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!

Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

Black Leaders Reject Incontrovertible Evidence Of The Racist Origins Of Gun Control Laws!

Posted by Job on August 23, 2008

Of course, there is a reason why of all the hate crimes committed against blacks, the Camilla Massacre is the one that black leaders would rather not speak of! Why? Because blacks were murdered over the right to possess firearms! Understand this: the right to possess firearms which one would use to defend himself and other innocent people is basic to a society that values and promotes law, order, and justice. Black leaders are part and parcel of the anti – Christ cabal that desires lawlessness, disorder, and injustice, a climate where the innocent will be victimized. Such people promote the notion that the government will protect us while knowing full well that a government which rejects the very concept of truth and right and wrong will be the single biggest force of oppression, injustice, and victimization. Indeed, the very same people who claim that we do not need guns because the government will protect us are also the ones who agitate against police officers and district attorneys so that they will allow violent criminals, even those that victimize and violate women and children in the most heinous and grotesque manner imaginable, go unpunished! It is the ultimate deception: on one hand these people demand that we give up our guns and rely on the government to protect us from criminals, and on the other hand these very same individuals not only petition but coerce the government into refusing to enforce the law and allowing these criminals to roam our streets with no fear of deterrent or reprisal! Evil such as this is brought to you by the same ACLU mindset that advocates for child molesters!

So people out there, read this below and realize that Barack Hussein Obama is on their side. Of course, John Sidney McCain is too, for never forget that McCain supports rewarding the lawless invasion of illegal immigrant criminals with amnesty, as well as the illegal undeclared war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, McCain is brazenly using his volunteering for the similarly illegal undeclared war in Viet Nam, an action which he himself admitted that he was not seeking to honor or follow the will of God in taking up, as his primary qualification for president! That and his position on the illegal undeclared war in Iraq! And yes, both candidates are bought and paid for lock stock barrel and crumb by the same cabal of lawless bankers, financiers, profiteers, speculators, and corporate raiders that have been looting Wall Street, the federal treasury, pension plans, and your own pockets without any threat or possibility of punishment. Look at the list of the big contributors to McCain and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, and you will see so many of the same names! So when we have candidates that are not only openly brazenly committed to lawlessness, BUT ARE USING THEIR COMMITMENT TO LAWLESSNESS AS THEIR PRIMARY QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, how could you even THINK of voting for either one?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, August 22, 2008

Guns-rights advocates want to change a state firearms law that they say has a racist past.

But black lawmakers say those advocates are using the story of a Reconstruction-era massacre of African-Americans to justify letting Georgians tote weapons in churches and other public places.

Next month is the 140th anniversary of the Camilla Massacre, when a group largely made up of blacks heading to a Southwest Georgia Republican political rally were shot up by white locals after being warned not to bring guns to town.

Gun-rights advocates say the September 1868 massacre, in which at least nine freedmen were killed and up to 25-30 were wounded, led the General Assembly to ban citizens from carrying firearms at political rallies and other “public gatherings.” The aim, they say, was to keep guns away from blacks.

“It was entirely about race,” said Ed Stone, president of GeorgiaCarry.org.

But many African-American lawmakers don’t see the “public gatherings” law as a civil rights issue. In fact, at the Capitol, black lawmakers have been some of the leading backers of gun-control legislation over the years.

One, Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), called GeorgiaCarry’s use of the Camilla massacre “deeply offensive.”

“It’s very cynical, even more-so when you understand that in many African-American demographics, gun homicides are the number one cause of death,” Fort said. “To have these people use the history of discrimination against African-Americans going back 140 years to say this is why we need to have guns in churches, restaurants and schools …. where is this going to end?

GeorgiaCarry.org led the charge during the 2008 session to pass legislation allowing Georgians with carry licenses to take guns on MARTA, into restaurants and state parks. They are battling city of Atlanta officials in court over a ban on guns in non-secure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The next target may be churches and college campuses.

Earlier this month the group made a presentation to a Senate committee that will consider legislation for the 2009 session that would likely loosen the “public gatherings” section of state law, allowing Georgians with licenses to carry firearms in more places. During the meeting, Stone told lawmakers about the Camilla Massacre.

The incident has been called one of most violent episodes of Reconstruction.

It happened after the white-dominated General Assembly expelled 32 black legislators. One of them, Philip Joiner, helped lead a march Sept. 19, 1868, of several hundred blacks and a few whites to Camilla to attend a Republican political rally. Some were armed with walking sticks, shotguns and other various firearms, according to historical accounts of the event.

