courts

From the mouth of a well known Officer in the Secular Progressive Militia, Chuck Schumer, another battle in the Culture War is brought to light. In a recent interview, after stating that the biggest mistake made by the Senate was allowing the appointment of Justice Alito, Schumer had these thoughts, “Judges are the most important, one more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.” From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, and that is just how he likes it. So, what about Alito disturbs Schumer so much? From the quote above, it is clear that Schumer believes that Alito is a conservative, and in the mind of a Secular Progressive like Schumer, this is a character flaw that cannot be forgiven. In a news conference given by Schumer, in response to the nomination of Alito by the Whitehouse, he made it clear that he whole heartedly opposed Alito, and he even used a fear laced message to hammer home his beliefs. This is, of course, a favorite among Secular Progressive techniques. If you scare them, they will come. Speaking on the matter, Schumer compared Alito to the great civil rights warrior, Rosa Parks, in the following manner: "Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place. Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important." So, what is the senator implying? Will Alito completely repeal the work of the Civil Rights Leaders of the past? Will the Voting Rights Act be struck down by this demonic judge to be? Not so fast. In another Secular Progressive move, Schumer compared an issue that is important to him to minority rights in an effort to scare minorities into a frenzy. What is this issue that is so important to Schumer? A look at the questions he constantly posed to Alito during the confirmation process makes it clear, it is abortion. So, was this the last statement made by Schumer to create fear in the streets? He went on to state that "this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come." To finish off his opinion on the matter, Schumer stated this; "As for Judge Alito, there is still a lot to be learned about him. Many of the opinions that he has written over the last 15 years cast real doubt on whether he can be a fair, mainstream, albeit conservative, judge who strives to protect the rights of all Americans...". Mainstream? My only question for Mr. Schumer would be, is partial birth abortion mainstream? I would guess that if it were voted upon by the public, the outcome would not result in the procedure becoming mainstream, so, is Schumer, who wants this procedure to be legal, mainstream? It is relatively clear by the statements of the Congressman that he is in the Secular Progressive Army, and while Alito, a pro-life judge, was confirmed, it could be a while before another pro-life judge becomes part of the high court. As Schumer stated, "Judges are the most important," because they have the power to legislate from the bench. This allows them to go around public opinion, thus, the majority no longer rules. In the eyes of an out numbered group, such as the Secular Progressives, being able to change the country against the will of the silent majority is, in a word, priceless.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Death to Religion?

Is there a culture war? One aspect of a full fledged culture war pitting Secular Progressives against Traditionalists would be an attack on organized religion. The idea of organized religion, in the United States we can simply insert Christianity, completely assaults the ideals of the Secular Progressive movement. Christianity teaches respect for authority while Secular Progressives despise authority and authority figures. Christianity teaches self control and a strict set of morals while Secular Progressives believe in relativism. Relativism states that no one should be able to call another's actions wrong because they do not fully understand the reasons behind the actions of another. Combine these two tenets of Secular Progressives, and you have anarchy; legalized drugs, rehabilitation instead of punishment, unfettered abortion, income redistribution, social promotion for school children....and so on. These are all prime reasons for the Secular Progressive movement to attack Christianity. Another valid reason for such an attack is that each side of this culture war would be in competition for the hearts and minds of America's children. Why? If you can convince the children to believe a certain way, it is only a matter of time before the country has a new culture. So, is there a war against Christianity in America? One event that points to an answer of yes is the much publicized attack on Christmas last year. Wall-Mart, Lowes, Sears, Best Buy, Target, and many other large retailers decided to forbid their employees from saying Merry Christmas at any time. Another example, removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. A third example, forbidding prayer at public events and at school. A fourth example, removing nativity scenes from public places. A fifth example, the battle over the cross on the hill in San Diego. A sixth example, the battle over the three crosses in the city seal of Los Cruxes. A seventh example, the removal of the Ten Commandments from court houses. This could continue for hours. Most of these assaults are predicated on the mythical separation of church and state that does not even appear in the Constitution. In any event, it appears clear that there is an assault on organized religion in America, Christianity in particular. So, is there a culture war?

Quotes from the enlightened:

Elton John
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Cultural Division

In our country, America, there has arisen a distinct seperation, not between church and state, but between Secular Progressives and Traditionalist. The progressives are dissaisfied with the country as a whole, and wish to change it drastically so that it falls in line more evenly with the quasi-socialist model of Western Europe. In contrast, the traditionalist believes that we are a strong country in our current form, and in essence, the rest of the world should fall in line with us. There is really no middle ground in this debate, only people that refuse to take part in the struggle. Which side are you on? Currently the progressives are vaastly outnumbered, but their "soldiers" are all in participation. On the other hand, the "soldiers" from the other camp are not in unison, in fact, many are not even aware that they are soldiers. That has allowed the active minority to make substantial gains on the silent majority. This is most evident in the news media. Recent studies done by a professor from UCLA have indicated that while around 70% of the country belongs in the camp of the traditionalists, an astounding 85% of the media currently suits up with the progressives. How is this possible? In any event, the real question is whether or not such a struggle exists, or is it just a myth created by one side to round up the troops?