Well now; Mr. Obama comes out in favor of ‘same sex marriage.’  He joins a significant number of people who seem to be incapable of coherent, logical thought.

In the interest of clarity I propose that we analyze the arguments being made in favor of ‘same sex marriage:’

Gays and lesbians don’t have the same civil rights as heterosexuals

Proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ say that they are being discriminated against and denied their civil rights because heterosexuals can marry and homosexuals cannot.

This is demonstrably false.  If a gay man wants to get married, he only needs to find an unmarried woman of legal age to marry him.  It works the same for lesbians – find a man who wants to legally marry them.  It’s simple.  Equal rights.

Any man or woman regardless of sexual quirk can marry any person of the opposite sex who is approved by state law to marry.  There is no discrimination; no denial of “civil rights.” The entire argument made by ‘same sex marriage’ proponents is a mirage that disappears on closer inspection.

People Must be Able to Marry the Person They Love and Should Not Have to “Feel the Pain” of Being Considered Less Than Full Citizens

This is legal humbug.  It is also logical quicksand.  If  ‘same sex marriage’ is infiltrated into the culture by faulty reasoning, the fire it will start will become a conflagration engulfing the culture.  Let’s conduct a thought experiment:

• Assume there is a small group of people – all heterosexuals – who enjoy each other’s company, have a great deal of affection for each other, pay their mortgages and taxes, mow the lawn, and pick up the newspapers – all around good people.
• Assume that the group decides that each of them is paying too much for health insurance and could benefit from discounts given to families; besides, the men have noticed that the women are hot.
• These great Americans go to a county courthouse and request the forms to complete applying for a marriage license for all seven of them to get married.  They are told that they can’t do that; and asking why, they are told that the law only permits two people to get married – not seven.

If Mr. Obama and the ‘same sex marriage’ proponents have their way, I assure you this will happen.  Let’s follow the story:

• The group files suit against the county and the state, hire an ACLU attorney who takes the state to court alleging that these people are being denied their civil right to be married.  The state attempts to make the case that state laws only permit two people to get married whether they are male and female; male and male; or female and female.
• The plaintiff argues that a civil right cannot apply only to a group of two, and not to a group of seven; in addition, these people are negatively affected economically by having to maintain separate houses, and paying more for their healthcare; and because married couples are able to take advantage of the law when filing their taxes than single people.
  The court rules against them.
• They appeal to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California which overturns the lower court.  The state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Justices decide that since marriage is a civil right, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals otherwise meeting the age and other thresholds set by the various states.  In addition, they point out that rights of inheritance, and the advantages of retirement savings are further denials of equal access to a recognized civil right.
• In the wake of this decision, larger groups decide to marry, and soon third graders are assigned books like, “I Have 15 Daddies and 32 Mommies.”   The point is that if homosexuals are permitted to marry because it is a civil right, there can be no barriers to marriage for any kind of group of legal age who meet state standards.

Marriage is Not a Civil Right

Marriage is not a “civil right.”  It cannot be because people are denied their “civil right” to marry all the time.  If it’s a “civil right” then why can 14-year-olds not marry?  Why do you have to wait for the state to grant a divorce before marrying someone else?  By Mr. Obama’s definition, the states deny people their civil rights all the time, and he’s apparently okay with that because he only wants “civil rights” to extend to homosexuals.  But there could be more – he’s “evolving.”

Further, if marriage is a civil right, why would Mr. Obama say that the states should decide who gets to exercise that right?  How could Mr. Obama suggest that the states should decide whether or not to deny a civil right?  What circumstances could possibly qualify this man  to be a lecturer in the law teaching future attorneys?

This was the argument used by Democrat Stephan A. Douglas defending slavery in his debates with Republican Abraham Lincoln:   let the states decide.  Borrowing the ‘logic’ of Mr. Douglas – Mr. Obama is not personally interested in entering a ‘same sex marriage’, but he thinks people who are interested should be able to do so if their state permits it.  In those states where ‘same sex marriage’ is not permitted everyone should be denied the right  The federal government should not get involved.  Senator Douglas’ argument led directly to the Civil War.  Mr. Obama’s may do the same.

The Legitimacy of Cultural Norms

Cultural norms exist for compelling reasons. They are built from the realities of life.  The realities of life in this regard are that even though sexual libertinism may sound good to people who think they will not actually ever have to give an account of their sexual life to God, the consequences of a libertine culture are far-reaching.

The homosexual community and their public champions like Mr. Obama seek to overcome cultural norms by creating legal sanctions and use force to attempt to change the natural disposition of the heart through mandated public education; but they will fail.  Draconian prescriptions like mandated curricula for schoolchildren, preventing people from exercising freedom of association; and even freedom of speech, and official government opprobrium name-calling,  and demonization are used.

But they will fail.  Such efforts inevitably fail when pitted against the realities of human nature and human relationships.  Reality inevitably mugs ideology; triumphs over theory.

The fulfillment of secret sexual desires that normal cultures do not approve results in the augmentation of disease states, deceit, fear, betrayal, and hatred.  None of which are conducive of a healthy state.  Think about acting out your deepest sexual thoughts.  What would happen if you openly acted them out?  Betrayal, fear, hatred, estrangement, loss.

Civil Rights Are Not Universal

Even if marriage was a civil right, civil rights do not extend to everyone.  We limit them for very good reasons.  Denying 13-year-olds to marry is also the denial of a “civil right.”  But what if the parents are fine with it and the teacher agrees not to consummate the marriage until his wife is 18 years of age.  Besides, the families are all Muslims, and the practice has deep historical roots in Islam.  In this case, the individuals are being denied their civil rights based on a legal discrimination against a particular religion.  We grant rights to some and not others for what we believe to be good reasons.  (Although given today’s federal judges, permission to marry in such a circumstance may indeed be granted!)

Further, the law discriminates all the time.  Cops can exceed the speed limit without repercussion; you can’t.  Sure, traffic patrol policing is important work, but it’s an arbitrary decision to say it’s more important than the work you do.  The laws grant special privileges to any sworn patrol officer that do not attach to you.  By the logic of the proponents of gay marriage, you are being denied the same rights as police officers because police officers can exceed the speed limit, and you cannot.

Following Mr. Obama’s prescription for establishing marriage law in the U.S., people who want to drive as fast as they want could begin to complain about the pain they feel because they are not being treated like full citizens.  They could get the media on their side and make the case that have been discriminated against for many decades; that they don’t have the same rights as police officers.  Worse their rights have been trampled on by the very same police officers who not only exceed the speed limit but have the power of the law to fine you for doing exactly what they are free to do.  So these people should the right to enjoy the same rights the privileged police minority have.

The other side counters with the argument that police serve the function of preventing speeders for damaging other people by driving too fast; they help keep us safe.  The plaintiffs reply that it is a fallacious argument to assume that people who want to drive fast are worse drivers than those who drive slow.  Besides, some of these people work for the TSA or are in government labs working on ways to prevent the murder of hundreds or millions of American citizens, and their work is just as important as that of patrol officers.  It may be even more important.

Would Mr. Obama support such a move to help the speeders avoid personal pain?

Further Consequences of the Move to Mainstream ‘Same Sex Marriage’

Mr. Obama considers marriage a “civil right;” and should the country follow his “logic” it is only a matter of time before any minister licensed to perform marriages in that state will lose that right because if they refuse to marry gays and lesbians, they will be charged with denying people of their “civil rights.”  In some states they may consider it luck if they are not sent to jail for practicing their religion.

What is the effect of Mr. Obama’s train of thought on Christianity?  Or Islam, or Judaism, for that matter?  Apparently Mr. Obama and other proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ are untroubled by elevating sexual gratification and the right to be free from “pain” above the right to freely practice religion.

We have already seen his hatred of Christianity with his ‘health care’ plan which requires that Christians violate their religious principles.  Now he has announced his willingness to take the country where religious people are forced to violate their own religions principles regarding homosexuality.   The only other option Mr. Obama would provide for you if you insist on your freedom of religion is for you to quit practicing the sacrament of marriage “in the sight of God.”  The law – he thinks – should force us to settle for his personal, squalid moral views:   doctor visits and sexual deviancy both should triumph over our constitutional right to freely practice our religion.

We know this because he went to a church in Chicago for 20 years.  Unfortunately his pastor – Jeremiah Wright – seems to believe that Muslims are also saved by Jesus without having to undergo repentance, baptism, regeneration, or confession.  Or the Bible, for that matter.  So we’re not sure exactly what kind of church it was.

We also know he is a man of faith because he says he is and that should count for something.

But the most practical reason we must understand Mr. Obama is a man of faith is because he keeps proposing a solution to a major problem, then when it turns out that his proposal makes the problem worse, he proposes the same solution to the same problem.  Then he does it again.

Like the budget he just proposed.  Only a man of incredible faith would show something like that public.

This can only be explained by sheer faith.  There is no reasoning involved, no logic, no mental faculty, and no intellectual formation; and apparently no capacity to learn from his own experience let alone the experience of others.  No, his insistence on following the same path that led him to perdition before, and then doing it again can only be explained by incredible faith.

Our only question is on what his faith rests.

Either he has faith that he really can walk on water; or he has faith in the terminal stupidity of the American people.

What the Contraception Debate is Not About

The kerfuffle about his decision to force churches to do his bidding is missing the central issues.

The debate isn’t about contraception, people can use it or not.  It isn’t even about forcing people who think using it is a sin to give contraception away free; i.e. without any co-pay.

It’s isn’t even really about propping up a constituency he thinks he needs for the election this fall – those who ardently promote a woman’s right to choose to kill her child, or the money he will get from the pharmaceuticals for helping sell their products.

Last of all, it isn’t about access to a medically necessary drug. Exactly which disease is contraction designed to cure? Somehow the world muddled by for thousands of years without what the president now says is so fundamental a human right that he finds in necessary to overturn the U.S. Constitution in order to provide it free to anyone who wants it.

What the Contraception Debate is About

It is about a hatred of any restriction on the human desire to rut without consequence.  Sexual pleasure is seen by Mr. Obama as a more fundamental right than freedom of religion.  Better in his mind to restrict religion than restrict sexual appetite.

People want to have unrestricted sex, and by God this president stands with them!  This is so important that the guarantee of the free exercise of religion enshrined in the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution must not stand in our way!  “I’ll even have someone else pay so you can have all the sex you want,” he tells us.

This debate is also about the arrogance of a petit dictator so expansive enough to leave no room for God Himself in the universe.

Mr. Obama’s view of people is not that they are worthy, intelligent, profoundly moral, consistent, and wise; that left to their own, they will make good decision and live good lives.  No, his view of the people he wants to vote him a second term is that they are prisoners of their own sexual desires; thinking themselves potent, they are actually impotent to control their behavior. He sees the American people as so weak and foolish that he must protect them from the consequences of their own behavior.