When the procession was a few miles outside of town, the local sheriff warned them not to come to town with firearms. The marchers told the sheriff they meant no harm and continued on. posse of armed white townsmen gathered to await the group.

When the marchers arrived, they were met by a posse of armed white townsmen, who opened fire. The white Republicans and freedmen fled, but the sheriff’s men pursued them, shooting the freedmen as they tried to escape, according to the state histories. State officials blamed the marchers for defying the sheriff’s order not to bring guns to town.

Two years later, the General Assembly passed legislation prohibiting citizens from carrying guns into places of public worship, court, voting precincts or other “public gatherings.”

E.R. Lanier, a Georgia State University law professor who teaches Georgia legal history, said historical documents connecting the massacre with the gun law from that time are limited. But, he said, ” There is a connection, there is no doubt about it.”

While that may be true, Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta), a longtime civil rights activist, said it’s dishonest for groups like GeorgiaCarry to use “horrible stories to justify why the Legislature and the courts should allow for easier access to guns.

“It’s very disingenuous and it is not appropriate to link these horrible massacres to what they are doing in 2008,” Brooks said. “We need less guns on the street rather than more guns. If you took the guns off the street, particularly in African-American, Hispanic and poor white communities, the homicides would drop dramatically.”

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), a member of the Senate gun-laws study committee, supports giving more freedom to Georgians with carry licenses. He said the arguments about gun violence don’t hold water because Georgians who go through background checks to get the licenses generally aren’t the ones committing crimes.

“The gun violence that is occurring there is not happening with the people who are going through background checks, it’s happening with people who already have a criminal history,” Rogers said. “If they have a criminal history, particularly a violent criminal history, then we don’t want them carrying a weapon.”

Rogers called the Camilla massacre a sad piece of Georgia history that resulted in the “public gathering” law.

“Law enforcement back then thought you ought to disarm African-Americans,” Rogers said. “Now we are seeing people arguing about the same thing. If they are law-abiding citizens, regardless of what color they are, they ought to be able to protect themselves.”

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Federal Judge And Religious Right Agree: THE CROSS IS A STATE MILITARY SYMBOL THAT HAS NO RELIGIOUS MESSAGE!

Posted by Job on July 31, 2008

Seriously people, is this what we are fighting for?

Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego’s Mt. Soledad

ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision. The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial
By Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 31, 2008
A controversial cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego can stay as part of a federally owned war memorial, a federal judge ruled. (Translation: if the purpose of this cross was to honor Jesus Christ’s payment of sins of the world and His sovereign rule over the world, it would be unacceptable. BUT THE CROSS IS PERFECTLY FINE IF IT REPRESENTS THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE RULER OF THIS WORLD, SATAN!)

The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice,” wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. “As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional.” (Meaning that regular folks who did not die in service to state power … the cross has no meaning for them?)

An official with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several of the plaintiffs in the case, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, voiced disappointment in the decision. Lawyers for the group had contended that including the cross in a government park violated the principle of the separation of church and state. (Godless atheists and Jews who reject Jesus Christ are 100% correct in this instance. They have everything to fear from the cross being co – opted as a symbol of state power. Go read your history books people, and no it all cannot be blamed on the Roman Catholic Church.)

“If you want to put a cross on your front lawn . . . we will be the first to defend you,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. (Liar. The next time that happens will be the first. Keep in mind: THESE ARE godless atheists after all. But the sad thing is that in this instance, it is the so – called Christians that are doing the greater evil by trying to use something pertaining to Jesus Christ to honor and promote the anti – Christ, thereby turning the cross of Christ into a pagan idolatrous symbol, just as Constantine did when he put the fish symbol on his soldier’s garments, and the Crusaders when they killed women and children while wearing crosses. To use anything pertaining Christianity to represent the state is a perversion, and abomination.) “When the government is sponsoring and endorsing the preeminent symbol of one religion, that’s when we have a problem.” (Again, he is wrong. If the government were to adopt a Wicca, Jewish, Muslim, or any other symbol for any other false religion, what is that to me? All governments are of this world. It is when a government tries to syncretize Christianity into its state pagan idolatry is when Christians should be concerned. Especially since such a government will persecute the actual faithful Christians while generally leaving the fake Christians alone. Again, read your history!)

