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 ‘fascism’

Dominionism And The Rise Of Christian Imperialism

Posted by Job on May 24, 2009

http://www.discernment-ministries.org./misc/Dominionism.pdf

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Assemblies Of God Leader George Wood Calls Sarah Palin A True Judeo-Christian Candidate!

Posted by Job on October 14, 2008

The second example today alone of religious right false doctrines and apostasy that has happened ever since John McCain’s nomination of Sarah Palin, which I actually thought was an astute move at the time, turned into a slow moving fiasco. First off, the frenzy over Palin shows that the religious right, especially Pentecostals, are just as much on the GOP plantation, unable to act according to their own beliefs or interests, as blacks are on the Democratic one. Why? Well … REMEMBER HARRIET MIERS? This Pentecostal woman was actually much more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Sarah Palin is to be president. (By the way, she was also more qualified than was Sandra Day O’Connor, who by virtue of her votes on abortion and homosexuality was nothing short of a disaster for the religious right. Her best move was lying to Anthony Kennedy in securing his support for voting against broad abortion restrictions in return for her promise to vote against more narrow restrictions later, and when it came time for her to live up to her part of the deal by voting along with Kennedy for the more narrow restrictions, O’Connor reneged. But hey, since Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor, she is above criticism because criticizing her would be criticizing the guy who used his first major decision as president on nominating her.)

What happened when Bush nominated her? She was subjected to the most revolting opposition by supporters of the party that nominated her ever, and it even rose to the level of character assassination. Did the Protestant evangelicals like Al Mohler or even charismatics like George Wood and J. Lee Grady rise up to defend Miers? Of course not. Only Pat Robertson did, and even there in the mildest fashion possible. Not only were Miers’ qualifications but also her intelligence and character were shredded by the very same people who … oh never mind. So Miers was pushed aside and replaced with a Roman Catholic, and not only that the third Roman Catholic Supreme Court appointee by a GOP president in a row, and the fourth out of five.

But when John McCain made being a less than eminently qualified Pentecostal (or for that matter evangelical, for please recall how vehement the conservative opposition to Mike Huckabee was!) acceptable, then all was forgiven and the same Pentecostals and evangelicals that sat silently by reacted just the same as they did when Bill Clinton would emulate the Arkansas segregationist Democrats who trained him (NOTHING!) immediately forgot that the same set of arguments which disqualified Miers and Huckabee should have applied to Palin, and promptly began to make Palin not only their political standard bearer BUT THEIR RELIGIOUS ONE AS WELL. Seriously, religious conservatives are attaching a larger religious symbolism to Palin than they did to Reagan or George W. Bush. That is why I still think that McCain may yet pull it out. All of those “Obama is the anti – Christ” people need to consider that McCain is the guy with the wound in his head that was healed, and that would make Palin his false prophet enabler with Jezebel doctrines. I can see the comments echoing from pulpits across America and in all the Christian magazines and websites that Palin would be the strong Christian women who miraculously resurrected the John McCain campaign from the dead! 

Now to the link with the absurd, doctrinally erroneous, even heretical statements.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/pentecostal-church-leader-palin-true-judeo-christian-candidate/

Opposing Views: What Pentecostal values will Sarah Palin bring to the vice presidency that America needs right now?

 George O. Wood: To my knowledge Sarah Palin has not stated she is Pentecostal. I know she has attended the Assemblies of God Church. We all want a candidate who shares our values, and a candidate like Sarah Palin who appears to have such strong Judeo-Christian beliefs is certainly someone our society needs. A candidate who is sincere in their following of Jesus Christ and is sincere in their Judeo-Christian beliefs is one we would support.


OV: Do you believe that Sarah Palin is a sincere Judeo-Christian candidate?

 Wood: Her own words indicate that she is sincere in her following of Jesus Christ and she has certainly represented those values. Obviously she is very strong in her support for the unborn, and the Assemblies of God has a very strong commitment to the unborn, and other issues that Sarah Palin has indicated she sincerely follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

People, Judeo – Christian values do no exist. First, Judaism and Christianity are two totally separate religions. The very idea of Judeo – Christianity should be just as abhorrent as is Islamo – Christianity or Hindu – Christianity or atheist – Christianity. Judeo – Christianity should be something advanced by liberal religious pluralists and universalists, not people who claim to believe that Jesus Christ is the way and the life and the only way to the Father and eternal life. This shows how dual covenant dispensationalism (and Vatican II Roman Catholic pluralism) has come to dominate the “Protestant” religious right. With all due respect to some of the online discernment ministries, the biggest threat to undo the Protestant Reformation is not emergents like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Rick Warren but rather the religious right, and if anything the former is feeding off the latter, especially when you saw the spate of columns from the conservative media wishing that debate moderators Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, and Tom Brokaw would make McCain look as good as Rick Warren did.

Second of all, Christianity is not a value system. It is a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ as He was revealed to creation in His incarnation and through scripture, is now sitting on the right hand of God interceding for His elect, and will be revealed to creation again at His imminent return. It is very possible to hold onto a value system without believing in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is equally possible to reject any and all western value systems while believing in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The best evidence of the latter is that Christianity is not even a western religion to begin with. It is a near eastern religion, and the Bible reflects near eastern culture and values. As a matter of fact, some of the worst doctrines have come from trying to impose western ideas on a near eastern book (see the work of the Alexandrian allegorists, Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism, and the Neo – Platonic syncretists) and from using western inventions like JAMES DOBSON FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY FOCUS ON THE FAMILY PSYCHOLOGY as a convenient construct to paint a happy modern face on the Bible’s dark primitive revelation on man’s total depravity.

That, after all, is what the religious right is: a reinvention of the religious left. The original religious left denied the total depravity of man, stated that man was basically good (conveniently ignoring or reinterpreting inconvenient Bible passages that stated otherwise) and could be transformed through culture and education. What was the birthplace of this thinking? Why GERMANY of course. Who manipulated these doctrines and the environment created by it into thinking that he was helping transform mankind for the better by promoting German culture? Why Adolph Hitler, of course!

You see, these people have never heard of Sarah Palin before now. She was never a member of their church. They have never been to her house at prayer meetings. They have never encountered her at a Beth Moore Christian women’s weekend retreat. They don’t even know whether the string of wild rumors about the Palin family’s behavior, virtually all of them circulating all over Alaska long before McCain thrust them into the national spotlight, made them tabloid fodder. 

Their only evidence that this woman is a Christian is her church membership and her claims to believe. Well, excuse me, but that is different from secret society “all religions worship the same God” the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque George W. Bush how? Even better: this is better than Southern Baptists Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Jessica and Ashlee Simpson how? Methodist Hillary Clinton or Congregationalist Barack HUSSEIN Obama how? You could talk to any of them, and they would all claim to agree with 80% of the Christian creeds, just as much as do neo – evangelicals whose works are cited in many of our evangelical seminaries.

So no, I take that back. Their evidence that Palin is born again is not her church affiliation or her confessions of faith. Again, many a liberal Democrat leader – and voter – shares those. No, their evidence is politics and culture. If you have the right beliefs and lifestyle, then it means that you are sanctified and justified! It isn’t about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, it is about preferring moose hunting to off Broadway plays. 

Then again, why should we expect any different from a fellow that says “A candidate who is sincere in their following of Jesus Christ and is sincere in their Judeo-Christian beliefs is one we would support.” Does the leader of the Assemblies of God denomination even know that this is a contradiction? Jesus Christ is not of this world. Judeo – Christianity is a VERY RECENT (some say that the term and concept did not exist before the Holocaust and particularly before the establishment of Israel) worldly invention to describe an ill – defined social, cultural, and political movement.

Incidentally, it is based on a lie, the idea that Jewish religion and culture significantly shaped western civilization. Not only is this idea false, but it is one that the westerners of times past that used to force Jews to live in ghettoes would have had an issue with. Case in point: our legal code is not based on the Bible, but rather British common law. Further, British common law only reflected three of the Ten Commandments – killing, stealing, and perjury – and this was so before Britain even converted to Christianity! So, if western civilization was founded on Judeo – Christianity, then so was Babylon by virue of their Code of Hammurabi. And even that is presuming that anything worldly like Judeo – Christianity can save people rather than damn them, which it cannot. 

This is why the Bible calls it “devil’s doctrines.” And if the leader of the 3 million Assemblies of God denomination is trafficking them, then that is really disappointing. It honestly is disconcerting that so many Christians reject not only the Bible and theology, but also history and culture. I am speaking of myself, incidentally, for I was a “Judeo – Christian religious right” zombie until very late in 2006. But hey, at least I can say that I was misled. (Now according to Romans 1:18-32, being misled does not make us blameless incidentally. We are all still without excuse for rejecting the the truth and righteousness of God.)

