Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Canada Takes Kids From Woman Because She Is A RACIST!

Posted by Job on July 12, 2008

Can you see the state taking kids from people because they are CHRISTIANS after a time when Christianity has been declared to be bigoted, divisive, and dangerous? Quoting the story “The case has sparked a debate over whether the police and child welfare authorities can take children away because of their parents’ beliefs.”,2933,380741,00.html


8 Responses to “Canada Takes Kids From Woman Because She Is A RACIST!”

  1. I’m glad none of America’s racist parents have had their children taken from them. If a parent is a racist and desires to raise their child to be a racist, I’ve got no reason to seek government intervention.

  2. Job said


    Give it time, brother, give it time. First, they will be taking children from some really offensive low income white supremacists whose conduct towards their children borders on neglect and abuse. The borderline neglect and abuse would ALMOST justify taking their kids, but the RACISM would push it over the line, establishing the precedent. Once that precedent is set, then it will soon be established as policy to take kids from their parents because of the parents’ opposition to homosexuality. The test case there might be a homosexual foster child, or the homosexual child of Christians who asks the state to intervene. (We have already seen a case where a family court judge used a parent’s Christianity as the deciding factor AGAINST the Christian parent in a child custody dispute.)

    Again, these things will not happen overnight. The government saw that they overreached in Texas in that Mormon polygamy compound and drew back. But check back in 20 years … a lot of the things that us wild – eyed conspiracy theorists are speculating about now will be routine. Just like 10 years ago, no one but the fanatics suggested that big business would fire people over their Christian beliefs, but you saw that diversity consultant post that I made awhile back …

  3. Devon said

    I have to concur with both of you…it is sad that parents obviously teach their kids to be morons but that is no reason for the State to ever interfere….Indeed, you can see what is coming a mile away for us Christians…

  4. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    I’d like to comment on the precedence you mentioned. The government is looking to crack down on dissidents. They are pursuing cases against animal rights people. This group is very extreme and has very little back financially compared to other movements. Thus the government would win their case and be able to move on to bigger and better territory.

    I firmly believe in the right to free speech. It is only when one’s actions would hurt another then the government should be involved. For example the KKK should be aloud to meet freely and even march down the street. But they can’t burn one cross or touch one child.



  5. Well you see what is already happening in CA.

    California’s Liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Does it Again! More Pandering to Pro-Gay Groups and Attacking Church Schools.


    Ruling seen as a threat to many home-schooling families

    Soon they’ll be taking kids because the parents dared to teach them themselves.

    John, regarding the KKK burning a cross. What if they burn the cross on property they own? Now I know the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this and said they can’t, which I have to respect as law. But when Clarence Thomas went on a tirade against cross burning in that case (a tirade even I was supportive of at the time) he set in motion a cycle of legal precedence, that will eventually land at Christians’ doorsteps! Basically private property rights are gone in America. You can only say on “private” property what the government approves of you saying or they will lock you up. Burn a cross on your own land and it’s a crime. Soon it will be teach the wrong thing on your property and the same outcome. CA is already very close in regards to their pandering to homosexuals.

    Honestly, I now feel about the US Supreme Court cross burning case the same as I do about Lawrence vs. Texas and Roe vs. Wade. In all the cases, a ruling the opposite way to me would have worked out better.

    And it was interesting to see Clarence Thomas in a 60 Minutes interview speak of how the KKK in his area really was mostly talk and otherwise didn’t bother (as in physically harm) people who didn’t bother them. But when the KKK cross burning case came his way, he was harping like a burning cross was the worst thing ever done on earth.

    And you have to understand, Roman Catholics and the KKK have a special feud. Given while the KKK hates non-white races, they also hate Roman Catholics. So Thomas’ opposition to a KKK activity has roots that are more than just “skin deep”.

    (Former Klansman Hugo Black, who became a US Supreme Court justice, pressed for “church state separation” because of fears of Roman Catholic influence in government. And while I don’t like the KKK and I don’t see a firm separation of church and state in our Constitution [I feel Hugo Black was wrong to abuse the Constitution as he did], guess who presses against any separation and has big time influence in our government…Conservative Roman Catholics. Also, when states had their own immigration laws, many states would not permit Roman Catholics. Who is pressing for open borders at the federal level now?… Liberal Roman Catholics. And we know what group those crossing the border claim, Roman Catholicism. [I’m not saying I want laws to ban Roman Catholics or laws to keep Roman Catholics out of government, I’m just sharing the historical record which is interesting.])