He said his side is discussing further legal action. An appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is “clearly on the table,” Blair-Loy said. (Great. All we need is a national precedent declaring the cross of Jesus Christ to be a symbol of state military power that has nothing to do with God’s coming to earth as a man and overcoming sin, death, and the grave, and taking sitting on the right hand of the Father. The five Roman Catholic Supreme Court justices: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas … will they vote to make the cross a symbol of the false notion of the sovereignty of man, a symbol that exalts itself against the rule of God? Will they turn the cross into another tower of Babel? Since Roman Catholics serve a human institution – their church – in the place of God anyway, I can guess what their answer will be.)

William J. Kellogg, president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Assn. and grandson of one of the American Legion members who dedicated the cross in 1954 (a fraternal organization in which lots of its members are also freemasons, what a surprise … you DID KNOW that one of the primary goals of freemasonry has always been to de – spiritualize Christianity and depict it in terms of secular things like culture, nationalism, values, community service etc. right? You know, the same agenda of the religious right ) was pleased with the verdict. The association was not named in the lawsuit, but did not want the cross removed.

“The decision was based on the fact that it is clear it is a veterans memorial,” Kellogg said. “That’s what our association is all about.” (So why not a statue of a soldier or a flag? Why pick the cross?) A cross has marked Mt. Soledad since about 1913 (was this during Woodrow Wilson’s World War I fascist propaganda campaign?) and the current concrete cross was dedicated in 1954 in memory of Korean War veterans, Kellogg said.

The lawsuits surrounding the cross began in the late 1980s when Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued the city of San Diego, which owned the Mt. Soledad property. In 2006, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits and giving it to the Department of Defense. (See how these things have a tendency of happening, turning this from a local dispute into something that the government could use to co – opt the cross by court fiat? Even if the freemasons did not plan it this way, it is very likely that their master Satan did.)

In his ruling Burns agreed that the cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, but said “it does not follow the cross has no other meaning or significance.” He pointed to the exhibits on public beaches, such as Santa Monica’s, where the group Veterans for Peace uses crosses in the sand to represent U.S. service members who died in Iraq. (As if there is no difference between private citizens making a display on public land, and the government sponsoring or owning a display. Any private citizen or church group can hold a religious service in a public park or arena at any time. It is THE GOVERNMENT that cannot hold or sponsor such a service. Burns is lying and knows it.)

The cross is also displayed “along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message,” the judge said. (Holy things are not allowed to be displayed with or placed in context with sinful worldly things. That is an abomination.)

Although walls with other religious symbols, such as the Star of David, have been added to the Mt. Soledad display, they are dwarfed by the large cross, Blair-Loy said. “It is a 43-foot cross on one of the highest points in San Diego,” he said. “If the cross is not a religious symbol, I don’t know what is.” (The godless atheist is right! Now I have to admit: I myself refrain from using symbols as much as I can. I cannot make an airtight Biblical case for my position, for Judaism used plenty of symbols, and the early church carried those same symbols into early Christian worship. I am fine with that. Gentiles creating their own symbols, or incorporating pagan symbols into Christian worship … well let us just say that I am considerably LESS FINE with that. Still, for the overwhelming majority of Christians, the cross represents Jesus Christ. How ironic that so many Christians support the attempts of the state to co – opt and pervert the meaning of the cross and oppose the efforts of the perfidious Jews and godless atheists that would actually have the effect of preserving the spiritual and religious meaning of the cross! Look, the very reason why Christians fight these battles to begin with is because they want Christianity to continue to have a vital and positive effect on American culture; for American social, political, and moral character and institutions to reflect the Bible. Well, we know from the book of Acts that the way to turn the world upside down is with preaching and evangelism, not with “values education” in our government owned schools and certainly not with the government adopting the cross as a war symbol. The truth is that most people like this want to take the easy way out: they want a basically good and decent nation and people without doing the hard work of being ministers of the gospel that it takes to produce it. In this way, they reveal themselves to be interested not so much in the gospel of Jesus Christ as they are preserving our culture, our government, our institutions and values. For these people, the cross is in fact a secular symbol of government, culture, and history with no real religious or spiritual meaning. To these people, it especially does not represent atonement/propiation because they don’t see themselves as sinners. What, a sinner? Who me? I am a proud, patriotic, hard – working, tax – paying American! I’m no sinner! Those people over there who don’t share my culture and values … THOSE are the sinners! Seriously, people like this are political, cultural, ideological, etc. Pharisees who reject the true meaning of the cross. For them, the cross is basically the American flag. WHICH, OF COURSE, IS A VERY EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE WHEN MOST CHURCHES DISPLAY AMERICAN FLAGS IN THE PULPIT.

