Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Hillary Clinton – Harassment of Church by State

I have observed many Christians express a startling denial of today's reality of systematic persecution of Christians both here and abroad. It is hard to appropriately identify why reality can’t be seen by those who should possess the spiritual insight to know better. Are Christians ignoring headlines? Are the headlines not real? Is the problem due to spiritual blind spots? Is there too great a desire on the part of Christians for the Church to compromise? Is the Church supposed to be in lock step with popular culture or peculiar in comparison? Is the desire to be seen as in tune, a desire that spiritually blinds? Are the Christians that are being persecuted in the wrong? Or is there a systematic persecution of Christians that is foolish to deny?

The truth is that there is obviously systematic persecution of Christians both here and abroad. Even liberal atheist upon liberal atheist are joining the discussions with apology for the aggressive intolerance against Christians. That is Exhibit A that we have reached the breaking point. How is it that liberal atheists see what some Christians can’t? By the way, regardless of whether you are one of those who ignores the ongoing persecution or not, you are still loved. But, you are implored to open your spiritual eyes. It is open season on Christians. And, by the looks of the upcoming political season, it promises only to get worse.

For example, earlier this week, Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, addressed the “Women in the World Summit.” In a very definitive moment in her speech she all but said that for the sake of abortion rights, our religious beliefs must change. “Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper…Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.” Interestingly, she only calls for the religious beliefs of Christians to change, and not Muslims. In fact, she is more than happy to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from countries that openly force women into sexual slavery. More to the point, since America does not deny services to women in labor, “reproductive health care” in her quote is clearly code for abortion. And, according to Clinton, for the sake of killing unborn children, it is our religious beliefs that must change. And, if she is President, you can bet that is precisely what she will do.

Before we analyze this, to Mrs. Clinton, I have a couple questions: Who do you think you are? According to what authority must the beliefs of Christians change? Who gets to decide whose views should change? What if your views should change? Beliefs should be free and Government should not be.

For those who deny that such political speech is far from reality, take for example that earlier this month the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government hoping to force Catholic non-profits to provide abortions (against their deeply held beliefs) to illegal immigrants crossing the border. The government contracts with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to care for those children until they can either reunite with a relative or face an immigration hearing. But, the USCCB objects to a regulation proposed by the Obama administration requiring contractors provide abortions to immigrants who have been raped. According to ACLU staff attorney, Brigitte Amiri, “The Catholic Bishops are taking millions of dollars in federal grants- and then imposing their beliefs on this vulnerable population who they are supposed to serve… and that raises serious concerns under the separation of church and state provision in our Constitution.” So, in the spirit of not imposing beliefs, the ACLU and her lapdog, the Government, will impose their bloody beliefs upon the Catholic Church? No, thanks!

The ACLU has played their card. They have redefined the “separation of church and state” as the state regulating the Church to violate its conscience. I'm sure Hillary Clinton is applauding. The state is actually suppressing and harassing the Church at a dramatic pace. That is precisely the opposite of what separation of Church and State means. From the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings, separation of Church and State is purely meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion, among other things. In this, first and foremost, the Church is to be protected from the State. Which is what inspired our Founding and was memorialized in the First Amendment to the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights). Secondly, the electorate is protected from the State attempting to nationalize a religion. And, forcing Godless murder upon the Church, is a graphic violation of the Constitution. But, this is what Hillary Clinton advocates for the benefit of the sacrament to her national religion - the belief that forces us all to pay for and conduct the killing of the unborn at her command.

1 Peter 2:13-17 says, “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” This verse points out our obligations during times such as these. We are to subject ourselves to governments that “punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.” Unfortunately, that government no longer exists. However, even with the lack of such a government, we must never turn from our obligation of “doing good” which should “put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” This passage closes with a list of our obligations, of which honor the emperor is last, behind "Fear God." Therefore, we are called to realize persecution, and stand peacefully united in opposition to an unworthy government. We must oppose candidates that would expand the persecution of the Church. And, we must stand with and protect the persecuted. To do otherwise, is a form of spiritual “ignorance.” And, Christ, our model, never advocated ignorance of any brand, much less this one.

Christian, wake up and pray. While our redemption draws near, we must encourage brothers and sisters who are in need. We must never ignore the persecuted. Because God doesn’t.

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Sexism Redefined by the Era of Hillary Clinton

Last week, we posted on how society in the Obama era is redefining/distorting the term “racism” into a political weapon reserved only for those on the right. There is another term that is similarly being redefined for political gain. That term is “sexism.” And, once again, a political motive is behind this re-definition as well. If we are not careful and/or wise, we will usher in a new era for the benefit of Hillary Clinton that completes the devolution of this term as we have done with "racism." This false notion of “sexism” will also be used to punish anyone who might dare to criticize the policies of yet another left-leaning politician such as she.

The Dictionary defines sexism as “discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender.” That’s it. So, based upon this definition, is it sexist to call a female candidate by her first name as some pundits on the left have recently suggested? Is it sexist to oppose a female candidate because her policies are polar opposite from your values? Is it sexist to criticize a female candidate based on her policies without reference to her gender? Of course, the answers to all of these questions is “No.” But, like “racism,” a new definition for “sexism” is brewing that ignores all common sense and rational thought. And it will continue the politics of division even worse than the false accusations of “racism.” False cries of “racism” for political gain divide communities. But, false cries of “sexism” for political gain will logically divide families. And, that will be the final straw that will likely break America’s fragile political back.

How will this false “sexism” evolve? It began rather quietly in the 2012 Republican Presidential debates by an ironically planted question by Clintonite, George Stephanopoulos. He asked Mitt Romney “do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?” In spite of the answer by Romney that there has never been a state that has even contemplated such a far-fetched ban, the fabricated “War on Women” had begun. Then, came the disgraceful testimony of Sandra Fluke to Congress. Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, argued before Congress that having to pay for birth control causes an undue financial burden on promiscuous women. Translation: you and I should pay for her birth control through Obamacare. And, all of those who opposed this notion (or Obamacare for that matter), were immediately labeled as enemy combatants in the War on Women. The foolish and immature notion of any group warring women was used as a political foil all the way through the 2012 elections to the uninformed victory and reelection of probably the most leftist President in our history. The success of the contrived “War on Women” will continue and evolve as these same divisive forces seek to elect Hillary Clinton to the same office.

By the way, the irony of electing Hillary Clinton on the grounds of anti-sexism is as thick an irony as you can get. Let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton enabled her husband to make sexual prey of a White House intern (woman). Hillary Clinton also personally led the character assassinations of all of the women from Bill Clinton’s philandering past. Then there is the Clinton Foundation that proudly annually raised and continues to raise millions of dollars from Muslim nations that openly subvert women’s rights and subjugate women under Sharia Law (by the way, all on Hillary Clinton’s watch as Secretary of State). But, the primary irony of anti-sexist support for Hillary Clinton is the fact that voting for someone because she is a woman is in fact sexist on its face. Sexism can never cure sexism. Ironically, society’s shallow attempts to address sexism result in more sexism, not less. The only way to properly address sexism against women is to embrace God's definition.

Again, God gets the final say (and only say) on all definitions. And, like God’s definition of “racism,” God’s definition of sexism is simply when anyone values a gender more or less than God does. And by the way, God values both genders equally. Attempts to demean the Bible or God by pulling verses out of context that inspire humility, are shallow attempts at best and ignorant at worst. The eternal endgame of earthly humility (for both genders) is the greatest notion of equality, which is immortal royal equality both now and forever. Not only is each gender challenged today to race the other to the low place, but each of us personally are to race everyone else to the low place (Ephesians 5:21). And, our model is Jesus Himself, who being King of Kings and God, came to wash the feet of man and die a poor and humiliating death on a cross for all of us (Philippians 2:5-11). If taking a low place here in the temporary is devaluing, what does that imply of Jesus? What does that imply of those who today choose to be janitors? What does that imply of those who choose to be servants? What does that imply of those who choose the low place within families? Does that mean whoever has the low place in a given family, regardless of gender, is less valuable than the other members of the family? The dangerous lack of logic behind the false cries of “sexism” are truly breathtaking.

To better understand the context with which we should evaluate Bible verses regarding God’s opinion on gender, read just a few of the verses that spell out God’s view below:

  • Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
  • 1 Corinthians 11:12 says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”
  • Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
  • 1 Peter 3:7 says, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
  • 2 Timothy 2:11-12 says, “If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him.”
  • And, in Matthew 19:28-30 Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” 

The full truth appreciates that God has predestined all of His daughters to be eternal, immortal, co-heirs of His Kingdom alongside and equal with men (their eternal spiritual brothers). That’s right, God actually values women so highly that he makes them eternally royal. Whose definition has ever come close to rivaling that? The hypocrisy of the left is that they value women strictly on earthly functions alone. That is in fact a devaluing of women (and men) from God’s true definition since women of God are in fact royalty now. Valuing earthly function over eternal royalty is the absolute worst form of sexism. The God of the Christian faith places a higher value on women than all other belief structures. 

In conclusion, God displays far more respect for women than all feminists combined. He created women wonderfully in His own image and gave them His own breath of life. He also sacrificed His life to give them a royal eternity and immortal equality. Those who oppose God on this issue selfishly seek to devalue a woman’s royal identity in pursuit of lesser and temporal earthly functions and power. It is God who constantly affirms His royal image in us and seats the humble in the high places of His kingdom for eternity. Compared to the amazing value that God has ascribed to women, every critic of the Bible on this issue is clearly guilty of ascribing far lesser value on women.

Therefore, Christian, do not fall prey to any extent to the foolish narrative of our society’s politics concerning sexism. You should not be aligning in any way with such views. If you do, you help advance true sexism but in its worst form. And, given that all women bear His image, any attack on God’s definition of women, is an assault on God Himself.

 You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Racism Redefined by the Obama Era

Greenland is an island located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. While the island is over 800,000 square miles, because it is almost entirely covered in arctic ice, its population does not even exceed 60,000. In light of it actually being a frozen tundra, how it acquired the name "Greenland" is quite fascinating. Ancient Scandinavians deceptively named the island Greenland for the purpose of attracting settlers there and, thereby, keeping them from settling in more pleasant Scandinavian territories. Given the lack of population presently, this strategy did not ultimately work very well. Like this example, there is a similar misnaming happening today with regards to a certain word that is intended to drive us towards a political destination of division under the guise of unity. That word that has now gained an entirely false definition is the word “racism.”

Over the last several years, we have been misled by various false definitions and misapplications of the terms “racism” and “racist.” These words have been so distorted for the purpose of political gain that they are virtually meaningless except to punish political enemies but only of a certain political bent. If you don’t believe me, look no further than the example of America’s President. Most people genuinely believed that electing a President that is partially of African descent would improve race relations in America. The opposite became true because this President decided to use racism as a divider instead of a uniter. Ironically, last year, a McClatchy-Marist poll of African Americans voted 42 to 33 percent that Obama’s race has hurt race relations and not helped. And according to polls conducted by Pew Research and USA Today, the number of people who think blacks and whites do not get along has increased throughout Obama’s presidency, from 19 percent in late 2009 to 28 percent in 2014. You might ask why. The reason is because Mr. Obama and his defenders have been the worst abusers of distorting a false notion of racism for near unchallenged political gain. We are being deceived towards division which will mislead us to settle in a proverbial cold isolated island. Here is yet another instance of where political correctness is destroying us from within. Unity on racial matters will only come with agreement with God on the matter. And, rest assured that day will come.

Before we look at the dictionary definition of racism, allow me to share some examples of how distorted the notion has become. Today it is commonly labeled “racist” to criticize the liberal policies of a black liberal politician even if you have always opposed such policies (because you are a conservative). A true conservative opposes liberal policies regardless of the color of the skin of the politician that is trying to force them. Hypocritically, however, according to the self-righteous race-baiters it is not “racist” to criticize a policy of a black conservative politician. Does that make any sense on its face? If you believe it does, then you are likely part of the problem. But, don’t worry, to some extent we all are part of the problem.

The most prominent Dictionary definition of racism is “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.” Before we elaborate further on this topic, if you believe that this definition is not accurate, challenge yourself to identify one example of true racism that is not consistent with this definition. There are probably none. And, based upon this definition, there are two things required in order for an action to be racist. First, the "racist" has to exalt one race as inherently superior over another. And, second, for an act to be racist the person would need to be found to have intent or disposition. An act that lacks racist intent is near impossible, by definition, to be racist. There is no such thing as accidental racism. Racism is never accidental. To be sure a comment in question might unintentionally offend certain persons of a particular race. But, that does not make the speaker a racist. Such a bold accusation absolutely requires intent. And, intent requires much more evidence that is not easily acquired. The judgmental charge of racism must not be allowed to stick purely on the basis of the view of the beholder. That is most dangerous to society as a whole. Justice can never be subjective or there will be no justice.

Even though the Dictionary definition is good, it is not the ultimate definition. We know that all ultimate definitions belong to God. God’s definition of racism is very similar to the Dictionary definition, except for at least one profound difference. God’s definition of racism is when we value any race more or less than God does. The profound difference between God's and the Dictionary's definitions is that God's is anchored in departures from His valuation and not dependent on the valuations of others. And, by the way, with regards to inherent superiority or inferiority, God values all races equally. To illustrate God’s definition, below are just a sample of verses that make it pretty clear:

  • Proverbs 24:23 says, “These also are sayings of the wise. Partiality in judging is not good.”
  • Acts 17:26 says, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.”
  • Romans 10:12-13 says, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'”
  • In Acts 10:28-35 Peter declared, “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean…Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
  • Finally, Revelation 7:9 prophecies of Heaven, "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands"
Now that we have examined God's definition, based exclusively on that defintion, below are examples of what our society calls racism, but according to God is not racism:

  • It is not inherently racist to vote for an opponent of a black person because your preferred candidate is aligned with what you stand for (on non-racial matters).
  • It is not inherently racist to oppose illegal immigration.
  • It is not inherently racist to oppose the advancement of Jihadist Islam.
  • It is not inherently racist to require a photo identification to vote.
It is, however, racist to attack people of another color regardless of the color of the attacker. Contrary to modern deception, even those in a minority can be guilty of racism. No definition (neither God's nor the Dictionary's) require minority status for exemption from racism. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” God agrees and so should you. And, in fact, God will bring this day to reality as recorded in Revelation 7:9 (above).  

Until then, Christian, we must not join in or approve of misleading people on the matter of race. Christian, we have the job of reconciling people to God, not dividing them for personal gain. Dividing people for personal gain is a behavior with immoral intent - that is in fact racist!

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.