Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Accepting Boys Kissing...Each Other

The Drudge Report linked to this article by CBS Connecticut. Apparently, we have yet another controversy of a bunch of homophobes walking out of a school play in which two boys kissed, but please notice, for the article, the author cleverly calls the boys men. The principle is cited in this paragraph:
“There are always circumstances (in organizing these programs) under which the values of the student or their family come into play,” said Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.

So there are different values with different people. Fair enough. It sounds as if he is being open-minded. But this paragraph says what is really happening.
“In the weeks prior … we were told by those organizing the play that there was going to be a boy-boy kiss,” said Johnson, noting the importance of accepting homosexual intimacy as society accepts heterosexual intimacy. “When one teacher asked if I wanted to remove it, I said absolutely not.” [emphasis mine]

The principle isn't trying to get people to just get along or even to get different individuals and families to tolerate those who are different from them. He is attempting to use governmental power to make children "accept" homosexuality, not just tolerate it.

So once again, we have an ethical system that simply has no foundation whatsoever being forced down our collective throats. As has been seen on this blog, they won't even try because they can't. Perhaps we need to rethink the role of government in this whole debacle called the culture war. Perhaps we, who are morally conservative, ought to rethink the entire culture war altogether.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Reformation Weekend Is Coming Soon

Reformation Weekend

October 28-30, 2011

First Baptist Church

420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

The Providence of God in the Life of a Believer - Job

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) Defining God's Providence!

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) Three Kinds of God's Providence!

  12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

                                  1:30 pm (session 3) Questioning God's Providence!

                                  3:00 pm (break)

                                  7:00 pm (session 4) Human Reasoning and God's Providence!

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) The Vindication of God's Providence!

                             12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

For more information or lodging recommendations call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: fbc67756@sbcglobal.net. Our website is: http://fbcstfrancis.org. Limited lodging is available in homes on a first come basis.

Dr. Belcher has over fifty years in public ministry of the Word of God. He has served on the faculty of Columbia International University now for twenty-nine years, and he retired after the Spring 2005 school year. He also speaks at Bible conferences and in churches all over the United States, and internationally in various countries, especially India, as he heads the ministry named Evangelizing India for Christ. Dr. Belcher is an author of numerous books, and he has his own printing company called Richbarry Press. Dr. Belcher also serves as pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in West Columbia, SC.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Does One Need To Be a Christian To Be President?

According to this article in the Baptist Press, Mormons don't qualify to be President when there are Christians in the race. However, the article states not one qualification but two [I realize there are three].

He added, "I believe that in Rick Perry we have a candidate who is a proven leader, a true conservative and a committed follower of Christ."
So to be elected to the High Office of the USA, one must be a true conservative and Christian. So I have to ask, which one of these qualifications is more important, "Being a true conservative" or a "committed follower of Jesus"? Somehow I doubt believing in Jesus has anything to do with this test. Otherwise, perhaps Obama is more qualified than Romney? Remember, President Obama claims to be a born-again Christian.

Right now, I'd vote for a true blue Jeffersonian Libertarian, even if he was an atheist before I'd waste another vote on a Republican like Romney or Perry. The pastor goes on to say,

"... Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions. And I stand by those statements," he said to applause
Now I agree a person's religious views may greatly impact how one governs. If one is an atheist, that person may have great difficulty in standing for the Prolife position, but perhaps not and should be judged on an individual basis. So an atheist or a Hindu may be far more Prolife than say a professed Christian such as President Obama.

But this all seems to me to lead back to the culture wars. And after fighting in a never-ending war for nearly 24 years, it seems to me that attempting to solve our cultural issues through the power of government is wrong-headed. I think Conservatives need to start re-thinking what Liberty is and the proper role of govenrment.

In other words, what do we want government to do? Do we really want to go back to the days of Prohibition on every issue? For instance, do we really want government to be involved in the homosexual debate? Would not a restoration of Private Property Rights go a long way in solving some of these things?

As my brother asked a conservative friend, if we make homosexuality illegal by the power of government, how far should government go? Do we enter gay homes with guns firing? You may say that is extreme and would never happen, but it happens now. Read this story about how our government fights the drug war. If the government can storm into house and kill you now for smoking pot, why not come into your house and kill you for anything else we give it power to do?

I have to ask a simple question, "Who is the candidate that Thomas Jefferson would vote for?"

Monday, October 03, 2011

Obama's Wedge Issue Is Sex

The Washington Times is reporting tonight that President Obama is calling out the Republican Candidates for being silent on homosexual military personnel.

“We don’t believe in a small America,” Mr. Obama said. “We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody.”
So the most divisive President in my life time is now accusing Republicans for being divisive.

Now I realize that President Obama must take every opportunity to make Republicans look bad while he can. To be honest, in the political environment, I didn't realize homosexual issues were at the top of America's agenda or concern. I suppose he needs to fire up his base after being a war-monger for the past few months? But since he mentioned "tolerance", I have to wonder what he means.

Now when he says, "we are all in it together", to what is he referring?  Is he talking about the military and who should be allowed in the military? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating kids who eat potato chips or go to Wendy's for a burger and fries? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating those who want him out of office or those who disagree with his policies?

Perhaps he is not talking about tolerating at all. Perhaps he is talking about forced acceptance by the force of law of those who have different "values". So how does he accept my "values" when I believe God has clearly stated that sexual immorality is evil in all of its forms? Or does this acceptance only go one way?

We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.

President Obama along with the Political elitists believe they have the right to set the framework of the debate over homosexuality. Notice that being tolerant = just, is also = equal. So now all things are equally valid? What is the basis of this claim? What is his form of argumentation? This is the beauty of the Left. They don't have to. Their morality is firmly planted in thin air.

I am often told that as a Prolifer, I am forcing a "wedge issue" upon other Americans and dividing Americans. Yet there are some things worth fighting for or against. Slavery was an evil worth fighting against. Alcohol during the Prohibition years [please watch PBS's current program on Prohibition] was not worth dying for. Yet I see the President of the United States creating a wedge issue by arguing for sexual immorality as being normal and something that should be accepted and is forcing by the Rule of Law an aberrant behavior as being normal.

I mean seriously. Different cultures have different foods and clothing and which days of the week to work and speak differently and use different idioms and so on and so forth. But would President Obama really call slavery in cultures that still practice it good cultures? Somehow I doubt it. So I guess Obama wants to divide us over whether or not those who are morally conservative will accept having sex with the same sex to be normal and just and equal.

I'll just quote Isaiah 5:

20  Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!