jia-rui.chong@latimes.com

Now, I refuse to side with either side in this dispute. I cannot side with the godless evil ACLU or with the religious right in their determination to make Christianity a politico – cultural accessory and weapon. My only option – the only Biblical option – is to watch and pray and wait for Jesus Christ to return so that the stone that the builders rejected falls on both groups of Satanic idolators, crushes them both, and grinds them both into powder. In other words, the same basic position that I have for the McCain – Obama presidential race.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

So The War Between Church And State Begins With Fred Phelps

Posted by Job on November 1, 2007

I will forgo the usual routine of prefacing my comments with a discussion as to whether the behavior of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church was wrong; there are plenty of places where you can go find that. Instead, I will deal with this fact: since Westboro Baptist Church almost certainly does not have $10.9 million they will have to close. As such, this is the first time to my knowledge that the state is causing the doors of a church that has not been found to be in violation of any laws down. Rather, they received a $2.9 million judgment against them for invasion of privacy (despite the fact that the funeral was a public event in a public place) and an $8 million dollar judgment for causing emotional distress.

It is quite difficult to say what is worse. The $2.9 million invasion of privacy judgment that was a clear rejection of the actual facts of the case, the $8 million judgment for emotional distress caused by free speech in a public forum, or the stated aim of the plaintiffs “But Albert Snyder’s lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning” was granted. Keep in mind: the defendants were not found guilty of libel, slander, defamation, or trespassing. They incurred this verdict by making legal speech in a legal manner, and the sole purpose of this verdict was to prevent them from making legal speech in a legal manner again. Whatever you may think of Fred Phelps and his congregation, they are not the criminals here. The criminals are the jury that brought this verdict and the judge that failed to vacate it. If the state enforces this judgment, it will effectively nullify the First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of religion and set a powerful precedent. As such, it is Fred Phelps’ church today but your church tomorrow.

Any church that preaches that homosexuality is a sin can be found guilty of causing emotional distress to homosexuals, and even facilitating the spread of AIDS. Any church that preaches against the genocide of abortion can be found guilty of inciting violence against the abortion mills and its employees, or even the mental anguish caused by the theoretical threat of increased violence. And any church that preaches against unjust government action can be labeled subversive.

Make no mistake, it is a perfect test case, so perfect that one would think that Phelps was some sort of a plant, though I sincerely doubt it to be the case. Phelps chose the funerals of the untimely dead, the most emotionally charged environment imaginable, as his forum. He went after homosexuality to enrage the left. He went after soldiers killed in combat to enrage the right. As a result, a law restricting such conduct was speedily passed without any opposition. The ACLU did not want to come down on the side of a homosexuality opponent, the ACLJ (owned by Pat Robertson) did not want to come down on the side of one who would grieve the families of dead soldiers. For both sides, protecting their own bases, their own constituencies, took priority over taking up an unpopular cause to defend rights from a government that hates righteousness. Such is almost certainly the reason why no prominent pastor, preacher, or theologian was able to muster a defense. When such people feel the heavy hand of the state pressing against their necks for the crime of offending Islam or Judaism by insisting that salvation is only through Jesus Christ, they will wish that they had not chosen the path of silent forbearance.

Finally, I wish to deal with part of Fred Phelp’s theology. He states that we are losing on the battlefield in Iraq because this nation promotes and celebrates homosexuality. Why not? First off, I realize that we are not Old Testament Israel. But the entire religious right movement is based on the fiction that we are, that we are a Christian nation founded by God to be the light among nations, the shining city on the hill. So let us adhere to their false theology in order to further convict the religious right sorts that were silent on this issue. Did not God punish Old Testament Israel, the elect nation that He founded, for their sins by not only allowing casualties and lost battles, but actually fighting for the enemy? Why should America be any different? Christian right, you cannot employ your false theology when it helps your fundraising campaigns and voter registration drives and then discard it when it is inconvenient because it offends the white evangelical Christian families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to be consistent! The fact that you are not being consistent proves that you yourselves know that your theology is false, and that you are not serving Jesus Christ. Instead, you give people a theology that allows them to point the finger at someone else while basking in their own self – righteousness. No wonder it has been such a popular theology that translates to easily and effectively to political action for so long! But no, the true gospel of Jesus Christ that requires people to examine themselves first to see whether they be in the faith and then make tough stands and sacrifices for that faith, to suffer rejection and persecution as Jesus Christ did, has never been popular and it has never translated into anything that can be used for political power, financial gain, or anything else that is of this world.

Further, I wish to take issue with this notion that God for some reason has stopped judging people and their nation for wickedness. A lot of preachers, some that I respect highly and others that are vigorous apostates, make this claim. We heard a lot of this during Hurricane Katrina in response to the common claim – believed by many Katrina refugees themselves – that God destroyed that city for its wickedness. Oh so many theologians manifested with the notion “it cannot be true, for why would God destroy New Orleans and not San Francisco or Las Vegas?” This is not to say that Hurricane Katrina was an act of God. Instead, it is to say that you could hardly pick a worse possible argument for saying that it wasn’t! Who is man to question the ways of God, to suggest that He is arbitrary, unfair, and unrighteous unless He behaves according to man’s logic and values? Was that not the error of Job, who had to be reminded of God’s sovereignty and rebuked? If God chooses to judge one and spare another, is that not His prerogative? Is that not His grace? But far too many churches claim that we have earned grace by our own virtue, and as a result we have the right to sit and judge God. They have forgotten that we are all sinners, that we all deserve the lake of fire for our sins, but despite of that fact God will spare some that deserve destruction and give others the destruction that they deserve.

The clear evidence of this was Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you honestly believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was the only place that had homosexuality going on? Not to attach some level of significance to this one specific sin when the Bible says that all are equal, what about the idolatry, violence, greed, and oppression of the poor that was going on elsewhere? And let us not forget the – gasp! – gossiping and false judging! The truth is that the whole world deserved the very same punishment that Sodom and Gomorrah received because the whole world was as guilty of sin as Sodom and Gomorrah! The whole world deserved to be destroyed then because of sin, and the whole world deserves to be destroyed today. Instead of viewing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment of the sin of homosexuality, we should look at it in terms of God’s GRACE because He spared everyone else! But oh no, we do not go there, because we are so convinced of our own virtue.

That is why all of those preachers said “Why not Las Vegas or San Francisco” instead of “WHY NOT MY CHURCH AND MY OWN HOUSE!” By using that argument, they are pretending in their self – righteousness that there is some sin in San Francisco or Las Vegas or in Sodom and Gomorrah that they are not guilty of in their person. But that is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that the man who says that he is without sin is a LIAR! So even if God theoretically did destroy New Orleans or cause the tsunami, He had just as much right to do that as He just as He has the right to destroy YOU!

Nay, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to demonstrate a theological point. The same was true of His destruction of Egypt. Egypt was not the only proud oppressive nation on the face of the earth at the time, far from it! But God destroyed Egypt in order to demonstrate His power and to show them as a parable against wickedness and defying His Will, and openly said as much in scripture. But do not be deceived: the whole world deserved what Egypt received and far worse then, and deserves the same still now.

Almost as deadly is what I call “neo – deism.” Some preachers claim that God only worked such spectacular interventions in history to judge the wicked and raise up the righteous in the previous dispensation before Jesus Christ, but now that Christ has come and overcome the world, God is allowing history to play out until Christ returns. Pardon me, but where does it say that in the Bible? Where does it say that the Father is sitting on His Throne with Jesus Christ on His Right Hand doing nothing? That is speaking as if God has fallen asleep and has forsaken doing righteousness! Claiming that “history is just playing out” or “this world is dying and disintegrating due to sin” seems to me to be either a religion of naturalism or claiming that these events are mere chance: evolution perhaps? Excuse me … “intelligent design” to use the lingua franca of evangelical politics.

Or worse … maybe you are giving SATAN credit and the glory for these events? Take God out of it, and it is either naturalism, random chance, or Satan. As for me, I say that a sovereign God is still ruling on the throne and intimately involved in world events just as He always has been, for He is a God that never changes. I have confidence in trusting an unchanging God or my salvation. What about you?

So whatever doctrinal errors Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church exhibit with their actions, it appears that mainstream respectable Christianity has problems of its own! At least it can be said about Phelps and his congregation that they are willing to put themselves on the line for something. As if “submit to Babylon” was a popular message during Jeremiah’s day. You know what Jeremiah was accused of? Harming the morale of our troops and the country, and helping the enemy. Sounds familiar to the same charges made by the Bush administration and the religious right to certain folks, right? Again, I am not endorsing their doctrines or their actions. I am merely saying that their doctrines and actions are not as wayward as many Christians choose to believe.

Update: a reader has left an excellent comment doing what I specifically refrained from doing for my own purposes, which was to make the plain Biblical case that Westboro Baptist Church was incontrovertibly wrong. As a matter of fact, he did a better job than I could have! So please read his comment, which God provided through him in order to make the treatment of this matter complete. Also, another reader made a related point that Westboro Baptist fell for a government trap, which complements the other comment.

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, christian right, Christianity, church state, Theodicy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: