God and Air Force Standards

Michael L. Weinstein is founder of the nonprofit organization known as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Pentagon officials reportedly met with Weinstein on April 23 to discuss an Air Force regulation promulgated in 2012 titled “Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards.” Christians should be particularly interested in this, not only because he has long advocated a religion-free military, but also because of an article that appeared in the Huffington Post Blog on April 16, 2013. The title of the article is “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters”.

In the article, Weinstein describes:

“… well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces. . . .”

The quotation above seems to be directed at “Christian fundamentalists”, but make no mistake; Weinstein is attacking Christianity. He simply directs his attacks at one group of Christians at a time. He goes on to assert:

“… those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as ‘family values’ and ‘religious liberty’.”

Please note that Weinstein believes that “religious liberty” is a flimsy façade (“A false front”).

As you read more, it is clear that Weinstein’s point of view is motivated by hatred of Christianity and Christians. He goes on to call Christians:

“… monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny [who, if they] cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror.”

Wow! Our national leadership calls in, for advice about religion in the military, a person who hates Christianity. Our political leaders certainly have a different view from the Founding Fathers of our nation. Consider these two quotes from George Washington giving orders to the Continental Army:

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” (George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932], Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778)

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. (George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932], Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order)

Our nation has fallen pretty far from the Christian moral standard as shown in these two quotes from General Washington. When those who hate Christianity are allowed to banish the Christian voice in one area of the public arena, you may be certain they will not rest content until they have eradicated evangelism in the name of Christ completely in our country.

Women on the Front Lines of Combat

There is no doubt that in the history of warfare, women have certainly played a role in the frontline of combat many times. However, the rise of Western Civilization has mostly frowned upon the idea of women in combat. If we look to the Bible, we find Deborah (Judges 4:14) who on one occasion acted as a military adviser or even a general to an army of 10,000 men. The idea of women in combat, however, is a foreign concept to the teachings of the Bible.

There are many who have lobbied our government for years to place women in front line combat roles. “Equality” is often the generalized reason for pushing the concept forward. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced last month that the military is going to remove its ban on women in combat. Is this something to celebrate or just another sign of moral decay? Michael Foust writes:

Panetta made his announcement Thursday (Jan. 24), saying the removal of the ban had unanimous approval from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With the removal, about 237,000 positions on or near the front lines of combat are now open to women.

“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation,” Panetta said.

You may read more here. . . .

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS NEW POLICY, AS A CHRISTIAN SPECIFICALLY?

Politically Correct or Just Plain Dumb?

From the Patriot Post:

In a case that is astounding for its depths of ludicrousness, Evergreen State College in Washington has refused to stop a 45-year-old man from exposing himself to girls as young as six — all because “he” identifies himself as a “she.” The girls’ locker room at the college is used by a duo of high schools as well as a swim club with students as young as kindergarten age. Yet, when a concerned parent and a coach contacted the police after children witnessed the man naked in the locker room, Evergreen State’s reply was that it would not prevent the man from being on the premises because it condones his sexual disorientation. Worse still, the county prosecutor’s office indicated it is unlikely to prosecute the man for indecent exposure. And the depths of politically correct degradation extend even deeper in that the police report lists the gender of the man in question as female.

Voting and Marriage

Americans have developed the bad habit of voting according to narrow issues without considering the wider repercussions. Voting on the nature of marriage seems somewhat silly in light of the role marriage has played in the history of mankind. Yet, we are reduced to voting on the biological and social nature of marriage (ignoring nature’s law) for the purpose of redefining it according to whatever seems politically correct at the moment. Ryan T. Anderson and Andrew Walker wrote the following article, “How Did Marriage Fare in the 2012 Election?”, explaining the results of the voting which took place on this issue:

Until Tuesday [November 6, 2012], no state had redefined marriage by popular vote. Indeed, 32 out of 32 states that put the issue to a vote defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

But in this week’s election, citizens in Maine, Maryland, and Washington State all passed ballot initiatives redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Meanwhile, citizens in Minnesota failed to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and woman (It remains so defined, however, by statutory law.). . . .

The exit polls also revealed that young Americans are more likely to support gay marriage. This should motivate conservatives to redouble their efforts to explain the nature and public purpose of marriage—what marriage is and why it is such a significant factor in maintaining civil society and limiting government.

Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is: a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Government should not redefine or recreate marriage, nor should it obscure the truth about what marriage is. Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would weaken marriage as a social institution. It would redefine marriage as essentially an emotional bond, thus rendering marital norms arbitrary and less intelligible. It would further delink childbearing from marriage and deny, as a matter of law, the importance of a mother or a father in a child’s life. The outcomes associated with such absence are far from promising.

Continue reading this post here. . . .

Up or Down?

Ronald Reagan:

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”

The Supreme Court and Marriage

Ryan T. Anderson and William E. Simon write:

Conservatives rightly uphold the institution of marriage between a man and a woman because marriage is the seedbed of society, the necessary precondition for limited self-government.

But not everyone sees it this way. With the United States Supreme Court expected to decide this week whether to hear challenges to traditional marriage laws, now is the time for citizens to think deeply about the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

In the revisionist view of marriage, however, what sets marriage apart from other bonds is emotional intensity—what one philosopher refers to as your “number one person.” But nothing about emotional union requires it to be permanent. Or limited to two. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.

Continue to read “Will the Supreme Court Let Citizens Answer, What Is Marriage?” at Culture Watch. . . .

Christians Do Good by Voting

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16 ESV)

Christians should not only make disciples but also strive to be salt and light in this world. Therefore, it is an obligation to do good by voting in elections. Do you complain about the violations of the law of God and our Constitution? Do you hate the corruption of politicians and disagree with their ungodly decisions? It is easy, too easy just to talk and do nothing. As Christians we should contribute to the politics of the land we live in. We have the opportunity to make the glory of God visible in the United States by our participation. But, we must also be sure that we have the right motivation: Jesus Christ is our sovereign Lord and the entire world belongs to Him!

Election-Day Advice from John Calvin

The following is an excerpt from John Calvin’s Sermons on Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 1:13), updated into modern English. The source of the following material is from American Vision. John Calvin writes:

Now we must also observe this saying of Moses: Choose ye men of wisdom and of good skill, men well-tried, that they may be set over you according to your tribes, even over thousands, over hundreds, and over fifties, as we shall see afterward. Hereby it is shown to us that when we have to elect men to hold public office, we must choose them with discretion and not take on the fly those who thrust themselves in first. Neither must they be taken for favor or for some vanity that appears good, but that God presides over the election and that such men may be selected as are known to be appropriate to exercise the estate to which they are called. And we must especially observe that which is rehearsed in Exodus 18 (as already mentioned): for there Jethro says that we must take men that are virtuous, fearing God, lovers of the truth, and haters of avarice. Who is he that speaks this? A poor pagan man, as I have said already. Yet God governs his tongue in such a way that we cannot have a better teacher than him when we are about to choose men to govern a people. First of all he requires men that are virtuous, such as are not effeminate, but have the capacity to be provided with such a charge, and have good zeal, courage, and magnanimity. . . .

Seeing then that such a lesson is told to us by a heathen man, I pray you what a shame shall it be that we which profess ourselves to be brought up in the law of God and in his Gospel, and have our ears so much beaten with it, should still be novices in the doctrine, or at least practice it so poorly among us? And yet for all that, if we do not use it to our profit, it is written to be kept to our great confusion and to make us inexcusable.

So then, let us weigh well this saying where Moses exhorts the people to choose men of understanding and wisdom, and proven men. For if we put a man in office upon nothing but hope, without good knowledge and experience of him, is it not a defiling of the seat of God and of justice? Indeed, God reserves to himself principality over all men, as he is also worthy to have, and yet notwithstanding he will be served by mortal men as by his ministers and officers. … Shall he that would not take a cowherd or a shepherd into his house upon bare hope, without knowledge or understanding of him what he is, shall he, I ask, go set a man in God’s seat, of whom he has no knowledge, and of whom he has no experience to judge what that man is? Now then, let us be well advised, when God gives this grace, or rather privilege, of electing men who govern (which is not common to all people), let us not abuse that gift of God in any way, or else we shall be amazed to see ourselves bereft thereof. And behold the reason why so many tyrannies have come into the world that the liberty was lost in all nations, that there is no more election, for which reason princes sell the offices of justice, and things are in confusion and it is a horror. And why has this come about but that when the people had the election in their hands, they abused it, and so were worthy that God should deprive them of the honor he had done them. For is it not as good as willfully provoking God’s wrath, and spiting him, when people having free election, who should choose men to serve God and to be his officers, instead make corrupt bargains in taverns, and even as it were in scorn and mockery of God, choose such as are most dissolute and out of bounds? Do you not see this is to pervert all order?

To be short, it should seem that we wish to expel God out of his seat when we set his enemies in it after that sort, and such as despise him, and such as seek nothing else but to tread his name and majesty under their feet. When this is how it is, is it any wonder that God sends such disorder into the world as we see? Now then, we could all the more stand to note well this doctrine, where it is said that when God gives a people liberty to elect officers, they must not abuse it, but must use discretion in choosing them. Yes, and for as much as we may often times be deceived, we must resort to God that he may give us prudence and govern us with his Holy Spirit, as though he had pointed out with his finger whom we ought to choose. And that is the cause why I said that elections shall never be well ordered except God preside over them by his Holy Spirit.

This article may be read in full at American Vision. . . .

 

Dishonorable Disclosures

Published on Aug 15, 2012 by OPSECTeam: This is a “must see” video!

Power and the Presidency

Quoting Dr. Benjamin Wiker of tothesource:

[T]he passion which we invest in Presidential elections, especially this Presidential election, is a very bad sign. Those who truly think that the current path we are on is imminently destructive should be throwing all their elective energy into Congress. The presidency should be, by comparison, much less important. . . .

In fact, the framers were so wary of a strong President that they didn’t even have him elected by popular vote. This interesting fact now makes us bristle with resentment, but the truth is that they were trying to prevent just the kind of short-sightedness, so often found in democracies historically, of the people wanting a king, an absolute dictator, a messiah, to save them from self-inflicted crises. . . .

We have given in to that temptation. As is predictable, our embrace of a strong President began historically with a crisis, the economic and social crisis, the crisis of the Great Depression. FDR answered the crisis by treating a deadly serious domestic problem as if it were a war. That allowed him to transfer the constitutionally-defined strong powers of the Executive, meant for real war, to a domestic crisis.

Continue reading here. . . .

Public Schools

According to J. Gresham Machen:

“A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the Middle Ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.” (Christianity and Liberalism)

The Problem with Sanctions

Columnists Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison:

“The problem of sanctions is an old one. President Jefferson tried to impose a trade embargo on Britain in 1807 to stop the Royal Navy from seizing our sailors on the high seas. … The War of 1812 was the direct result of the failure of Jefferson’s sanctions to make Britain change her behavior. At the outset of the Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis imposed a cotton embargo. Millions of bales of cotton were left to rot on Southern wharves because Davis and his Cabinet were convinced they could force Britain to break the Union blockade of Southern ports. … Jeff Davis’s cotton embargo failed — spectacularly. Prior to World War II, the U.S. imposed an oil embargo on Japan. The theory was that the Japanese military rulers, lacking any domestic sources of petroleum, would cease their aggression against China and be forced by economic sanctions to come to the negotiating table. You’ve heard of Pearl Harbor. That was the Japanese Imperialists’ answer to the U.S. economic sanctions. … And yet, we are assured that sanctions will work with the Iranian mullahs. … Seizing our embassy is an act of war. Holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days is an act of war. Sending a suicide bomber into the barracks in Beirut to murder 241 Marines and Navy Corpsmen is an act of war. Plotting to bomb a restaurant in Georgetown, in the heart of our nation’s capital is an act of war. The mullahs will never succumb to sanctions. They don’t care about ‘stuff.’ They only understand force!”

Read this entire article here. . . .

We Cannot Fail Succeeding Generations!

Thomas Jefferson:

“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.” (Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775)

An Important Election

Quoting Mitt Romney:

“This is an important election and … I’m concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years. … I know this is bigger than an election about the two of us as individuals. It’s bigger than our respective parties. It’s an election about the course of America. What kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children? There are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening, and … they lead in very different directions.”

A Paradoxical Truth

President John F. Kennedy:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”