His Argument Justifying Unconstitutional Regulations

The president claims that because these hospitals receive government money the government has the absolute right to tell them how they can spend it.

• Consider the Consequences of This Argument

If all government money given to a person or a business gives the government the absolute right to regulate how it is spent, what about the Earned Income Tax Credit received by millions of people?  This is a rebate on taxes such people didn’t pay.  Since this is government money given directly to people, by Mr. Obama’s logic, the government has the absolute right to tell recipients how they will spend it.

What about welfare, subsidies for housing, food stamps and a host of other programs?  This is money given by the government directly to people. What about the deduction on your mortgage interest?  Since the government doesn’t have to permit you to deduct it, it really is money “given” to you by the government.  By Mr. Obama’s logic, the government next will be telling you how you can spend it.

What about deductions on a business’ tax obligations?  Since business deductions can be granted or denied, it means that any money saved this way is government money.  Be Mr. Obama’s logic, the government will soon be telling the business how it can spend it.

By Mr. Obama’s logic, soon the government will be telling every recipient of Social Security checks what they can spend that money on.

Constitution Issues at Stake in Mr. Obama’s Decision

• Unconstitutional Spending of Taxpayer Dollars

As the president constantly reminds us, our Constitution is a document specifying negative liberties.  That is, it specifies exactly what the federal government is permitted to do, and then it declares that all powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution belong to the states, or to the people themselves.  That is, the federal government can do nothing other than what it is specifically permitted to do in the text of the Constitution.

There is no statement in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the power to spend federal tax dollars on providing medical care for any person or group.  Period. It is unconstitutional for any president to do it.  It is also unconstitutional for the Congress to pass legislation that provides for it.

• Unconstitutional Meddling in Private Affairs

There is no provision in the Constitution permitting the federal government to spend tax dollars to provide medical care for anyone. If the elected officials of the federal government would abide by the rules “We the people…” set for them, there would be no issue about using tax dollars to promote activity you may disagree with, or restricting religious exercise.

You may think that government involvement is a good, but it is unconstitutional.  If there should be oversight of medicine and pharmacology, amend the Constitution to make it legal.

• Unconstitutional Meddling in Private Businesses

I would like to see the Constitutional citation granting the Executive branch the power to tell an insurance company what medical services they must provide for everyone who is insured by them.  That should be simple enough; just cite the reference in Article II – it’s only about a page and a half of text.

This will never happen, of course, because the government has no such power.  Many presidents and thousands of members of Congress simply choose to ignore the Constitution.  And we let them do it.  In fact, most of what our federal government does; most of the money it spends is not Constitutional.  It has no right to do most of what it does.  That’s just the truth of it whether or not people admit it.

• Unconstitutional Violations of the Freedom of the Exercise of Religion

Then there is the issue itself: Mr. Obama is under the delusion that the government has the right to determine what is religious ministry, and what is not.  This is the breathtaking far reaching center of this issue.

Mr. Obama thinks the federal government can define for a church what that church considers religious ministry.  He says that churches are exempt from a regulation requiring everyone else to provide free contraception in all medical insurance plans.  But church operated schools, hospitals, halfway houses, feeding programs, day care centers, and so on, are not ministry, and therefore are not exempt.

This is what is really causing the problem about all insurance plans providing free contraception:  Mr. Obama believes he has the power to control what the Catholic Church teaches is a religious practice.

This is why Catholics and all other Christians are upset.  This is why even non religious Americans who understand the importance of the Constitution stand with the Catholic Church on this issue.

Think of the consequences if the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are permitted to be overturned by the Democrat Party.

• Perhaps it isn’t a religious exercise to send medical missionaries or English teachers to another country, and therefore the government has the power to control what a church believes is a religious mission.
• Perhaps it isn’t a religious exercise when a church prints and distributes literature showing the Biblical teaching that opposes homosexual practices, or fornication, so therefore the government has the power to control what a church teaches is a sin.
• Perhaps it isn’t freedom of speech if conservatives are preferred as talk hosts, so by Mr. Obama’s logic he has the power to control what a person thinks is free speech.
• Perhaps it isn’t really freedom of the press when a publication prints an article taking issue with Islam in America so by Mr. Obama’s logic, he could decide what a newspaper thinks is freedom of the press.

When you are a dictator, here is no limit to the good you can do.

First they came for the Catholics…

On March 30, 2007, during a fundraiser he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president [George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution.”

Well now; he has never been a constitutional law professor, and he clearly does not respect the Constitution.

Apparently he thought that padding his resume by claiming a history that is untrue would be something nobody would check.  He was a “senior lecturer,” not a “constitutional law professor.”  If you think there is no difference, just refer to a full professor as a “senior lecturer” and see what happens.

Mr. Obama thinks the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document because it “is a charter of negative liberties.  Says what the states can’t do to you.  Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted…” and the U.S. Supreme court, “…didn’t’ break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”  Clearly it is his desire to overthrow the Constitution.

He hates the fact that the Constitution tells the government exactly what it can do, and that all other powers belong to the states or to the people.  He hates this because he wants to exercise the powers of a dictator in order to make America in his own image.  His presidency is defined by his use of unconstitutional powers.

The Preamble of the Constitution begins, “We the people…” If the Constitution is to remain the people’s document and not to be turned into an interesting but out dated artifact of history, we must fight against the attempt by anyone to ignore, flout, violate, or overturn our Constitution.

The Obama administration – aided and abetted by the Democrat Party is openly engaged in the greatest theft of constitutional liberty in history.  If our constitution needs to be changed, “we the people” have the power to do it; we have amended it 27 times since it was ratified in 1788.

Our current dictator chaffs at his constitutional limitations; so he ignores them.  He has no desire to encourage the people to amend the constitution because he knows we don’t want to do it.  This must not stand, or our liberty is gone forever.

Below I offer four examples of the illegal exercise of powers he is forbidden from exercising in the last 3 years.  This should not surprise us given Mr. Obama’s Marxist ideology,  and here, and here.  Marxism is the organizing principle of Barack Obama which is why he wants to redistribute your wealth, and why he hates the limitations of the Constitution.

After his election and five days prior to his inauguration Mr. Obama publicly announced his intention to ignore the U.S. Constitution

“We are five days away from fundamentally changing  the United States of America,” he said.  A “fundamental change” is certainly more than signing legislation that operates within the Constitutional parameters; it is something more than that.  Mr. Obama has not proposed one amendment to the Constitution, so it is clear that he planned from the beginning to make “fundamental” changes in the United States through the exercise of powers he is forbidden to use by the Constitution.

Mr. Obama publicly announced his intention to violate the Constitutional limits on appointments

He stated that he would appoint a high official while the Congress was in recess.   The Constitution requires that all such officials be ratified by the U.S. Senate.  A president can make a “recess appointment” to keep the government running if necessary when the Senate is in recess.

The problem is that the Senate was not in recess, so Mr. Obama cannot make a recess appointment.   Rather than follow the Constitution, which told Mr. Obama “no” to this appointment, he said, “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer, I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve.”    He may not like it that a minority in the Senate uses “party ideology” as a stumblingblock to his plan, but he cannot ignore the Constitution.  That is, he cannot unless we let him.

Mr. Obama is Attempting to use the Commerce Clause to force you to force you to purchase a product he wants you to buy

I have written about it elsewhere  and the campaign by the Democrat Party under the leadership of Mr. Obama continues to try to use the Constitution as a means of forcing you to make purchases of things you may not want and if you refuse you will be fined.

His plan to create socialized medicine in America as it exists in Britain and Canada was forced through the Congress by Democrats who announced that they had to pass it so we would know what was in it.

A part of ‘Obamacare’ is a mandate that everyone in the country purchase health insurance.  If we don’t we will have to pay a “tax” (previously called a fine).   The communist leaning Democrat Party wants to justify this by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution which says, “The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”  Only a “constitutional law professor” with a political agenda could interpret this to mean that you have to purchase health insurance or be fined.

By simply declaring the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance to be  a matter of interstate commerce – which it clearly is not – the dictator in the White House usurps your constitutional freedoms in order to “fundamentally change the United States of America.”

It this is permitted to stand, there are no limits to what the government can require you to purchase.  They will require you to purchase specific kinds of food given that diet is intrinsically tied to our health that the government will now control.  Expect hamburgers to be outlawed.  The can require you to purchase a gym membership because if you exercise it will lower the cost of government healthcare.  It could require you to purchase only electric automobiles made by General Motors, or purchase only clothes made in America.

Mr. Obama has publicly misappropriated Government Money in Violation of the Constitution

Mr. Obama arranged for $17 billion of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money to go to financially bail out General Motors as part of his campaign to keep UAW union jobs which will help the Democrat Party in general and Mr. Obama in particular.

This is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution Article 1; Section 9:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

That is, no money from the accounts of the U.S. government can be spent on anything, “…but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”  That means that the legislation providing TARP funds can only be spent on what the legislation specifically stated the money could be spent for.

I will use a few quotes regarding the purpose of the TARP legislation:

The purposes of this Act are—

(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States; and

(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that–

(A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;

(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth;

(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and

(D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the stated purpose of the law that would permit it to be spent on an automobile manufacturing company – General Motors.

But there’s more!

(9) TROUBLED ASSETS- The term ‘troubled assets’ means–

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress

(Read the whole text of the legislation here.)

General Motors is a manufacturing company, not a bank, not a mortgage holder, is not a financial instrument; and so there is no way it qualifies to receive funds under this legislation.  Any money given or loaned to GM constitutes an impeachable offense because it violates the Constitution.

The Obama administration gave GM $17 billion in money they borrowed from China and others while guaranteeing that you would pay the loans back with your tax dollars.  Mr. Obama clearly engaged in a criminal violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Obama has violated his oath of office by refusing to insure domestic tranquility or provide for the common defense

The Constitution prescribes the oath every person assuming the Presidency must take: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The preamble of the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In violation of the purpose of the existence of the government of the United States, Mr. Obama and his administration used Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) gun running campaign called Fast and Furious  to justify more gun control which is another violation of the Constitutional Second amendment:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

These circumstances are absolutely disturbing.  A bureaucracy of the government, the ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), devised a plan to prevent gun shop owners from complying with U.S. law in order that sham gun purchasers could illegally buy the guns that our government wanted to be delivered into the hands of violent, criminal citizens of a different country to be used for illegal purposes against the U.S.

They had no plan to follow the guns or trace them nor did they make any attempt to do so.  IN other words, the plan was to enable illegally obtained guns to travel from the U.S. to Mexico without being traced; they had no intention of capturing the criminals who obtained the guns.  Our government under Mr. Obama wanted violent criminals to obtain illegal weapons in order to dramatize the importance of more gun control!  This is a clear violation of the whole purpose of the U.S. government to, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Mr. Obama has also violated the Constitution by presiding over this program that clearly is not intended to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” or to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

ABSTRACT

As a Christian, I suggest that President Obama is a heretic.

There is a direct theological connection between the Inquisitors during the 350 year duration of the Spanish Inquisition, and the Social Justice, Social Gospel, ‘Christian’ liberals of today.

Before you laugh, let me say that no Social Justice liberals I know about are advocating burning heretics at the stake for heresy (they actually prefer denial of free speech, public denunciation, and social ostracism).  They are motivated by a their version of Christianity to create a welfare state in America because of a heretical theology.

What I am saying, and will prove in this post, is that the theology by which both the Inquisitors and the Social Gospel liberals – like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Jim Wallis, and others – arrive at their conclusions and positions is one and the same; and it is a clear violation of what Jesus taught.

Jesus taught (Luke 20:22-26) that the realm of God and the realm of civil authorities are two separate realms, each with its own authorities and responsibilities. Each of their spheres of authority differs from the others; and our responsibilities to each of them differ.  (I elaborate below.)

Since this is true, it is also true that Christians have obligations and responsibilities to each, but because their authorities are very different, our obligations and responsibilities are very different.

Both Church and state are created by God, but they serve different purposes; and Jesus in Luke 20:22-26 taught that those purposes must be kept separate.

When the Catholic Church, or any other Christian Church claiming to descend from Jesus gives the civil government any of the powers or responsibilities of the Church of assumes powers only given to the state, they are in violation of the teaching of Jesus and those Christians who engage in it are heretics.  If the civil authorities usurp any of the authority of the Church, they are in violation of the teaching of Jesus, and the Church must resist.

This separation of spheres of authority does not mean that the Church will not influence the disposition of the state.  This is where the separation issue gets muddled.  The church has every right to humanize it the state; lead it to recognize the infinite value of individuals, lead it to government by consent, presumption of innocence, and a number of other principles that are Christian in origin and that the state would never have invented on its own.

The separation has to do with what God authorized the state to do, and what He authorized the Church to do.  The state may not interfere in what only the Church is authorized to do; the Church may not enlist the state to participate in what only the Church is authorized to do.

Both the Inquisitors and the Social Gospel liberals have turned their back on the clear teaching of Jesus because it serves their purposes to do so.  Both of these groups advocate that the state carry out mandates given only to the Church.  What each of them desires the state to do was quite different, but the heresy – the departure from the teaching of Jesus is exactly the same.

The Inquisitors allied the Church with the civil authorities to carry out non-biblical, criminal responses to perceived heresies, and in doing so, engaged in heretical actions.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Church can use the state to punish heresy.

The Christian Social Justice crowd allies the Church with the civil authorities to carry out a strictly Christian mission of providing relief for the poor.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the mission of the church to provide relief applies to anyone who is not a member of the church.

Erasing the clear line between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world always ends in the hegemony of the state over the Church; and it is always wrong.  This gets the Church involved in activities distinctly secular and unchristian, and it always makes the state unworthy of allegiance.  When this is done, the Church becomes merely a political arm of the state and because it has a god before God, it ceases to be the Body of Christ.

Day to day Christians are by this means taken by their leaders into perdition.  By diverting the mission given to the Church by Christ into other directions, many are permitted to believe they are carrying out the mission of Jesus when in fact they are not.  When the blind follow the blind, Jesus taught, they both fall into the ditch.  (Matthew 15:14)

I know the political leaders and pastors who promote this heresy think they are doing something really good – that’s the evil of it, heresy supplants theology.  They think enforcing a mission given to the Church by Jesus using the coercive power of the state is a wonderful thing, and that sacrifice (taxes) is what we must do to make the world a better place.

Jesus, though, echoed his Father – “obedience is better than sacrifice” (1Samuel 15:22) – when he said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) and, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.  Whoever says, ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.  By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.”  (1John 2:3-6)  Obedience to the theology taught by Jesus in Luke 20:22-26 is much better than sacrifice.

True Christians do what Jesus told them to do; Social Justice, Social Gospel, welfare state ‘Christian’ liberals do what they think is good.  In doing this, they reduce Christianity to a squalid, copycat salvation by works facsimile of all false religions in the world.

Though their goals are different, both the Inquisitors and the Social Justice advocates choose to violate the teaching of Jesus regarding the separate spheres of authority and responsibility of the church and the state.

There have been numerous instances of the state desiring to use the Church for its own purposes (Soviet control over the Russian Orthodox Church, English Monarch control over the Anglican Church; the exploits of Charlemagne and many others).  To the degree the Church acquiesces and cooperates with these hegemonic actions it becomes secular and not Christian.  To the degree Christians resist, they keep the faith.  (Acts 5:27-32)

For both the Inquisitors and the Social Gospel liberals, it is the Church desiring have the state carry out activities reserved for the Church.  In both instances the advocacy and practice is heretical.  Note that it is always this liberal crowd who bring the mission of the Church to the state and ask the state to carry out the Christian mission; and it is always the same people who howl the loudest if a child somewhere, somehow, thinks a silent prayer on public property.

[They remind me of those to whom Jesus said, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence…first clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean…Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  You are like whitewashed tombs which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones...”  (Matthew 23:25, 27)]

So, yes, if Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Jim Wallis are Christians, they are heretics.  If they are not Christians, they should just say so and admit they are socialists or communists.  By claiming to be Christians and seeing the Christian mission as being fulfilled through the welfare state, they display their heresy for all to see.  They are heretics because they ignore a clear critical teaching of Jesus preferring instead to use his moral voice to have the state carry out the mission of the Church, while they shift the blame and loudly denounce conservatives for trying to legislate morality.

Some years ago I interviewed Jim Wallis in studio for my radio show.  In the course if the hour-long interview, I told him that the problem I have with people like him is that they don’t distinguish between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world.  He had no answer, simply because he no longer believes there is any difference.  That is a heretical view.

The only people today that are desperately attempting to have the government establish a church, and who are legislating morality, are Social Gospel liberals like those I have mentioned and many more. They think it’s doing Christ’s work to use government powers of taxation to carry out a bureaucratic mission of mercy in the name of Jesus.  If you don’t like the message, take it up with Jesus; he’s the one who taught it.

Exposition

Jesus was asked by some desiring to trap him, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?  But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, ‘show me a denarius.  Whose likeness and inscription does it have?’  They said, ‘Caesar’s.’  He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.”  Luke 20:22-26

This story provides a clear theology for the church.  There is a God realm with its authority, and responsibilities to the members of the church; and there is a Caesar realm with its authority and responsibilities to all the citizens of the state; and these are not the same authorities nor are they the same responsibilities; and they must never be confused.

Further, it is the clear teaching of Jesus that as his followers, we have one set of responsibilities to the God realm with its authority; and a difference set of responsibilities to the Caesar realm with its authority.

Therefore Christian theology requires us to understand that Jesus was teaching that those who would be His disciples are required to give to the state what belongs to the state as a condition of being a disciple of Jesus.  This is stunning:  The Founder of Christianity requires his followers to acknowledge and obey the civil authority we live under as a spiritual service; and this is a condition of our good standing before God.  His statement, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” is an imperative; it is a command not a suggestion.  Failure to do this is to fail in our moral obedience to Christ.  There is nothing like this in any other religion in the world:  Jesus himself recognized his own obligation to obey the authority of the state unless doing so would lead to disobedience toward God.  (Matthew 17:24-27)

We know that paying taxes even to a leader who believes himself to be a god is required for Christians because this was the condition during much of the Roman Empire during the early days of Christianity.  (c.f. Romans 13:1-7 written in AD 57.  Nero was Emperor from October 13, AD 54 to June 11, AD 68, and Nero followed the example of Caligula in proclaiming himself a god.)  But we also know that when there is a clear conflict between a divine command and a human command, we are to obey the divine command, defy the civil authority, and then be prepared to pay the price of disobedience.  (Acts 5:29-30)  We do this because we are commanded to fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell rather than the civil authority who can only kill the body.  (Matthew 10:28)

Authorities Created by God

There are three earthly realms of authority created by God in the Bible, the family, the church, and the government.  Each of these realms of authority has responsibilities and powers.  The authority and power belonging to one do not and cannot belong to another.  Below, I will expand on the concept, but as examples; the power to carry out punishment for crimes belongs to the state and cannot belong to the family or the church; spiritual authority and discipline belongs to the church, not to the government.

Family

Let us mention first that God created the family.  We see his observation in Genesis that it is not good for man to live alone (Genesis 2:18) and so God created Eve as Adam’s equal. (Genesis 2:21-23)  Then we see God making the first statement about family in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

This is not a complete treatment of the authorities and responsibilities of families, but let us note some of them:

        Authority:

• Parents should teach their children about spiritual things. (Eph. 6:4; see also, Prov. 22:6; Deut. 4:9, 10; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15)
• Parents are to discipline their children so they act responsibly. (Hebrews 12:5-11)

Responsibilities:

• Mutual submission between husband and wife. (Ephesians 5:21, 25-33)
• A husband should see that the family is provided for. (1Timothy 5:8)
• Wives should love their husband and their children. (Titus 2:4)
• Parents must not provoke their children to anger. (Eph. 6:4)
• Children must obey their parents. (Eph. 6:1)
• Children must respect their parents. (Eph. 6:2, 3; Proverbs 6:20)

Church

Since we live in times subsequent to the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, I will address the church created by Christ, not the Old Testament Jewish economy.  It is important to know that Jesus Christ founded the church; it is not and cannot be the creation of anyone or anything else.  (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:11-22)  Jesus chose its founding members and leaders.  (Luke 5)  Jesus taught them about the nature of his church (Matthew 5, 6, 7; et al.)  Jesus commissioned the work they were to do.  (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15, 16)  Any church or religion not founded by Jesus is false.  (John 3:36; 1John 5:11, 12; John 14:6; John 10:1-10)  Jesus remains in the midst of his church, (Revelation 1:10-13) and has promised to remain with us throughout all ages.  (Matthew 28:19, 20)  There can be no doubt that the only true church is founded by Jesus; and is that church in which Jesus remains.  This will be true so long as the church obeys the commands of Jesus.

Again this is by no means an exhaustive list of the powers and responsibilities of the church, but it will give some shape to our discussion.  The church has the power to:

         Authority:

• Preach the gospel to every person and baptize those who convert. (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:47)
• Exercise spiritual authority within the church in all things.  (Matthew 16:19

 Responsibilities:

• Serve the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of Christ’s death. (1Corinthians 11:23-26)
• Ordain the various ministers of the church. (Acts 6:1-6; Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23; 2Corinthians 8:19)
• Discipline members of the church with teaching and admonition when correction is necessary. (Matthew 18:15-17; 1Corinthians 5:1-13; 2Timothy 4:1-5; 1Thessalonians 5:11 and others)
• Examine those would work in the church. (1Thessalonians 5:12)
• Set, and ensure that the qualifications of ministers are kept. (1Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9)
• Care for the poor who are part of the Church. (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 6:1-6; Romans 15:25-27; Acts 9:36 Acts 20:34, 35; 1Timothy 5:16, 6:18; James 1:27; 1Corinthians 16:1, 2)
• Retain the unity of the spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith.  (Ephesians 4:3)

Government

God demanded an order for civil conduct first in Genesis 9:6.  Then we see that God gave The Law to accomplish the rules for worship, but also regulations regarding marriage, children, personal conduct, hygiene, and more.  (Exodus 19-31, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)  As history moves forward, God gave Israel a series of Kings to execute the legitimate powers of government – Saul, David, Solomon.  Then in the New Testament Jesus commanded his followers to obey the civil authorities – Luke 20:22-26 – and Paul addressed Christian obedience to civil authorities in Romans 13.

         Authority of Government over Citizens:

• The civil authority has authority from God to mete out punishment to violators of the law.  (Romans 13:4, 5)

Responsibilities of Government to Citizens:

• Civil authorities are constituted to do what is good not bad.  (Romans 13:3)
• Civil authorities must exert their power treating every person equally.  (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17)
• Civil authorities must preserve the maxim that every person – even heads of state – are under the law; the law is supreme, no person is exempt.  (2 Samuel 12)
• Civil authorities must not abuse their God-given authority to demand that Christians disobey God.  (Acts 5:28, 29)

Responsibilities of Christians to Government:

• Christians are to obey the governing authorities, because no authority exists unless it is from God.  (Romans 13:1)
• Christians who resist civil authority will incur judgment.  (Romans 13:3)
• Christians are to pay taxes owed to civil authorities.  (Romans 13:6, 7; Luke 20:22-26; Matthew 17:24-27)
• When obedience to the civil authority means disobeying God, Christians must obey God and defy the civil authority.  (Matthew 2:12; Acts 5:29)
• Resistance against authorities is resistance against what God has instituted (Romans 13:2)

Blurring the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world

Both the elements of the Catholic Church involved in the Inquisition; and the liberal, Social Justice, Social Gospel liberal crowd of our time fail in their obedience to this basic theology of obedience that Jesus clearly taught.

The Inquisitors

The Inquisitors became so motivated to retain the purity of the gospel they were willing to completely disregard the teaching of Jesus that the church has different authority and responsibilities than the state.  The result was that they obliterated the distinction between the two realms, confused the purview of each, and engaged in widespread, long-term disobedience to God.

Apparently they thought that preventing heresy from metastasizing in the church was so important that they could completely ignore the teaching of Jesus on the subject as well as Apostolic history.  First, any Christian knows that the church can not engage in capital punishment – there is no ordination of it whatsoever in the New Testament; no example of it in apostolic history.  Every example given among the Apostles having to deal with heresy in the scriptures is one of persuasion not coercion.  There is no example of leaders of the church engaging in any kind of corporeal punishment.

Example: Corinth

When Paul wrote to the Greek Christians in Corinth in First Corinthians he had to correct a serious moral problem brought on by doctrinal heterodoxy.  The leaders of the Christian community in Corinth apparently believed that they should be so tolerant of sin that they should applaud themselves for tolerating a man who was sleeping with his stepmother (or perhaps even his own mother.)  (1Corinthians 5:1)  The church leaders responded to this situation by approving it; and they were so proud of themselves they became arrogant and were bragging about it. (1Corinthians 5:2, 8)  Yet there is no mention at all of physical punishment for the offender or the leaders who approved his sin.  No mention of an inquisition to find out how far the heresy had penetrated the church.

Example: Thessalonica

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians how had become convinced that the resurrection was already past.  (1Thess. 4:13-18) This is not an orthodox view, but what was Paul’s response to them? Write a letter teaching them the correct doctrine.  Again, there is no mention of any inquisition; no mention of torture to get to the truth.

Example: Galatia

Paul wrote to the Galatians who considering returning to certain practices of Judaism thinking that circumcision conferred some kind of sanctity.  For a Jewish Christian to return to keeping the Law for justification before God means that they consider the blood of Jesus and his vicarious death for them is insufficient.  This is certainly a blasphemy.  But what was Paul’s response to the Christians of Galatia: an Inquisition engaging in torture if necessary to force confession?  Of course not, the great Apostle wrote and corrected their heresy.

It is important to note that this heresy was adhered to by Paul’s longtime friend Barnabas, and even the Apostle Peter.  (Galatians 2:11-21)  What is the response of the church to a heresy:  admonition, correction, and reason; not corporal punishment, trials, torture and the like.

In addition, Paul said for Christians to keep the unity of the spirit until we reach a unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:3) giving us a model of how to treat another Christian with whom you disagree.

The Inquisitors ignored these facts:

• Jesus taught that the role of the state is a different role from that of the church, and these roles should never be blurred.
• New Testament history shows how the Apostles handled heretical dispositions when they occurred, and the response was always admonition, correction and reason; never trials, torture, fines, incarceration, or burning at the stake.

What the Catholic Church did during the inquisitions in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and France was a horrible aberration and a serious departure from the theology of the New Testament; and was wholly without Divine support, or biblical precedent.  Having said that, there were many Catholics as well as Priests, Bishops, and even Archbishops who disagreed with what was going on.  At times, even Popes were against certain actions taken by the Inquisitors but were powerless to stop them.

Promoters of Social Justice/Social Gospel

What today is called “Social Justice” is espoused by most mainline Protestant churches, and much of the American Catholic Church as well

Unraveling “Social Justice” – Kobe Bryant and Me

What those who use the term “Social Justice” mean must to be analyzed.  First, it is not about any kind of justice you are familiar with.  Social Justice as its proponents see it can be illustrated in this way:  if I am to play basketball one-on-one with Kobe Bryant, a “just game” is not that we both play by the same rules on a regulation court; that each of us has the same number of timeouts, the referees call the game fairly, and so on.  That kind of fairness is not at all what the Social Justice, Social Gospel crowd have in mind.

A game like that can’t be fair in their view because Kobe Bryant will block all my shots, and score every time he shoots the ball.  That would happen because Kobe and I are not equal in our abilities.

The rules are the same for both of us, the referees call the game equally, and most of us would say under any concept of real justice it is fair that Kobe scores all the points and blocks all my shots if he can do so.  We would say that because he is just that much better than me; that the rules were equally applied, and that I should never consider a career in basketball.  We both had “equal opportunity,” but the game was completely one-sided.

Adherents of Social Justice, and the Social Gospel would see the game differently.  They do not consider “equal opportunity” to consist of equal rules for everybody, because if we follow that path, some of us can’t compete with the big dogs.  Social Justice isn’t about “equal opportunity” (although it uses that term to mislead).  It considers the game between Kobe Bryant and me as inherently unjust because Kobe is taller than me, his hands are bigger, his arms are longer, he can jump higher, he is faster, he has much more training, and so forth.  The disadvantages I have are not of my doing because: I was born this way.

Social Justice, Social Gospel adherents see my inability to excel at basketball as “injustice.”  The fact that I was not born tall, fast, and so on, are disadvantages that must be corrected or society is not just.  Social Justice seeks to provide me with more than equal opportunity; it seeks to give me an equal result.  An equal result cannot occur unless the government rigs that game.

To continue the basketball metaphor, if adherents of Social Justice were to correct the disparity between Kobe and me, they could fudge in a number of ways.  They could require that I get to play unmolested by Kobe’s defensive moves – I get a clear path to the basket.  Perhaps I need to be spotted bunch of points before the game begins; or the scorekeeper could give me 20 points for each basket I score against his 2 point baskets, and so on.  Only if we have an equal chance to score the same number of points would such a game be considered socially just by the levelers – the Social Justice, Social Gospel liberals of our day.

Those who espouse Social Justice deny that equality of opportunity in a formal legal way is just; they say that this is not genuine equality.  John Rawls one of their champions writes that “undeserved inequalities call for redress.”  He is a philosopher and writes like one; but what this means is that any limitations I have as a consequence of birth or even disposition that prevent me from doing as well as any other person in any pursuit demand that I be given an advantage.  They don’t really apply their theories to basketball; they apply it only to the economic sphere.

As an example, the New Haven, Connecticut Fire Department had 15 positions open for advancement in the department.  There were 118 people who took the test including 27 blacks; but no blacks and only two Hispanics passed the test.  The city knew that if only white guys were promoted, the black firefighters would have standing to sue, and the city would be sued for because of an “adverse impact” (the best guys won) on minorities; so it threw the test out.

Of course this was a Hobbesian choice for the city because on the other hand, if they throw out the test, the white guys who qualified would file suit saying that they were being discriminated against (which they were) so the city had no real choice but to make a decision and be prepared to defend itself in court.

They did throw out the test, and the guys who passed the test filed suit.  In court, Sonia Sotomayor (now a member of the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled against the white firefighters and in favor or throwing out the test because she believes in Social Justice, not real justice.  It is her opinion that members of one group must be discriminated against if they outperform the members of a different group.  Lew and Kobe in a tie game!  This is how justice is turned into injustice.  (Her decision was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I mention all this about Social Justice and Social Gospel because the motivation for many who adhere to this game – like the Clintons, the Obamas, the Catholic Bishops, most United Methodists, most Presbyterians; people like Jeremiah Wright, American Friends Service Committee, Catholics and protestants promoting liberation theology or black liberation theology who are followers of Karl Marx rather than Jesus Christ; and many others promote this as an extension of the Gospel of the New Testament; or worse, they say this is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

They always use the language or morality to describe what they do, and the language of immorality to describe what everyone else does.  They frequently invoke the language of Jesus to promote their heresy.

The originator of the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch promoted progressivism – the “Social Gospel” (today’s “Social Justice”) because as he understood it, the Gospel, the mission of the church, was to make the world in general more godly.  In his book, “Christianizing the Social Order,” Rauschenbusch said, “To concentrate our efforts on personal salvation, as orthodoxy has done, or on soul culture, as liberalism has done, comes close to refined selfishness…Our religious individuality must get its interpretation from the supreme fact of social solidarity.”

What he said was that for the church to focus on personal salvation is “refined selfishness;” that our religious, individual salvation must be interpreted only within the confines of the social group!  Here’s a guy who undertakes to correct Jesus with regard to the gospel.  For any student of the New Testament, Rauschenbusch must be considered a heretic, because he taught a much different gospel than that taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  (Galatians 1:9)

The Social Gospel has been described as “the application of the teaching of Jesus and the total message of Christian salvation to society, the economic life, and social institutions…as well as to individuals.”  Here, individual salvation is an afterthought.  Jesus weeps again.

Conclusion

Christians who promote the leveling of economic status coercively plundering the wealth of some to give it to others because they think that’s what Jesus taught are heretics; those who promote it who are not Christians are communists.  Either way, they should just be honest about it.

Erasing the boundary Jesus set between the responsibility of the church and the responsibility of the state always leads to heresy on the part of the church.  We must never let the state assume to name our pastors and bishops, we must never let the state define the limits of what we preach; and we must never use Christianity to promote the state as the enabler of elements of the Gospel of Christ.  To preach this is “another gospel,” and those who preach it are to be “accursed.”  (Galatians 1:8)  Those who seek to persuade us that we should take our eyes off Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) and focus them on the state as the instrument of God to carry out the Gospel must be denounced, resisted, and opposed.  If they hold office, they must be removed.

Fully 25% of the questions asked of candidates for president – 12 out of 48 questions – dealt with homosexuals and birth control!

Diane Sawyer – whose head appeared to be mounted on a spring nodding up and down without apparent purpose; and who appeared to have been drinking heavily before the debate, seemed concerned that the candidates be able to tell homosexuals what to do:

“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”

What?  Apparently Sawyer thinks it’s the job of the president to explain to homosexuals what they should do – they need a solution, I guess.  This seems more like a question she should ask people who approve of homosexual activity. Perhaps she should ask the nearest Democrat – surely they would know what homosexuals are supposed to do and I’m sure they would be happy to offer a solution.  Since they approve all things gay I’m sure they could say what they want homosexuals to do.

The obvious answer to Sawyer’s question about what homosexuals should do to form a loving, committed, long-term relationship from a conservative would be, “Form a loving, committed, long-term relationship.”  What else needs to be said?  I can hardly wait for the bobble head to ask Mr. Obama what he wants loving Christians in committed, long-term relationships to do who want their children protected from the nihilism of public schools which mock virtue and promote hedonism.  That should be fun – perhaps he will ask for vouchers for private education.  Well, maybe not.

Josh McElveen – a local ABC newsperson in love with the sound of his own voice – asked, “We’re in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry – 1,800, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. … And they’re trying to start families, some of them…” under the apparent delusion that it is possible that homosexuals can actually start families.  Perhaps he should accompany Diane Sawyer to the nearest Democrat to find out what homosexuals do, and then he would understand why they, “starting families,” could be a problem.

Of course what he was actually asking was about how important it is to take a child – currently in state custody for whatever reason – and placing him in the custody of people who abhor the kind of activity that can actually produce a child.  Apparently this sounds like a good idea to him.

Newt Gingrich responded with this zinger:

I just want to raise a point about the news media bias.  You don’t hear the opposite question asked.  Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?  Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry?  Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias that the bigotry of the administration?  The bigotry question goes both ways, there there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side.  And none of it gets covered in the news media.

The inquisitors did not answer his questions.

Tomás de Torquemada – I’m terribly sorry, I meant George Stephanopoulos (who was fixated on birth control for some reason) spent his time asking 7 of the total of 48 questions about the burning issue of  birth control.  That’s 14% of all the questions asked during a presidential debate!  As you are well aware, people everywhere are concerned that the next president might arrange to have one of the states decide to ban birth control.  Perhaps access to birth control has been a problem for him in the past; who knows?  Who cares?

“Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?  Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Makes sense that he would ask this burning question; as everybody knows one of the top issues in many states is whether or not the state should ban birth control.  And since so many states are considering banning it, George wanted to know if the constitutional right to privacy would trump their evil plan.

Of course there is no constitutional right to privacy except as outlined in the implications of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The word “privacy” does not appear anywhere in the constitution; perhaps George should spend more time reading the text of the constitution and less time agonizing over the critical, hot button issue of birth control.

Why should conservatives subject themselves to a panel of nitwits so obtuse as to not ask even one question that is on the minds of Americans as they consider who they should vote for president?  Well, I think that answer is that ABC has an obvious intent of making Republican candidates for president look like rubes if at all possible; with the accompanying intent to re-electing Barack Obama next year.

Here’s what is not important to the ABC panel when it comes to consideration of who should be the next president.  Not one question whatsoever about the following:

• Whether or not states have the right to ban abortion; their only concern being about states banning birth control.
• The miserable state of American public education
• The constitutional violations of the EPA, like filing suit against an Idaho couple to prevent them from building a house of their own lot.  “I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day,” Obama to EPA staff January 10, 2012.
• Nothing about the National Labor Relations Board working to control which states a company can operate in.
• Nothing about Obamacare unconstitutional mandates.
• Apparently they are only concerned about individual privacy as it concerns Griswold V. Connecticut concerning contraception (decided by the Supreme Court in 1965) but have no concern about the privacy of medical records under Obamacare.
• National accumulated debt leading us close to bankruptcy.
• Lowered U.S. credit rating
• The high rate of unemployment
• Iran and nukes
• Unconstitutional non-recess, recess appointments
• Disemboweling our military in announcements just two days before the debate announcing plans to lay off 80,000 soldiers.
• One American in eight is on food stamps – an all-time record under the Obama administration.  Move along – nothing to see here.
• Increase in poverty.  Move right along.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Secretary of Education invited people who are in our country illegally to come so their departments could learn from the illegals about how to provide them more services.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services announces actions to improve, “…the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and ” to coordinate “consideration of LGBT concerns throughout HHS’s activities,” producing, “an annual report on the Department’s key accomplishments and upcoming initiatives.”  They have developed, “an annual report on the Department’s key accomplishments and upcoming initiatives,” along with, “test questions on sexual orientation and gender identity,” and promise to, “provide guidance on the array of training and technical assistance available to state child welfare agencies to support LGBT youth, caregivers, and foster and adoptive parents.”  And in addition, “HHS will integrate an even stronger component focusing on LGBT youth in all anti-bullying initiatives and continue working with the White House, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Justice to ensure that states, schools, and the general public are aware of the resources available.”

In other news of the sexually challenged, California has passed a law requiring all students to learn that what is really  important about history is the sexual habits of the individuals involved, not on what is historically important.  At least this keeps things consistent.

President Obama has decided that the Constitution is an outdated and unnecessary restriction on what he wants to do; scholars agree.

Three years after Mr. Obama demanded we borrow $787 billion for a stimulus package to keep unemployment to below 8% we have finally lowered unemployment to 8.7% right where he said it would be if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill.  What?

Nine out of the worst ten countries engaging in religious persecution are Islamic.

Thirty three years ago Muslims in Iran took 52 American diplomats in our embassy there hostage for 444 days from November 4 – 1979 to January 20, 1981.  President Carter couldn’t do anything about it because he had hollowed out our military and the only attempt made cost tens of $millions, lost our equipment, and resulted in no rescue, no Iranians killed, but 8 dead American servicemen.  At the same time Iran is developing nuclear weapons having promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map and complete the holocaust and is conducting military maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz threatening to close it Mr. Obama -  following the example of his mentor Jimmy Carter – announced his plans to hollow out our military too.

Mr. Obama has created yet another enemy for the U.S!  His habit of leading from behind has resulted in overthrowing a dictator (Hosni Mubarak) friendly to America and who kept radical Islamist in check and in giving the worldyet another radical Muslim state – just what we need.

Venereal diseases are on the rise thanks to the sexual revolution.  Do you know where your children are?

Democrats find yet another way to cheat during upcoming elections.

Mr. Obama increases pay for federal workers who already receive 85% higher compensation on average than the average income for people who work for private companies.  Quit griping! you should all be thankful that you can contribute to the increased well-being of these selfless federal workers who look out for us day and night.

The government car – the Chevy Volt – costs $250,000 to manufacture, sells for $40,426, comes with a $7,500 rebate because nobody wants to purchase it, and it catches on fire; but Mr. Obama wants one million of them on the road in next 3 years!  That would make their total cost of production 250 $billion, and with a net sales price of 34 $billion and a 5% profit margin, Government Motors should make 1.7 $billion!  Hmmmmmm…total cost (not counting shipping, flooring, overhead, and sales commissions) 250 $billion; total profit, 1.7 $billion (minus taxes).  At least this has the advantage of keeping the government’s automobile business in line with their other operations in Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrack; along with the Department of Education, and the Transportation Security Administration (if you don’t count getting ‘felt up’ at the airport.)

The Supreme Court is preparing to determine if the government can make you purchase what you don’t want so long as the government thinks it is good for you.

Mr. Obama will create 180,000 new jobs this summer; 38% of them are jobs that will actually pay you!  Call now operators standing by.

Two universities are offering classes in Occupy 101

And finally this: Portland, Oregon is the city where young people go to retire.  You should get there right away.

Happy New Year!  Vote conservative.

I am disgusted with the political correctness that demands that Christians see their own history as the moral equivalent of Islamic history.  The historical revisionism is designed to elevate the status of the culture of Islam and lower the status of the culture of Christianity.  We are told that we must not denigrate Islam by pointing out what Muslims do; they must be referred to as “Islamists,” or “radical Islamists,” which they see as a small minority of Islam and an aberration of the “religion of peace.”  But Christians who joined the Crusades are never referred to as a small minority, “Christian radicals” or the like; they are only “Christians,” or “The Church.”

Don’t bother me with accounts of the Inquisition or the exploits of Charles I – Charlemagne.  I know the history, and I know that every year Muslims murder more people than all the deaths during the entire 350 history of the Inquisition in all countries where it was practiced.  I know about aberrations of Christianity in mass baptisms of unwilling converts.  I also know that Christianity has never carried on a war against Islam, and hasn’t invaded Islamic countries for purposes of conquest, and – to our shame – have never engaged in widespread evangelism to convert Muslims

History of Islamic Conquest for Religious Purposes

In 637 AD, Muslims solidified their conquest of Judea, and began immediately to persecute Christians and Jews who lived there.  They persecuted pilgrims who came to see the holy sites for centuries.  There were mass beheadings, brandings, and confiscation of property, murders, and destruction of thousands of Christian churches.

By the middle of the 9^th century (about 200 years from its founding) Islam had attacked and conquered Egypt and all of northern Africa, Spain, Portugal, much of France; Greece, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, southern Italy, and the Sindh in what is now Pakistan solely for purposes of domination.  Defense, protection of trade and trade routes, protection of religious adherents, or other reasons countries go to war played no part in this expansion; it was religious persecution and conquest plain and simple.

Finally Christians in Europe awakened and in 732 AD Charles Martel stopped the Muslim Umayyad progress in their effort to expand throughout the remainder of Western Europe at the Battle of Tours.

The Reconquista of Spain alone – the expulsion of the Islamic invaders from North Africa – took until 1492 about 700 years.

After continued slaughters of Christians and Jews whenever Muslims appeared; and after 460 years of persecution of pilgrims desiring to see the holy sites in Jerusalem the church responded.  In 1095, Pope Urban II announced the importance of bringing relief to Christians in the east, and the first Crusade was organized.  For two hundred years, Christians made 9 attempts to retake Judea from the Muslims who had invaded it almost 500 years before.  They succeed in holding it only for several decades during the entire period of the Crusades.  It was during this time that many of the churches in Palestine that pilgrims go to visit were built.

There were horrible, unchristian slaughters of Muslims and Jews done during some of the Crusades; but these are Christian acts.  While they are not excusable, they are understandable.  Muslims had murdered, enslaved or forcibly converted millions of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians in Persia, and others over the previous 400 years, and some of the Crusaders sought to even the score.  But non-Muslims have never truly evened the score with regard to slaughter and murder and forced conversions.  Islam is still a murderous cult.

Below I recount the reasons why Islam will never change, and why it cannot change and remain Islam.  In addition, I give an expanded history of the expansion of Islamic holy war to spread the religion of Islam by means of the sword; proof that Christians and Jews have historical rights to the holy land and Muslims do not; and more.  I hope you can take the time to read it.

Why Islam Cannot Ever Become Modern and Remain Islam

Beginning in 610 according to Islamic history, Mohammed began receiving communications from Allah dictated to him by the angel Gabriel.  These visitations continued periodically throughout the rest of his life.

Dictation not Revelation

The word “Qur’an” means “the recitation” because even though scribes wrote what Mohammed dictated to them, the Qur’an remained an oral tradition for a fairly long period of time, and there were detailed instructions about how it should be recited.  Even today, a large percentage of Muslims are illiterate and can only “recite” what they are taught, and Muslim prayers consist only of recitations of Qur’anic scriptures.

In addition it should be remembered that Arabic of the 7^th century was a consonantal language; that is, no vowels were used when it was written (much like Hebrew during the Old Testament period).

It’s important to understand that Allah dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed through Gabriel.  This is an entirely different manner than that in which prophets in the Old Testament, and Apostles in the New Testament received communication from God and wrote it down for us.

Allah dictated the Qur’an through Gabriel; God revealed his word to the Prophets and Apostles.  The difference is absolutely critical.  Since the Qur’an was dictated there can be no interpretation of what it says and means.  It can be translated, but not interpreted.

Mohammed, of course, was illiterate as most people were in those days.  He had a series of scribes who wrote down his dictations that have come to us as the Qur’an.

All Muslims throughout the world learn the verses of the Qur’an in Arabic – even those Muslims who are illiterate, and those who do not know Arabic at all.  Some can’t read it at all; others say the words but have no idea what they mean.  It is important to Muslims that their prayers – taken from the Qur’an – be recited in Arabic; apparently Allah would otherwise be unable to understand them.

The reason the Qur’an is memorized this way is that while the Qur’an can be translated, no translation is considered reliable; none of them can be trusted.  They cannot be trusted because Allah dictated it to Gabriel who dictated it to Mohammed so he understood it in Arabic; and any change – even using the word of another language to convey the meaning of the original Arabic is a deviation from the dictation.

It is for this reason that Christians have difficulty communicating with Muslims regarding what the Qur’an actually says.  When arguments are made about murdering non-Muslims, for example, an English translation of the Qur’an would be used; and so a Muslim would state that that is not an accurate translation because Islam can only be understood in Arabic.

I should point out here that because Islam is an Arabic religion: god spoke to Mohammed through Gabriel and Mohammed understood it and spoke it in Arabic; prayers have to be offered in Arabic, and so forth, Islam is more culture than religion.

Wearing of beards for men, women covering their faces with veils, wearing of Middle Eastern garb – none of this is specifically required by the Qur’an.  You will find that any serious Muslim person adopts an Arabic lifestyle in many ways not required at all by the Qur’an.  In addition, he or she will learn Arabic, and make the Haj to Mecca. Conversion to Islam is as much a decision to adopt Arabic dress, food, habits, language, and lifestyle – in a word Arabic culture – as it is a religious decision.  The pressure on converts to dress like you belong in the 7^th century is not a requirement dictated by Allah; rather it is the attempt to require all people who convert to Islam to become Arabs.

This submission has strong elements of what we would consider a cult.  Every convert must abandon their ethnic background, their race, their traditions, their friends; and begin to dress as if they were members of another race, another culture, and another time.  This has the effect of separating them from everything familiar – family, friends, history, and their national surroundings.

In addition, since Islam demands that there is no public space – that is everything is controlled by the Qur’an – there is no independent or separate role for government, culture, social life, family, food, traditions, entertainment or anything else separate from the religion.  All law, diet, public life, personal life, relationships, business, – everything is controlled by the religion.  Ownership, business conduct, dress, financial investments, contracts, marriages, discipline of children – it is all controlled and directed by the religion.

Mosques are designed to demonstrate this concept.  There are usually open spaces for people to congregate for social activities, there is no “church” feel to it because it is open signifying that the religion does not stop at the door.  Anyone can enter a Mosque even if they are not a Muslim because while the Mosque is a place for prayers and religious services, it is no more holy than anything outside the Mosque – for Islam everything is holy; there is no secular.  Islam requires the religious adherence, the personal life, political life, thought life, legal life, romantic life, family life, professional life, financial life; the mountains, the rivers – the whole cosmos to be operated and understood according the Qur’an and the Arab way of life.

Scripture Interpreting Scripture

In Islam, there is no concept of “scripture interpreting scripture” as in Christianity.

There is no consistent hermeneutics (other than “mystical hermeneutics” – hidden, Gnostic, occult) to guide understanding of the Qur’an; no set of nuanced rules through which Muslims we can understand what is meant by what Allah dictated.  As a consequence, there is no mechanism whatsoever that would make it possible for Muslims to revise how the plain text is understood, and permit them to understand it in a new way.  Islam cannot become modern.

For Christians, the coming of the Christ provides a new way to understand the Old Testament Scriptures.  We are told by Apostles that the Law in the OT was a “schoolteacher” (Galatians 3:24) to lead us to Christ; that those things were written so we could understand God’s plan for redemption as it unfolded.  This provides Christians with a way of understanding the things that were written, about stoning adulterers and homosexuals that alters the meaning of those instructions.  God demanded certain things in certain historical periods and His expectations were altered as he further unveiled more about who He is and what He is about.

The scriptures that demand corporeal punishment for violations of God’s law show how God really feels about sin; but now that Christ has appeared to become the object of God’s wrath toward sin; we can – by participating in His death and resurrection by faith – be free from God’s judgment for our sin in this life and the life to come.  God being just, and having taken out the punishment for our sins on Christ on the cross, will not take out another punishment against us.

As a consequence of the provision made through Christ to avoid punishment for our sins, exacting corporeal punishments is no longer a viable way of relating to the guilty.  Our example is Jesus Himself who said to the woman caught in a mortal sin, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way and sin no more.” (John 8:11)  Simply, through faith and acceptance of Christ’s vicarious death, we are no longer guilty; and therefore the punishment for our will not be exacted on us because the punishment was already taken out on Jesus on the cross.

The concept of using the sacred Scriptures to interpret sacred Scriptures provides Christianity with a way of understanding what the doctrines are and what they mean in every generation.

Christianity actually demands – as a condition of faithful obedience and acceptability to God – that Christians recognize that there is one obedience to Jesus, and a separate obedience to Caesar.  (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Romans 13:1-7)

Since Islam has no hermeneutics to use to interpret the Qur’an – the Qur’an being internally incoherent – Muslims are left to the vicissitudes of various Imams who at times may let Muslims live at peace with members of other religions, and at other times encourage their murder.

In addition, in Christianity every member of the church is encouraged to study what the preacher says to see if it is correct (Acts 17:11), and to research to discern those who would attempt to lead them (1 Thessalonians 5:12).  Islamic congregations have no such corrective capability so ordinary Muslims are powerless to modify, fire, or change their leaders.  To disregard them can result in very unpleasant things.

Unfolding Revelation

The God of Christianity unveiled Himself slowly over thousands of years, and each revelation brought about new understanding as to how we are to relate to Him and how we are to live.  God is dynamic.  Allah is static; there is no long, progressive unveiling, no slow revelation resulting in changing expectations for his followers.

There is no concept of an unfolding plan of redemption by Allah – what He said cannot be understood a different way in a different age.  Islam cannot be updated.  For example, where the Qur’an tells Muslims to kill unbelievers (Suras 9:5, 9:38-39, 9:73, 9:29, 8:12, etc.) it cannot be said by any Muslim teacher that those commands to behead non believers and kill them actually means that they are to be “persuaded,” or “defeated in the spiritual sense.” It cannot be said that “kill” actually means something other than “kill.”  It cannot be said, because Allah said, “kill.”   In further evidence that this is how Muslims understand the Qur’an because “Kill” those who are not Muslims is what Muslims have done throughout their history.

There is no concept of a “dispensation” of time during which Allah expects a certain kind of behavior which changes at a point in history.

There is no concept of an ongoing understanding of who Allah really is; a time when he shows his fury, and another time when he shows his grace as in the case of the Christian God.  In fact, there is no theology of Allah at all – certainly not in the Qur’an.  Allah is not known at all by Muslims; all that is known to Muslims about Allah is seen by what he demands of Muslims and Christians.  Islam is a religion whose god is never described; who does not identify with the human condition at all, who never comes to redeem; demands complete submission of the entire person to the principles of the religion body intellect, emotions, and actions; alloys the beliefs of the cult with all acts of humanity (there is no private space permitted in Islam); and is a religion without joy.

It is for these central reasons that Muslims cannot move beyond the strict instructions of Allah to perpetrate violence or special taxes against anyone who is not a Muslim (S. 2:191-193, 4:89, 5:33, 8:12, 8:39, 9:29, 48:29 etc.); and it is for these reasons Muslims are being obedient to the Qur’an when they cut off the hand of a thief (5:38).  That’s what the Qur’an says to do, and since Allah dictated it, it cannot be updated or interpreted in a new understanding for a new time.  There is no way to understand it the way Christians have always understood what Jesus meant when He said if our hand offends us to cut it off (Matthew 5:27-30).  It was clear from the beginning that He meant that we are to get rid of those things that cause us to offend – to sin; not that we should literally cut off hands.  There is no Christian that ever cut off his hand although there are plenty of examples where Muslims cut off Christian hands.

Interpreting Judaism and Christianity

While interpretation is not permitted in Islam; for both Judaism and Christianity the role of the interpreter is seen as central to the faith.  Judaism surrounds the Torah – the 5 Holy Books – Genesis through Deuteronomy.  Also in the Jewish Scriptures we see the History of the people, the Poetry books and the Prophets. Why would Israel need prophets throughout their history if they already had the Torah?  Because interpretation of what it says is critical to Jewish understanding.  In addition, the Talmud provides important commentary on just what the Torah means for the everyday life of an observant Jew.

Christians had the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels; yet the Church also needed a history – Acts – and then writings from Paul, James, Peter, John, and the writer of Hebrews to explain what the teachings of Jesus meant, and how they are to practically affect the life of the Christian.

In addition, Christians understand from the teaching of the New Testament itself that the role of the interpreter is essential.  Consider the teaching, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”  (Romans 10: 13, 14)  In Christianity, the process of redemption itself requires the role of interpretation; a preacher.

In addition, the New Testament itself reinterprets the Old Testament.  Old Testament passages are understood in a much different light following the arrival of the Messiah. Consider Hosea 11:1 referring to Israel coming out of Egypt through deliverance across the Red Sea; and its use by Matthew in 2:15 to prove that Jesus is the Christ because of his parent’s taking of him to Egypt to escape Herod’s murder of male babies in Bethlehem.  There is no hermeneutic in Islam that will permit another understanding of what the text says; Islam cannot be modernized without ceasing to be Islam.

Islam

In Islam, the word “Imam” means leader.  It is used for the person who makes the call for prayer in the minaret; but it also can mean a Muslim who makes larger decisions, or is a person revered in Islam.

There are various branches of Islam, and while they share a founder and a sacred scripture, they disagree with each other on some issues –sometimes violently.  This violence against others who agree with you in virtually everything shows that Islam is different than Christianity.  While Christians disagree about many things and have developed into denominations in Protestantism; and the Eastern Orthodox, and Western Catholicism are not now, nor have they ever been at war with each other.  The Thirty Years War and the violence in Ireland were political conflicts carried out by politicians using government to martial soldiers; or were politically motivated individuals who had no adherence to the principles of Christianity.  Christians may disagree; they do not aggregate armies, hire generals, and conduct war.

I may treat this subject in more detail in a future post, but consider that the conduct of war is an act of a political government, not a church.  To the degree Christians acted like non-Christians, we must understand that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles contain no instructions whatsoever about dealing blows to another person for their beliefs or because of the God they worship.  Any such engagements must be seen as violations of Christian doctrines and the teaching of Jesus regardless of who engaged in them.

In Islam, there are no authorities who lead. the various groups of Islam who speak for the group; there is no one who can disfellowship or defrock a violator of the doctrines; so we see a guy like Osama bin Laden who announces he is an Imam, and there is no licensing board or fellowship or hierarchy  that can say to him, “No you aren’t.  You don’t speak for this group.  Comply with the doctrine or you will be tossed out.”  This looseness means that in practice, virtually anyone (like bin Laden) can announce he is an Imam and can teach Islam – no discipline can ever be done to correct what he says.  There is no one who can say, “No.”  This is so because of what the Qur’an is; and the nature of Islam.  This is why you never see the leader of a major faction of Islam denounce any other Muslim for suicide, or murder of a child, or the murder of innocents – even other Muslims.

You would think that since the Qur’an is not subject to interpretation having been dictated by Allah, there would be universal agreement among Muslims, but it is a matter of which Suras they decide to emphasize, and there is never any accountability because they cannot be falsified.  Those of us who are Christians would like to see the radical, murderous elements of Islam denounced as not speaking for the religion, but it never happens; it will not happen and cannot happen because there is no structure in Islam that permits or requires it.

In Christianity a heretic may be defrocked or disfellowshipped; in Islam he is simply beheaded.

History of Islamic Aggression against Christians

Public Muslims – those who speak in public – appear to be perpetually aggrieved.  They are always angry about something – yelling, shaking fists in the air, chanting; apparently not needing to go to work.  It makes me wonder why anyone would choose a religion that permits no joy, and no security of salvation.  Muslims claim the right to persecute other Muslims, chop off hands, stone an adulterous woman, claim up to four wives, murder anyone who isn’t a Muslim, kill any child that embarrasses them; but demand that no one speak negatively about Islam.  They claim the right to every square foot of land where a Muslim foot stood.

As mentioned above, Mohammed died in 632 AD.  Consider the Islamic religious/military expansion.  This conquest was done by military conquest in the name of religion.  It was not done in defense of territory, it was not done to oppose religious discrimination, it was not done because of invasion; it was not done because of suffering by denial of food or other commerce; it was (and still is) done simply because the Qur’an requires it.  The end it seeks is a worldwide caliphate where everyone is a Muslim; or is dead.  Think of it as evangelism by the sword – not persuasion, not reason, not by preaching; it is evangelism by intimidation.

By 633 they had conquered Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) for the first time.

By 637 Muslims had conquered Jerusalem solidifying their control over the land of Israel, and had conquered Syria as well.

By 641 Islamic radicals had conquered Egypt; and by 643, they had completed their conquest of all of North Africa.

By 644, Islam had invaded and conquered what are today Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

By 645, Islam had conquered Armenia.

Between 644 and 712 AD Muslims had invaded and conquered the Sindh (in present day Pakistan).

By 718, Islam had invaded and conquered most of Spain and Portugal.

By the mid 7^th century they had conquered Persia (present day Iran).

By the 9^th century Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan had been put to the sword and conquered by Islam.

In 820 Crete fell, and by 827 the conquest of southern Italy was complete.

The Umayyad Muslims were attempting to further expand across Europe, but in 732 were confronted by the Frankish king Charles Martel.  The victory of the King Charles “The Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in north western France stopped further expansion of Islam throughout Europe and set the scene for the Carolingian Renaissance of the 8^th century that flourished throughout Western Europe.  The eastern part of the Roman Empire was weaker; more dispersed, and so fell quickly to Islam.

Not one of these territories was persecuting Muslims.  None of these areas were territories previously occupied by Muslims. Most of these areas had freely converted to Christianity centuries before.  These were all wars of religious aggression.  The fact that Muslims continue today to justify these murderous invasions proves that the aggressive, murderous element of Islam is not a small minority or a few radicals.  These tactics have been part of Islam from the days of Mohammed, and have never ceased.  They are taught in the Qur’an and in the Hadiths as well.

If the West does not understand and acknowledge the truth about Islam, the West will die and Islam will kill it.  The politically correct of our time are willing to pretend that the history and doctrine of Islam is actually something other than what it is; but they never want anything called by its real name.

Slouching Toward the Crusades

Jews and Christians Both Have an Antecedent Claim to Jerusalem

To quell a Jewish uprising, the Romans sent General Titus to sack Jerusalem, and the task was complete in 70 AD.  Most of the inhabitants were killed or died of disease; many of them Christians.  Any people remaining were murdered on the spot or sold as slaves.

Jerusalem lay in ruins for another 70 years with few inhabitants.  In AD 130 Hadrian decided to rebuild the city.  He did, but it was built as an outpost for the Roma military, and it was renamed Aelia Capitolina.  No Jews were permitted to enter the city, and circumcision was forbidden.

This upset the Jews and resulted in what is known as the bar Kokhba Revolt.  It succeeded for a time and an independent state called “Israel,” was founded and lasted for 3 years.  Coins were minted by Bar Kokhba; archeologists have found them, and some of them are in museums today.

The Romans finally put down the rebellion and did all to extinguish the memory of the land of the Jews by renaming Palestine “Syria Palestinia.”

Eusibius (an Arian Bishop in Caesarea in Palestine in 314, chronicler of the proceedings at the Council of Nicaea in 325 during which his side in the Christological debate lost); wrote a history of the church in which he says that Christians were forced out of Jerusalem twice; in AD 70 and again in AD 133 – both times by Roman Emperors.  In his history he names the Bishops who returned to Jerusalem in 136 AD following the end of the war when Jerusalem was rebuilt as an outpost for Roma soldiers.  We know there were Christians there at the time.

St. Helena (250-330) was the mother of Constantine the Great.  She was commissioned to take a trip to the Holy Land under her son’s direction to find holy things connected with Jesus and the Apostles.  She was in the Holy Land 326-328.  We know this because it was recorded by Eusibius; there was a major Christian presence in Palestine during that time.

During her stay she either arranged construction or blessed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and the Church on the Mount of Olives.  So we know there were Christians there and churches there at the time.

The Bordeaux Pilgrim kept notes during his pilgrimage from France to Jerusalem in 333-334.  We know there were Christians in Jerusalem at the time. His record proves both a Jewish and Christian presence in the Holy Land and Jerusalem in particular.

Never before, and not during these years was there an Arab government in Palestine.  There were no Arab cities or Capitols.  The claim by Arabs for Palestine actually began when they invaded and conquered it and began to persecute the Jews and Christians who had lived there for centuries.

In 394 we know that John II the Bishop of Jerusalem consecrated the newly constructed Church of Holy Zion at the site of the Last Supper.  So we know there were Christians there at the time.

Judea is conquered by Muslims in 637 – Persecution of Christians Begins

What was the Muslim presence in Jerusalem, and how important was the city to Islam 50 years after the death of Mohammed in 632?  In 680 Bishop Arculf, a Pilgrim who traveled to Jerusalem described “an oblong house of prayer which [the Muslims] pieced together with upright plans and large beams over long ruined remains.”  Forty years following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem; fifty years after Mohammed’s death there is no Mosque in Jerusalem. Apparently Jerusalem was not considered a holy place to Muslims at the beginning at all even though they make a very big deal out of it now.

The Dome of the rock Mosque was not begun until 688, and completed in 691; the al Aqsa Mosque (frequently referred to by Muslims as the “Farthest Mosque”) was built in 715 AD.  The fiction about Mohammed being transported overnight from Mecca to “The Farthest Mosque” which is supposed to be the al Aqsa Mosque according to Muslims is historically impossible.  We know for a fact that this Mosque wasn’t constructed until 85 years after Mohammed was dead.

Once Muslims had established themselves in Jerusalem, they immediately began to harass Christians who lived there as well as Christians who made Pilgrimages to visit the holy Christian sites.