  6. Job said

    Independent Conservative:

    I actually do see a firm separation of church and state in our Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The only people who claim otherwise are the papists and the evangelicals that have aligned themselves with them. Before the religious right, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals did not do much in the way of using the government to advance their agenda or impose it on others. The people who did that were actually the RELIGIOUS LEFT, and their motivation was the Origen amillennial social gospel which denied a literal return of Jesus Christ or for that matter heaven or hell, and that the promises of salvation in the Bible would be fulfilled through “Christians” exerting their influence to bring about world peace and end poverty. The PROTESTANT fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals were primarily concerned with evangelism and personal holiness, and desired to leave government well alone in return for being left alone. This is not to say that they did not vote, but they voted on issues not related to politics, and as a result largely voted Democrat especially in the south and midwest. I have to tell you, the more I read about this issue, the more I see evidence that papists like Pat Buchanan along with their pliant “Protestant” field workers like Billy Graham were the ones that got evangelicals and fundamentalists hooked on this stuff, and the inevitable result of accepting the notion that Christians should separate the common, worldly, and secular (the state) from that which should be holy (the church) was accepting first Roman Catholics, then Jews, and then Mormons.

    It was a neat trick that the papists convinced me of, trying to suggest that “no establishment of religion” merely meant not having an official state church. Even if that was their original intent, they didn’t write it, so it is perfectly fine to adhere to the official definition. It was an even neater trick when the papists convinced me that “well, separation of church and state is not in the Constitution but only in the declaration of Independence.” Fine. But you know what? “No establishment of religion” is actually a STRONGER STATEMENT than “separation of church and state.” “Separation of church and state” can honestly really only mean that the church has no legal, executive, or legislative power over the state and vice versa. It would allow the church to have a lot of say over what goes on in the government so long as the government ultimately has the right to say no. And it would allow the government to dump large amounts of resources to churches and write them all sorts of favorable laws so long as the government is not actually running the church. And guess what: that is precisely what Rome wants. They know that actually running the government and having the government run the church doesn’t work. They tried that route before and it failed. So, now their tactic is to heavily influence the government, and have the government in turn have a huge say over the religious life of a country. How can the latter happen? Well consider “faith – based programs.” If the state gives billions of dollars to the papists and pliant evangelicals while denying it to fundamentalists, how are the fundamentalists going to compete? I have already told you about how the lottery funded preschool programs in Georgia are driving many daycares and preschools that do not accept state funds out of business. Imagine a day when churches are getting so much tax support that people stop giving in the offering plate. How are the other churches going to survive? And keep in mind: this arrangement does not preclude Roman Catholic and Protestant coexistence. As a matter of fact, before World War II, most of Europe had an official Protestant church and a huge, heavily influential Roman Catholic presence. Both the state Protestant church and the Roman Catholic Church got plenty of tax money and got along just fine. This was the situation in Germany with the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholics, and you see how that worked out not only for the Jews but also for the Christians that refused to pervert their theology. I can honestly see a real governmental – financial – doctrinal nexus develop in this country between Roman Catholics, Mormons, pliant evangelicals, Jews, liberal Muslims, and the liberal mainliners. They would have their disputes among themselves, but ultimately they would all be pluralist (believing that salvation can be found outside of Jesus Christ!) and united against their common enemy, which are Christians that know that salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

    But “no establishment of religion”? Sure, we could dicker over what exactly constitutes establishing religion. We know the MEANING, which is government abetting the advancement of a church’s religious beliefs or goals, and the church in turn using the government to advance its beliefs and goals. And the papists know it. So, they get away with it by claiming that the amendment only applies to government actions whose PRIMARY or SOLE purpose is to advance religion. So with, say, school vouchers, they say that the primary purpose is not to increase the number of Catholic schools and kids attending them, but rather an education THAT JUST HAPPENS TO REFLECT CATHOLIC VALUES. With faith – based programs, the primary purpose is to provide services, not to allow the Catholic church to add massive number of people to its payroll and in many cases make whole swaths of the country almost completely dependent on the Catholic Church to receive medical care and social services.

    The brainwashers out there will claim that this does not establish religion because there will be other churches – indeed other religions – getting taxpayer money and using it to run schools and offer services. That is why the Vatican propagandists claim that the 1st amendment says – or should be interpreted to mean A PARTICULAR CHURCH OR RELIGION. The reality is that with things like school vouchers and faith – based programs, a church can use taxpayer money and favorable regulations that give them a leg up on the private business (or for that matter other churches that are less large, wealthy, and connected) to become far more powerful and influential than they ever would have become otherwise. While this would inevitably result in more converts (one of the reasons why Mormons now support faith – based programs!) the real issue is power and influence. The Roman Catholic Church could become one of the nation’s largest employers, one of the largest recipients of tax dollars, and one of the largest providers of vital services. In some cities and possibly states, the plurality or majority of kids would be in Roman Catholic schools, and if you want to go to the hospital or adopt a child they will be the only game in town.
    And keep in mind: despite the pro – American bloviating of the Roman Catholic neo – cons, the Roman Catholic Church is a global institution, so all of their taxpayer funded “American” institutions will be governed accordingly, which means by the Vatican in the interests of the Vatican and the global church. So, would Catholics from eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc. be able to get visas and come over here and work in these schools, welfare offices, hospitals, etc.? Of course! Would their government funded apparatus take care of Catholics that come here illegally? Of course! And guess what? Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism are global churches or movements too, so the same would apply to them also. And the liberal Christians – being liberals – are globalists anyway.

    I have to tell you, IC, it is sad that most of the people who recognize the danger of all this are the people that want to make sure that America will continue to be a place where it is safe, legal, and profitable to be an atheist, homosexual, or abortionist. But that doesn’t mean that these people aren’t right. There is more at stake here than making sure that our kids can pray in public schools, or other stuff like keeping the little nativity scenes in public parks and displaying the Ten Commandments on public grounds. (And since the New Testament didn’t tell us to go around doing any of that stuff in the first place, and also if you are a Christian in any communist or Muslim country YOU CAN’T DO THAT STUFF JUST LIKE THE EARLY CHURCH COULDN’T IN A PAGAN ROMAN EMPIRE WHERE THEIR FAITH WAS ILLEGAL then tell me WHAT GOOD IS THIS STUFF ANYWAY … IS IT MORE ABOUT JESUS CHRIST OR SOME POLITICAL/CULTURAL/MORAL AGENDA THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOSPEL?). This really is about the Roman Catholic Church and similar movements either apostate enough to join ranks with them (Billy Graham evangelicalism) or movements that were wrong from the beginning (synagogue Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Origenic liberal Christianity) gaining a ton of money, power, and influence (plus the occasional convert that will be made twice the son of hell that he was before) by virtue of your tax dollars.

    So I would urge and entreat you to start being a narrow fundamentalist literalist with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The state is evil, part of the fallen world that rejects Jesus Christ, and Christian thought and action should reflect that. This is not to say that we should go and pretend that it is no better in many respects to be an American than an Iranian, but from a pure biblical perspective pretending that our government is any more capable of representing and advancing God’s righteousness than Iran’s government is a recipe for being a pawn in Benedict’s game (and for that matter Pat Robertson’s game, and the game of right wing Jews who support school vouchers because they want to dot the landscape with Zionist Jewish day schools that the John Hagee dispensational cult would find just peachy keen useful to their purposes, and while we are at it let us not forget about SAUDI ARABIA’S GAME, FOR YOU KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP THEM FROM USING THEIR PETRODOLLARS TO START UP VOUCHER MADRASSAS).

    Now I am not going to pretend that the bunch of freemasons, unitarians, and enlightenment deists that wrote the First Amendment had any sort of holy motivation or inspiration. However, as what they happened to come up with squarely fits my agenda and my conviction of what was the attitude of the early church towards such matters and should be the attitude of Christians, I am more than willing to use it.

  7. Job, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. And I’ll say I see the interpretation of that totally different from how you see it. Although we agree the “faith based funding” is no good. So regardless of our differences of interpretation of a Constitutional amendment, ultimately we both understand “faith based funding” is a bad thing.

    I have no problem with a kid winning a government scholarship, grant, voucher or whatever and using it at the school of their choice, even a church based school. But that’s about all I’m OK with, because in such a case the money is given to the student and they decide how to spend it, rather than the government intentionally giving money to any “faith based” group of it’s own desire.

  8. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    I meant cross burnings on other properties not belonging to them. I don’t care if they burn a cross on their own property.

    If you can’t burn crosses why can you have bonfires at pep rallies?

    Job is right, these people of satan want to concentrate all power to themselves. The would religiously, economically, milataraly and socially. The end of their desire is to lord over creation while all mankind bows to their god the devil.

    Yet Christians shall resist and many shall perish, but we know on whom we have believed in and are persuaded that He is able.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: