jump to navigation

U.S. News’ Erbe Equates Conservative Christians with Radical Terrorists September 25, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Christians, culture war, God, liberals, media bias, morality, news, politics, religion, secularism, terrorism.
add a comment

In her September 21 article, Colleen Raezler reported the following:

Bonnie Erbe, contributing editor to U.S. News and World report and host of PBS’ “To the Contrary” recently compared conservative Christians to terrorists.

A soon-to-be published study in the journal Reproductive Health that found states with a high level of residents who subscribe to conservative religious beliefs also have high teen birth rates sparked Erbe’s September 18 observation that Christianity and radical Islamic terrorism share distinct similarities.

Erbe did not find this conclusion “surprising,” and noted that “most of these ‘religious’ states are also so-called red states.” From there she bashed red states as uneducated and poor, and argued that those factors combined with “increased religiosity tend to intertwine and build on each other.” Erbe offered as proof the following example:

It’s been widely reported that Middle Eastern terrorists talk suicide bombers into committing murder by explaining to them that they will be heroes in heaven, their after-life reward will be that they are treated like kings and have all the advantages that elude them here on earth. These promises are believed by people with no money, no education, and nothing to hold onto but their religious beliefs.

So “red state” residents – poor, uneducated and with “nothing to hold onto but their religious beliefs” – are on a par with Islamist terrorists.

What’s not surprising is that Erbe, who has argued in the past that abortion is a “good decision” in a recession and that religiosity “clouds” common sense would look so poorly upon those who ultimately take responsibility for their actions.

I can understand Erbe’s financial need to make a living. Like many of her comrades in journalism, I can also understand why brain in liberally warped. What I cannot understand how she can make such baseless claims while assuming her liberal audience is uneducated and ignorant about terrorists and Christians. One would think a professional media communicator would at least do some research or be honest in her criticism of those groups.

The facts are most modern terrorist and many high-profile mass murderers have college degrees educated people. The father of international terrorism has a degree in engineering. This Egyptian-born murderer was none other than PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. So his protege, Atta, who led the 9-11 terrorist attacks again. America should not forget the teenage domestic terrorists who mass murdered many of their fellow student at Columbine High School were from home with educated parents of high middle class income. The the father of one was a government official.

Like terrorists waging war against the perceived evil empire that threatens their futures, Christians also fight against the corruption moral relativism promulgated by the secular institutions and those who dominate them.

Christians, however, do not have a religion mandate to do violence, Their weapons are truth, morality, and love. Christian hate the life devastating consequences of the commonplace deception in the service of corrupt special interest and life destroying evil.

Death is not a good thing. It is not good when innocent lives are destroyed by foreign terrorist in their fight against an evil government. It is not good when a nation sanctions the killing of unborn children often to save oneself from the inconvenience of having responsibility of raising a children. That is not to say some women have been confronted the decision to end the life of their unborn in order to live.

It is the secularists who are actually most like the terrorists who kill the innocent without just cause. Collectively, they have produced a culture of corruption and death. While they glory in death, so do Islamic terrorists. They are themselves willing to die for their cause. Secularist like Erbe are more willing for the innocent to die for their glorious cause.

When ignorant secular professionals like Erbe spew their venom against opponents of their standards of injustice, they only reveal how poor, blind, and hopeless they really are. They need to discover the liberty that only our nation’s God and Redeemer gives. Only the Creator could possibly repair such screwed up people. He is an expert in social, psychological, and genetic engineering.

Source: Culture Links

Advertisements

Faith Healing Government Miracles September 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Constitution, corporations, culture war, Declaration of Independence, faith, God, health care, Jesus Christ, liberals, living wage, morality, news, politics, poverty, truth, wages, welfare.
add a comment

Sojourner’s Jim Wallis is America’s leading preacher of faith healing. Unlike his charismatic brethren, Wallis is preaching faith in government. In praise of the benevolent overlords of health care, Wallis calls on us to believe in the liberal’s health care plan for miraculous healing. Like the healing ministry of Jesus, Wallis proclaims the federal government will save the poor from a woeful lack health care and poverty as well.

Actually, his latest sermon didn’t include deliverance from poverty by government or anyone else. The likely reason is that neither government bureaucrats nor big business has any plans of raising the poor out of the dependency on their big government savior. I doubt that Obama does either.

I know my comments seem to border on the edge of intolerant blasphemy, but consider Wallis’ words:

We are calling on people of faith to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus by making sure your political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than accessible, affordable health care for all Americans, built on a solid financial foundation. (emphasis added)

People of faith need to be the steady, moral drumbeat driving the debate and keeping our politicians accountable. This is a critical and long-overdue opportunity to fix a broken and inequitable system, which must not be derailed either by powerful special interests or by those, on any side, who just want to score political points. It is up to all of us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Like Wallis, the United Methodist Church believes it is the government’s responsibility to provide all citizens with adequate health care. I have to ask; where in the Bible does it say that? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give liberal politicians in Washington the legal authority? Maybe they read the general welfare clause as being non-restrictive in such matters.

If so, why don’t they interpret it in a way that gives themselves the power to ensure that every working American earns a wage they can live on? It would be equitable for every working American to earn enough for a minimally independent life without welfare assistance. Isn’t it more important for individuals to earn enough to pay banks for a mortgage, pay GM for a new car every 3-5 years, to maintain clothing and housewares, to purchase government mandated new television and communication technologies, to buy healthy food, as well as adequate health care insurance?

The answer given by federal and state politicians as well as Wall Street funded corporations is NO unless you are fully dependent on Almighty Gov or on one of its Union bosses, AFL-CIO or NEA for example. One exception is if you have been blessed by fate with the right global market skills developed at the right university with a more marketable degree such science, computer technology, medicine, law, or business investment and marketing. Having been born or raised in the right family or have gained the right social connections helps too.

Wallis’ liberal propaganda jazzed up with religious hype makes right-wing theocrats look like Saint Theresa. At least she actually helped the poor, diseased, and the orphan. If as I suspect, Wallis is sincere in his effort to help the poor and needy; it appears he has wondered to far from the fold and has enter the den of wolves.

Jesus said, “The wolf comes to kill, to steal, and to destroy.” The gospel of government salvation has the serpent imprint. The glorious health care reform being evangelized to America will not only help those kept in poverty with paying for government’s health care insurance but it will insure the killing of the unborn and the useless elderly. The miracle healing promised by faith in government will also continue robbing many of an equitable income as well the freedom from the tyranny of dependency on government or quasi-governments such as Wall Street funded corporations. Many financial experts, economists, and even brave health professionals are claiming that the current government is destroying our economy, our better than all other national health care systems, and our future.

Jesus also said, “The truth will set you free.” The truth is Obama, liberals, and wayward Christians are not telling the truth. Read the dag-gone health bills and committee amendments. Then consider this: medical science can only assist the human body to heal itself. That is how God designed it. Only the Creator can actually heal the human body. He alone can reprogram the DNA or other aspects of mutated organisms that destroy normal human cells. Maybe one day, medical science will actually discover all of the Designer’s secrets, but until then, only faith in God for healing is warranted.

Sources: Sojourner, August 20, 2009; United Methodist Church News, August 19, 2009; John 10: 10; and John 8:32.

The Future of Christianity July 15, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, Christian nation, democracy, God, politics, polls, religion, research, secularism.
add a comment

Is Christianity in the U.S. Doomed? This is the question headlining the front cover the World Magazine. The inveterate optimist and editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, answers this question in the article titled “The Sixth Wind?” The content of his positive response to recent gloom and doom of hopeful secularists, atheists, and Muslims comes from interviews with several different authors.

One of his sources were the co-authors of the best seller God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, John Micklethwait and Adrain Woolridge of The Economist. As their title suggests, they fail to see Christianity as a dying religion. On the contrary, it is becoming more relevant as is other faiths.

Jon A. Shileds, who wrote The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, also see a different picture of the politically involved religious right than the fearsome fascist described by the Left. Here again, his book title suggests what he discovered while hanging around the Right. He witnessed their leaders seeking to train there rank-and-file activist to practice respectful deliberation. He failed to infiltrate their terrorist plots against the left’s political agenda.

Olasky apparently drew on the works of other authors like Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution. His book answers the question why people are suddenly talking about God: Because “nothing else–not science, not reason, not liberalism, not economics–works.” Atheism has nothing to offer humans, only God offers hope. Even A.N. Wilson is said to have dropped his atheism.

Olasky finally directly addresses the question whether the trends represent a sixth wind of Christian revival in America. He says, “I don’t know. He says that past experience informs him that there is no reason to be depressed about our current problems. “Truth trumps everything, including liberal cleverclogs.

Olasky’s began his article with poll data that reported a 10 percent drop of Americans who identified themselves as Christian. Previously, 86 percent of Americans claimed to be Christians. Does this mean 24 percent are now atheists or agnostics? No. it just meant 8 percent more (16%) disassociated with any religion or denomination. Most still believe in God and regard religion as important to their lives.

Christianity is alive and mostly well in America.

The problem is the disassociation of the original Christian values from institutional and political affairs. The values of secular fundamentalism–atheistic humanism–pervade our key public institutions like education, big business, and government. If you do the research, you will find Darwinian evolution is underlying dogma justifying both secular fundamentalism and values of atheistic humanism. Our social problems are directly linked to the prevalence of those values in our public institutions. In education, this is called the hidden curriculum that is taught to every child and adult most of the lives most of the time. We all believe what we value and act according ly.

Source: World, June 20, 2009

A Jewish Understanding of America’s Declaration of Independence July 3, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in American Revolution, Chrisitanity, Declaration of Independence, God, Judaism, law.
1 comment so far

The American Declaration of Independence embodies a doctrine of revolution. The Declaration teaches us that the people of any country are not obliged to obey the laws of the State if these laws violate the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” But who is to judge whether the laws of the State violate the “Higher Law”? This question involves another: “Where is the supreme authority in a State that recognizes a ‘Higher Law’”? That crucial question was addressed by the Italian rabbi, theologian, and philosopher Eliyahu Benamozegh (1823-1900) in his magnum opus Israel and Humanity.

Rabbi Benamozegh asks: “Where is supreme authority to be found in Israel?” To answer this question, he ponders the Law-Giving at Sinai Revelation. He writes:

In order to grasp the central idea of Israelite doctrine on this crucial matter quickly and accurately, let us proceed by a process of elimination and determine first of all what that doctrine categorically rejects…. Does supreme authority reside in a man invested with supreme power? The very idea of a Revelation which embraces all of life, public as well as pri­vate, precludes any such possibility. A Revelation so total cannot speak through any single entity whatever, whether priest or monarch. … Neither the king nor the priest can possess unlimited authority, for each moves in a well-defined sphere and his function is circumscribed by impassable limits.

Nor is supreme authority vested in a privileged class, an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The provisions of the Law, the history and concep­tion of Revelation itself, prove, if proof be needed, that there can be no such class. Neither is it to be located in the totality of Israelites, at least not in the sense of an absolute power residing in the people as a whole, which would legitimize all that the people might decree. As for the authorized interpreters of the Revelation, however, the people convey their sovereignty in this matter to those whose place in the hierarchy renders them qualified, according to established rule. This role of the community is the only one which is logically possible in a state faithful to a Revelation.

“If then, according to Judaism, supreme authority adheres neither to the high priest, nor to the king, nor to an elite, nor even to the entire people as a collectivity, where is it to be found? In God alone; which is to say, using modern categories, in absolute reason and justice. God is the only legislator, and the people His only interpreter on earth. Such is the Jewish ideal.”

The same conclusion may be deduced from the American Declaration of Independence. Suffice to consider two of its principles. Its First Principle inheres in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights are “unalienable” because man is created in the image of God, which means that man alone possesses free will and the capacity to distinguish good from evil. In other words: It is from God, and not from any Government or body of men, that we derive our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Imago dei is what makes those rights “unalienable” and establishes them as basic ends of legitimate Government.

Therefore—and this is the Second Principle: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The people, therefore, are sovereign under God, which means, in the final analysis, that the People are His interpreters!

However, since the phrase “any Form of Government” obviously includes Democracy, it follows that the People or their Representatives are theologically prohibited from establishing a Government or enacting laws that violate “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” or that violate “absolute reason and justice.” We see here that the Declaration of Independence is basically consistent with Jewish law and provides no justification for the establishment of a secular democratic state!

Having said this, let us put to rest certain errors. The “Creator” referred to in the First Principle must be construed as a theistic, not a deistic God, otherwise—and regardless of their personal convictions—it would have made no sense for the 56 signers of Declaration to appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world,” or to express their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Moreover, and of paramount significance in interpreting the meaning of the Declaration, its language should be construed in terms of the understanding of its audience, which was overwhelmingly Christian, consisting, therefore, of theists, not deists.

Now consider the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The term “Nature” is foreign to the Torah. Moreover, the notion of “Laws of Nature” suggests autonomous or self-sustaining and eternal laws, something impossible in a created universe. And since Greek philosophy never conceived of creation ex nihilo, let us put to rest the Stoic basis of the Declaration. The truth is that the Declaration is an eclectic but nonetheless magnificent document into which Jefferson injected Greco-Christian nuances, which Christian nuances, however, are rooted in the Torah, the source of monotheism. Evidence of this will be found in the law lectures of James Wilson of whom a brief statement is necessary.

Wilson, who taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, was widely deemed the most learned man of his generation. Wilson was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was second only to that of James Madison. Moreover, like Rabbi Benamozegh, he regarded God’s will, as interpreted by the people acting through their representatives, as the supreme authority.

This means that the concept of “popular sovereignty” must be understood within the context of a monotheistic culture, and it is only within such a culture that can one rightly understand the American Declaration of Independence.

One more thought. The Declaration, as Abraham Lincoln understood, embodies the political philosophy—more accurately the “political theology”—of the American Constitution. Here is what John Adams, another signatory of the Declaration, said of the Constitution: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That religious morality is crystallized in the Declaration of Independence on which America stands and which is now being subverted.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, retired professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and author of On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence.

To Jerusalem with Love and Loyalty, An American Civil War Sermon June 16, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in American history, Christian nation, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, God, Jerusalem.
add a comment

It was on April 30, 1863, in the midst of the American Civil War, that Dr. Stephen H. Tyng, pastor of one of the most influential churches in the city of New York, delivered a sermon entitled “Christian Loyalty.” He based this sermon on a passage from Psalms, a passage, he said “expressive of the loyalty and love of the Hebrew people for their institutions and nationality.” And so he began with these words of Psalm 137:

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. ‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.’

“This is the patriot’s devotion to his country. It is a living spirit in his heart. It clings to his own land and people in their lowest depression as truly as in their highest prosperity. It is living and active within him, to whatever contumely and reproach it may expose him.

“My loyalty to Jerusalem is my love of her people. I am loyal to my nation. I will never give my consent to its dismemberment or its separation. I cling to the one Federal American people—not to a confederacy of States, but to a consolidated nation. I desire not to live to see a disunion of them for any reasons or upon any terms.… My loyalty is to the United States of America, that great federal nation, which, wherever scattered or however collected, have dwelt together under one glorious government, as one perpetual, indivisible people…. Be one people; be one nation.… Let Jerusalem be still a city at unity in itself, encircled with the walls of a common defense from foes abroad and bound together for a united subjugation of traitors at home.

“My loyalty to Jerusalem is my love for her territory. I love my country; I love it with an intense affection. Every part of it is equally mine, and equally dear to me. I am a citizen of the United States. I will acknowledge no Northern rights nor Southern rights. I have a simple, indisputable right in every portion of this soil, from sea to sea, as a citizen of this nation. I will never consent to give it up. I am a citizen of the whole. I have a right to a domicile, a protected home, throughout the whole, which I will never yield. To separate this glorious hard-earned land, to divide it, to disintegrate it, cut it up, parcel it out to a set of wild conflicting provinces, farm it out to the ambition of petty contending satraps, gaining in blood a short-lived triumph, is a degradation and a social atrocity to which I will never consent. … Let the land of your fathers, the sacred revered abode of a nation of freemen, be transmitted, unbroken, solid, entire, untarnished, to the children who succeed you. Die for it, if it must be so, but never give it up.

“My loyalty to Jerusalem is my love for the freedom which she has established. Men may call the testimonies of her Declaration of Independence a tissue of glittering generalities,” when they have no affinity with the liberty which it proclaims and no sympathy with the grandly humanizing influence which it is designed and destined to exercise. To my mind, it stands on the highest platform of unrevealed testimonies. In it the noblest emotions, aspirations, sentiments, and principles of the heart of man speak out in golden, crystal sounds:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

“What nobler testimony for human freedom or human exaltation was ever given? When did the representative mind of progressive, rising humanity ever announce its convictions and its purposes in a loftier strain or in a grander formula?…Never yield this priceless inheritance of human liberty; never sacrifice by any compromise the unrestricted, universal freedom of your nation; never consent to any arrangement in which you may not look back upon your fathers’ line and home, and still triumphant say, ‘Jerusalem, the mother of us all, is free.’

“My loyalty to Jerusalem is my love for her Constitution. Jerusalem had her glorious constitution from the Divine gift—a book in the hands of every one, to be read at home, to be studied by children, to be talked of by the way. America has received her Constitution from the gracious providence of God—the grand result of ages of human experience and observation—the admired shape and cast of man’s wisdom among the nations of the earth.

“Never was there a more majestic exhibition of sovereign power; never was there a more honorable display of mutual concession and self-restraint. Such is the American Constitution—a beautiful machinery of intellectual conception and of moral influence, working with its powers and restraints, its checks and balances, its provisions and prohibitions, in a thoroughly adjusted harmony, and in remarkable order and grandeur of operation.… Never give up this contest for the Constitution. Compel this rebellion to submit to its authority. And, if you must perish, perish nobly maintaining the peerless cause of liberty, government, and order.

“My loyalty to Jerusalem is my love for her government. Her Constitution is the charter of her government, the fixed and final scheme arranged for its construction and its perpetual control…. I love this government. I love it in its origin. I love it in its simplicity. I love it in its supremacy…. It combines for me all the possible freedom of liberty for the many consistent with order and tranquility for the whole …. It seems to me to have gathered the gems from all regions to make this new, last crown of a monarchical people—a ruling nation.

“To my nation, to my country, to the principle of freedom, to the Constitution, to the Government, while I live, will I be faithful; and, however depressed or downcast of desponding may be the incidents and elements of the day, even though in captivity I sit by the rivers of Babylon, I will never forget, dishonor, or deny the Jerusalem I have loved, beneath whose shade I have grown and been refreshed, and with whose sons and daughters I have gone to the house of God and taken sweet delight. Still in prayer for my beloved country will I look up to the King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Thank you Prof. Paul Eidelberg for sharing this treasure.

Congressional Democrats Attempts to Legalize Gay Pedophilia April 29, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Democrats, discrimination, freedom, gay politics, God, hate crime, immorality, law, morality, news, politics, religion, science, secularism, sex.
8 comments

Yesterday, The Catholic League reported:

“The House of Representatives will vote this week, possibly tomorrow, on a hate crimes bill championed by gay groups that includes pedophiles under the rubric of sexual orientation. This is the ultimate confession: liberal Democrats think of pedophiles as indistinguishable from homosexuals.

It should be noted that the Hate Crime bill does not protect gays. Criminal law already exists for that purpose. The legislation is a discrimination bill against all other citizens because it creates special laws sanctioning unlawful behavior. Congress and courts cannot make immoral behavior a right or legal. Any such law or decision is a crime. It is a crime against nature, human morality, and therefore the public welfare.

The Catholic League further reported:

“When this subject came up last week in the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment to the hate crimes bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 13-10. This was considered good news by gay organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, left-wing groups like the ACLU and various Jewish groups like the ADL.

“The debate is over: for liberals, child molesters should be given the same rights as homosexuals. Moreover, they should be given more rights than pregnant women and veterans; the latter two categories were explicitly denied coverage under the hate crimes bill. Even worse, an amendment that would bar prosecution based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh (Judaism’s sacred book) or the Koran was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 11-8. In other words, religious speech may be denied First Amendment protection.

It is evident from the above that Democrat lawmakers are not die-hard egalitarian liberals. They faithful members of secular fundamentalism. Secularism is the apposite of religion. Humanism, the value system of secularism, values the god of evolution science. It is stated in their statements of faith i.e., Humanist Manifesto (reminiscent of the political manifestos of communism). Thus, they discriminate against all others by forcing their public and private beliefs and values upon all others.

The elimination of public religion and its more influence in society and law has been goal of secularists since the last half of the 19th century. From the 1930s on, they began attracting an increasing number of disciples. Once public education was secularized, faithful adherents in public office made public schools one of its holy sanctuaries. Those called into the media rose to the status of priests and prophets.

Sexologists must be feeling a sense of accomplishment upon hearing Congressional Democrats attempting to pass a bill that will further mainstream sexual immorality of gays. What must be even more titillating to them is the proclamation of those sacrosanct politicians that the poor down-trodden pedophiles must become equal members of gay America.

All Americans are now supposed praise the powers of high (or drugs) and believe that child molesting gays are born-again members of the genetically predetermined lifestyle.

Moreover, the intended result of the high council’s inspiration is a widening of the already inclusive definition of gaydom, which is to include bi-sexuals, homosexuals, lesbians, animal lovers, transvestites, and child molesters. Oddly enough, this new and egalitarian improved version was the same one that was offered by Indiana U professor and all-inclusive gay practitioner Dr. Albert Mackenzie. It was the summary definition of his two research volumes on human sex. All of its glory and perversity was given the modern egalitarian brush of normalcy.

By the way, out of his wildly imaginative sex research was born sex education.

His large sex research was rife with many perverse hallelujahs of sex practitioners some who were already in prison and others the FBI want to put their; but Mackenzie and his gay associates refused to cooperate.

What is outrageous about his research was that the federal courts, legislatures, and society-at-large uncritically believed the creatively interpreted data. It proved how ready they were to believe any pseudo-scientific word.

Let’s face it. Americans are among the most religious people in the world. They will believe just about any thing. That is what the sexual politics is all about. It is what secularism is all about. It is what American freedom was all about too. Apparently, the many years of secular preaching about the righteousness of liberation from religious-based morality has born a generation of true believers.

Am I really a moron? If you sexting, if you have babies outside of marriage, if you have to have sex no matter who or what, if divorce is the easy way out, if you believe abortion is legal or okay, if evolution is truth, or if God and religion is absolute taboo, then you are a faithful member of secular fundamentalism.

Somewhere in the Bible it says something like demons believe too, but they have sense enough to tremble.

 
——————–

The author of this post is not a Catholic but respects their faith and supports their good work in our imploding Western culture.

Pres. Obama a representative of secular paganism? April 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, covenant, God, Jesus Christ, Jews, law, Middle East, moral law, New Testament, politics, secularism, Torah.
add a comment

In a recent commentary titled “Realism,” Prof. Paul Eidelberg commented on Pres. Obama’s alliance with the Islamic Middle East. As far as Prof. Eidelberg is concerned, Obama represent secular Christianity and its coalition against a Jewish Israeli state.

It’s plain that the Obama administration and the European Union do not take Islam seriously, which is why they are demanding a Palestinian state NOW. Unconditional acceptance of a Palestinian state was the objective of the Annapolis Conference, which Mr. Lieberman rejected in his maiden speech. In other words, he rejected unconditional surrender to Israel’s enemy, the Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority. Turn, however, to Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.

That the President of the United States should genuflect from the waist down to Saudi King Faud signifies the (ignominious) unconditional surrender of the United States to Islam.

Mr. Obama’s father was a Muslim (which makes him a Muslim); his mother a secular Christian. Obama’s bowing to King Faud signifies an alliance of Islam and the secularized Christian West against Judaism and the Jewish State of Israel.

This alliance may be said to have begun in 1975 when the United Nations declared Zionism a form of racism and subsequently endowed the Arafat-led PLO with “observer status.” Thereafter, both the US and the EU rolled out the red carpet to Arafat. In violation of its agreement with Israel concerning the PLO, President Carter Jimmy allowed the PLO to establish an office in Washington, DC. PLO offices were also established in various European capitals. The two offspring of Judaism again bit the breasts that had suckled them.

Pres. Obama may represent a paganized secular form of Christianity but he does not represent Christianity. He is neither a Christian not an ambassador of it. My view is justified on several grounds:

  1. The first and foremost allegiance of any genuine Christian is to the Lordship of Jesus, the risen Jew from Nazareth. The Lordship of Jesus is not divorced from the law or purposes of God. Rather, his rule can only perpetuate God’s agenda and not contrarian politics or religion of mortal people. Jesus was and is anointed (Messiah) for the purpose of the fulfillment of God’s plans for His kingdom in heaven and on earth.

    Pres. Obama, his mentors, and most American political leader serve their own world socialist agendas not God’s.

  2. Such allegiance has been manifest in both holy writ and through the lives of the faithful. To be faithful means to live a life exemplary of the law and will of the Lord and of God.

    Pres. Obama actually represents the secular paganism of the Democratic Party as well as the agenda of World Socialism. So do most of his associates in the executive office. Obama’s furtherance of the sexual politics of immorality is sufficient evidence of this fact. Covenantal law explicated in Torah, Hebrew prophets, gospels, epistles, and Revelation make it absolutely clear that Pres. Obama and all secularists like him are enemies of the kingdom of God and Jesus.

    Pres. Obama is the exact opposite of the the founder who could easily promote and defend the word of God and legislate according to its legal principles as easily as party politicians like Obama oppose them.

  3. The unforgivable crime of these secular pagans is the rivers of innocent blood that cover their legislative hands and criminal souls. This is the crime that God fulfilled His promise to the ancient Jews to extricate them from the promised land. This was the crime that God refused to hear their half-hearted repentance. It was the moral crime God would not stay the judgment. This was the crime of the Babylonians, Caesar, Incas, and others whose civilizations passed out of existence. It is the same crime perpetrated by secular America that God will not long tolerate.

Secular Christianity does not exist because it cannot exist. The two terms create an oxymoron. Christianity represents the kingdom under the rule of a Jewish King. The redemptive justice extended by God to the world through this redeemer-king is one of tolerance but of the full satisfaction of eternal justice under absolute rule of law. This is the love of God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah. This is what modern secularists fully reject, which motivates all of their criminal act cloaked by lawless laws and the terrible consequences society now experiences.