Early in the 8^th century, 60 pilgrims from Portugal were crucified by Muslims near Jerusalem

Many pilgrims were kidnapped and ransomed.  In the 8^th century, crosses were forbidden in Jerusalem.  In 722, Califa al Mansur had the hands of all Jews and Christians branded.  In 789, a Christian monk was beheaded in Bethlehem, and the monastery was looted.

In 937, on Palm Sunday, Muslims destroyed the Church of Calvary, and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004 Calipha Abu al-Mansur al-Haki8m burned the Christian churches and set out on a murderous rampage of both Jews and Christians.  In ten years, in the region, some 30,000 churches were destroyed and thousands murdered.

In 1009 he ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Church of the Resurrection destroyed.  Jews and Christians were forced to convert to Islam of die.

In 1077 the Seljuk Turkish Muslims overran Jerusalem and murdered more than 3,000 Christians and Jews.

The West Responds

The Christian Emperor Alexius I of the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium reached out to the Western Church and ask for help to stop the slaughter of Christians in the Holy Land and Christian pilgrims to the holy sites there.

In 1095 Pope Urban II challenged Christian knights during the Council of Clermont:

The Turks and Arabia have attacked our brothers in the East and have conquered the territory of Romania (the Greek Empire) as far as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont…have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians and have overcome them in seven battles.  They have killed and captured many and have destroyed the churches and devastated the Empire.  If you continue to permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.  On this account I persuade all people of whatever rank, foot soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to these Christians…  (see here).

Note that this call was not for the conversion of Muslims or for conquering them – it was about relieving the suffering of Christians during their persecution at the hands of Muslims.

The Crusades were begun to relieve Christians from Islamic persecution, and to retake land from which Christians had been ousted by Islam’s armies.

Conclusion

Christians and the culture that Christianity built – Western Civilization – has never competed well with Islam.  Christians are told to be at peace with our neighbors, we are to lay down our lives in behalf of others; Muslims are instructed to force us to convert, or slaughter us.

Raping Christian women captured in war is fine with Allah – he said so in the Qur’an (Suras 23:5, 6; 4:24; 24:32).  There is something seriously wrong with a “religion of peace” that entices murderous rage against all other religions as the price of endless bliss with an eternal harem of virgins who never grow old.  It’s easy to persuade men who are the product of 600 generations of marrying first cousins that god wants them to commit these murders, in exchange for the absolute guarantee of eternal sexual pleasure.

Western leaders who persist in pretending that Islam can be tamed are fools.  Perhaps some of them know it cannot be tamed, but feel like they can’t say it publicly; but none of them act as though they really believe it.

Islam has made greater inroads into Western Civilization through a combination of stealth and emigration and fecundity than the Saracens attempting the conquest of the West by the sword could possibly have imagined.  Had they but tried it, they might have found leaders welcoming them at the gates.

Our idiotic leaders stand at the door and welcome the murderers in, and then condemn the rest of us for pointing out what the murderers have done and how they plan to destroy our culture.  It isn’t radical Islamists who are a danger to us; it is Islam itself.

I do not suggest that all or even most Muslims plan to destroy the West.  What I do suggest is that most Muslims would willingly participate in wholesale murder of you and your neighbor if they were told to do so.  They could not appeal to the Qur’an and show that any Imam demanding such slaughter is wrong.  If an Imam said that the Qur’an required it, how could they not do it – they are not free to interpret Allah.  Islam means “surrender.”

Yet again, perhaps the greatest danger to us is our naïve leaders who don’t have the historical or theological knowledge to understand and won’t take the time to learn that the West is being undermined by the policies they themselves promote.

The President announced that while he is reluctant to take such action he felt he had to act since grave concerns have been expressed by a large number of Muslim leaders that such public displays of Christianity are an affront to Muslims throughout the world.  Mr. Obama announced that in order to preserve religious freedom for both Christianity and Islam; and in order to not offend the deeply held convictions of Muslims, he would institute these minor restrictions.  “No one’s right to exercise their freedom of religion is infringed by these intelligent reforms,” he said.  The President added that he was confident that Christians would understand the actions and follow the example of Christ and turn the other cheek.

No, wait; he didn’t say that because that would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution; he couldn’t possibly be so brazen as to openly thumb his nose at the document that controls his powers of office and willingly violate his oath of office.  But what if he did say that?  Would you be upset about it?  Would you be demanding impeachment proceedings begin immediately?

No, he didn’t say that at all; what he did announce is that he plans to violate the Constitution in a different way.  He is appointing a person to a high position in the Executive Branch that requires the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate.

Breaking:  Now Mr. Obama has made more recess appointments while the Congress is not in recess.  This time there are three new members for the National Labor Relations Board requiring Constitutional Senate Advise and Consent approval who won’t have to be approved.  Apparently Mr. Obama is under the illusion that he gets to make decisions for the U.S. Congress – you know…like when they are in session and when they aren’t.  Since he refuses to get Advise and Consent for all his Czars, makes recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess, stacks the Supreme Court so his healthcare bill will be declared constitutional it is apparent he knows little about the Constitution.  Or perhaps he just plans to ignore it.  The upside is that now we know why he has paid $millions to prevent his undergrad and law school transcripts from seeing the light of day.

The Congressional Research Service – which is part of the Senate shows that Mr. Obama is in violation of the Constitution; even lefties show that he is in violation.

Executive Appointments

The Constitution requires that the President must submit the names of high Executive Branch officials to the U.S Senate for the process of Advice and Consent except when Congress is in recess.  This insures that there is some legislative oversight helping to prevent the very kind of dictatorial Executive power Mr. Obama is trying to achieve.

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.  (Emphasis mine)

Because the Congress is not always in session, and because sometimes these “public Ministers” are needed to make government function well, the President has the power to make what is called a “recess appointment.”

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Mr. Obama made the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – just so you know who to thank) last summer, but the Senate refused to approve the appointment as they have the Constitutional right to do.  So today, Mr. Obama made a “recess appointment” that will place this person in power through 2013.  Only problem is that the Congress is not in recess.

The creation of this new bureau assumes that people are stupid, and cannot make a financial decision without government bureaucrats telling them what to do, and that no one should be responsible for their own choices.  It has broad new powers to drive up the cost of doing business in the U.S., and will cost $billions every year in more government employment and litigation.  As a consequence, Congress could not agree to Mr. Obama’s appointment in keeping with their constitution duty to Advise and Consent.

The Congress – following a precedent created by Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2007 – kept the Senate in session during the holiday “break” in order to prevent this appointment being done during a recess.

(Mr. Reid , who used the technique in 2007 said at the time, “While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,” Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President [Bush] will meet me halfway. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.”)

President Bush actually took his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” seriously and so did not make the appointments which would violate the Constitution.

Mr. Obama obviously does not take his oath of office seriously.  Despite the radical spin today, he went ahead with the “recess appointment” even though the Congress is not in recess.  Spin doctors are saying he did so to bypass Republicans, but he did not bypass Republicans in the Senate; he bypassed the Constitution; “I refuse to take `no’ for an answer,” he said.  Being a dictator must be so much fun.

Mr. Obama does not take the presidential oath of office seriously because he does not take the Constitution seriously.  In fact, he hates the our Constitution, hates the limitations it places of federal power, and he seeks to overturn the document.  These are not unfounded speculations.

Mr. Obama’s view of the U.S. Constitution

First, Mr. Obama sees the Constitution as deeply flawed

In this interview he states that the Constitution – including the post Civil War Amendments requiring equality for every person regardless of race – remains colonial, and “deeply flawed.”  The President clearly does not support equality of status nor equal opportunity in the United States – he wants something more.  What are the “flaws” he wants to correct?

Second, we know the “flaws” Mr. Obama desires to correct

He has stated publicly his desire to do so: (Complete quote context and link below)

1. He laments that the Federal Courts dealing with minority rights so far haven’t broken, “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.”
2. He said, “…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
3. He said, “…the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

What can we learn from these three quotes?

1. He believes that the courts have the power to overturn the Constitution.  That is a breathtaking and unconstitutional view.  The Constitution provides for the manner in which it can be changed, but Mr. Obama says nothing of that.  He only states that 5 people of 9 sitting on the Supreme Court should overturn the Constitutional federalism that our Founders created and which the states ratified.
2. He despises the Constitutional limits placed of federal power thinking that government should have the right to control the lives and fortunes of every person in the United States.  Mr. Obama longs for oligarchy.
3. Mr. Obama revealed in particular what power he wants to exercise as an oligarch: since the courts have not ventured to redistribute the wealth of the nation he intends to do it himself.  In this sense, Mr. Obama is indistinguishable from Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Daniel Ortega.  He despises equality of opportunity; he seeks to enforce equality of condition.  How is this to be distinguished from the proposals of Karl Marx?
4. Mr. Obama thinks equal opportunity and equal rights are meaningless.  In his view the Civil Rights movement focused on the wrong things  They became so interested in attaining equal opportunity; they failed to put together a “coalition of powers” that will enforce “redistributive change.”  He then goes on to say that “…we still suffer from that.”  What does he mean by this?  Equal opportunity, and equal status are meaningless; they fixed nothing.  What is meaningful is if the civil rights movement could have gained the power to take the wealth from those who produced it, and spread it equally among those who did not.  This is Mr. Obama’s goal as president; remember his statement to Joe the plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around that’s good for everybody.”

To put all this together, remember this statement just prior to his inauguration, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Now you know Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution, so you know why he is willing to violate it.  He has no respect for the Founders of our country who fought and died to provide the government we had.  He does not respect the 600,000 who died in the Civil War to be among the first of nations to outlaw slavery.  He has no respect for the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing equal rights and equal opportunity to every person regardless of race.  He has no regard for the Civil Rights Movement and the price paid by those who fought to overcome barriers placed in the way of minorities.  No, his sole concern is redistribution of wealth he thinks was garnered because of vile capitalism and slavery and exploitation.  When you wonder what Mr. Obama is about, and why he is doing what he is doing,  just remember this post.

So what about you?  Will you demand a retraction?  Will you demand impeachment proceedings?  Do you think minor adjustments in how the Constitution is followed present any danger to our freedoms?  If you are concerned, be in touch with your Senators and Representative in Washington, DC.  Demand that they take this case to the courts.  Demand that they act to cut off money for the White House to spend on this effort since it has been done unconstitutionally.

As an afterward, Mr. Obama’s opinion about recess appointments has also “fundamentally changed,” from when he was in the Senate.

In 2005, Mr. Obama was serving in the U.S. Senate, and when George Bush legally appointed John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama had this to say, “To some degree, he’s damaged goods. I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

 Full text providing the quotes above:

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court…I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”  Link