But if I am able to discover these lies merely by reading a few of the history and theology books that are commonly used in our evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges, then what explanation is there for the many pastors and other religious right leaders that have gone through these seminaries? Did they fall asleep in class that day? Were they preoccupied with personal difficulties that prevented them from reading the relevant sections in their textbooks? And did this happen to all of them? Did every single leader of the religious right and every single evangelical pastor that traffics this “Judeo – Christian values” nonsense somehow possess the very same omissions from their theological, doctrinal, and historical studies? Now if you can believe that, then you can believe that Barack Hussein Obama was asleep, inattentive, or absent every Sunday that Jeremiah Wright said something controversial.

Yes, we are supposed to believe that Jeremiah Wright’s church is apostate and get so angry at its existence because it is Marxist. Since they are Marxist, they have the wrong values, and that is what makes them apostate. Note that virtually none of the “Judeo – Christian” people who thundered against the apostasy of Obama’s church over its rejection of western culture will ever in a million years say the same against Mormons, Roman Catholics, or Jews. Because with these people, it is not rejecting the Bible that makes you a sinner, it is rejecting your values. Therefore, a person is saved by embracing these values. 

Again, how can these people have gone to Christian schools, pastored churches, and studied the Bible all these years without knowing this, and further while refusing to stand against this error? Simple: they haven’t. Which, again, makes them no different from or better than either Jeremiah Wright or Barack Hussein Obama. And that is what makes their vigorous endorsements of Sarah Palin all the more suspect.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

Posted by Job on October 8, 2008

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter Last Updated: 1:36AM BST 08 Oct 2008

With war raging across the globe in July 1944, ministers from all 44 Allied nations met at the imposing Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to thrash out a set of rules that would govern world finance once Hitler was defeated.

Knowing that greater international trade would help to prevent future wars, and determined to avoid another Great Depression, the delegates signed the Bretton Woods Agreements, creating the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It was a big vision, driven by grand historical figures: Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and the British economist John Maynard Keynes.

But a system that was designed 64 years ago has, not surprisingly, proved ill equipped to deal with the fiendishly complex practices of 21st-century banking that led to the current worldwide crisis.

Neither the IMF, the World Bank nor any other institution has the power to police the global financial system in a way that might have prevented the excessive risk-taking which led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and, in turn, the credit crunch.

A more recent creation, the G8 group of industrialised nations, looks hopelessly out of date without the emerging economic giants of Brazil, India and China among its ranks. And the “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies of guaranteeing savings that have sprung up in Germany, Greece and Ireland in recent days have shown that even in Europe, co-ordinated economic policy is a myth.

“The current system is in crisis and we have an environment where dog eats dog,” said Bob McKee, of the economic consultancy Independent Strategy. “Electorates will expect more regulation, and politicians will push for it.”

The new Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, argued last week that new global solutions are needed because “the machinery of global economic governance barely exists”, adding: “It is time for a Bretton Woods for this century.”

Gordon Brown argued as long ago as January 2007 that global regulation was “urgently in need of modernisation and reform”.

So, as the world’s central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic “policeman” to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.

Top of the to-do list for any new or reformed body would be new rules to manage the level of risk that banks and financial institutions are allowed to take on.

Major economies already have regulatory bodies designed to keep financial institutions in check, such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US. But even if these bodies had done their job properly, opinions differ wildly between different countries over what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Take, for example, the Basle II Accord, a voluntary international agreement which might have seemed a crushing bore when it was published in 2004, but which just might have prevented the credit crunch if the world’s major economies had realised it was actually a good idea.

In essence, Basle II, concocted by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, set up by 10 leading economic nations, was designed to make sure banks did not overstretch themselves by lending too much money in relation to the amount of capital they held.

If it had been implemented the moment it was written, Basle II might have prevented the collapse of Northern Rock – which had lent seven times the amount of money it held on deposit – and saved the likes of Lehman Brothers in America. Instead, motivated by national self-interest, not to mention greed, the world’s major economies dithered, so that few, if any, had implemented the agreement by the start of 2008, with 95 countries only able to promise they would adhere to it by 2015.

We can only speculate whether a global policeman would have intervened in another seismic shift in economic policy: the abolition by the US president, Bill Clinton, in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had, since 1933, separated retail banks from investment banks.

The Act had been passed during the Great Depression to prevent banks from speculating with depositors’ money, and its repeal by Mr Clinton has been blamed by some commentators for contributing to the current financial crisis, which would have been limited to investment banks if Glass-Steagall had remained in place.

Too late, then, to remedy the missed opportunity of Basle II or to reinstate Glass-Steagall. But a new global regulatory arrangement might come just in time to address another issue troubling the world’s financial watchdogs: mark-to-market accounting, about which we are likely to be hearing a great deal in coming weeks.

Mark to market is a system in which banks must declare the value of assets such as securities on a daily basis, forcing them to be transparent about their balance sheets. The assets must be valued in line with what they would fetch on the open market that day, and if their value has dropped, the banks must raise capital to make up the shortfall, even if they have no intention of selling the assets for another five or 10 years.

Many banks have argued that this is unfair, as those same assets will recover their value in the long term, and marking them down has, they claim, contributed to the current crisis of confidence.

Simon Ward, an economist at New Star Asset Management, said: “This kind of accounting is causing investors to see ghosts in banks’ balance sheets which just don’t exist. If we had suspended mark-to-market accounting a year ago, the current crisis may have been avoided.”

Why has this become such a hot topic in recent days? Because banks in America have exerted such pressure on the SEC that rules on mark-to-market accounting may soon be relaxed, giving American companies an advantage over those in the UK, where the FSA has no intention of following suit.

As chaos reigns in the financial markets, the issue of regulatory reform is never far from the headlines. So what might a new architecture of global economic regulation look like?

In essence, any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation. Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, identified the weakness of the current system this week when he said international organisations that excluded countries such as China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Russia were outdated.

Gerard Lyons, a member of the International Council of the Bretton Woods Committee, a steering group for the IMF and World Bank, said: “We need to look at the current crisis and decide what banks have been doing well and what went wrong.

‘The point we’re at now is like the scene in Apollo 13 when one of the mission controllers says they’re facing the worst disaster in Nasa’s history, and his boss points out that it will turn out to be Nasa’s finest hour if they get it right.

“We have an opportunity now to make changes in global banking that make sure we keep all the good bits and eradicate the bad. For example, there is nothing wrong with young people borrowing money against their expected future income if they have genuinely good prospects, but we need to prevent the sort of irresponsible lending to people with poor credit ratings that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

“What we mustn’t do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. The global banking system has helped increase living standards at a faster rate than at any point in history, and we are about to see the emergence of two-thirds of the world’s population into the developed world.”

Danny Gabay, a former Bank of England economist who now works for Fathom Consulting, suggested the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the umbrella organisation for the committee that came up with the sensible Basle II Accord.

“The BIS has been spot on throughout this,” he said. “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”

The failures of modern global capitalism have been brutally exposed in recent months. Opinion is now hardening around the case for a new global architecture to enforce rules that ensure lessons are learnt and that the actions which have brought free markets to the brink of collapse are never repeated.

It remains to be seen whether the political leaders of 2008 are up to the task. If they are, the first foundations of that new world could be laid in Washington this week.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Bailout Passed! The United States of America Is Officially Dead

Posted by Job on October 3, 2008

Well, the United States is gone. Teddy Roosevelt got the ball rolling, and George H. W. Bush finished it off. And did you see where California needs a $7 billion bailout? Amazing. This is just further proof that we cannot put our trust in the things of this world, but can only trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidentally, the flag waving religious right, what are you going to put your trust in now?

Revamped economic bailout picks up 20 votes in House

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

US Military To Keep The Peace Here in US

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

Another good one from Soli Dei Gloria.

US Military To Keep The Peace Here in US

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Conspiracy Theory: Timing The Bailout So That John McCain’s Victory – And Barack Obama’s Defeat – Hinges On It To Overcome Conservative Opposition

Posted by Job on September 30, 2008

Ordinarily, there is no way that conservatives would support $700 billion in spending, not even the big business corporate welfare neoconservative socialists who looked the other way while George W. Bush spent more than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon B. Johnson ever dreamed. People would recognize that this bailout would A) make the federal government the nation’s biggest owner and broker of private property (in addition to all the public lands that it already owns) and B) increase the government stake and power in the banking and financial services industries. By way of comparison, it would accomplish in the banking industry what Hillary Clinton only tried in the healthcare industry. (But don’t worry: the next president will give us some form of HillaryCare to go with the Bush’s prescription drugs bill.)

But there is ONE WAY to get small government conservatives – or truthfully people merely opposed to the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal – to reject their beliefs and root for this package. (Truthfully, the goal is not so much to get them to support it, but to lessen their opposition so that they will stop calling their congressmen in anger and protest.) What is it? Simple: the same way that the GOP got religious conservatives to fall in line and keep voting for candidates that were not only personally immoral (i.e. Newt Gingrich) but do absolutely on abortion, gay rights, religion in the public square, fighting pornography, etc. … say that it absolutely has to be done or else the other guy will win! 

This is “the lesser of two evils” gambit like never before. Why? 1) Because even if this passes, there is still no guarantee that McCain will win. 2) What good does voting for Republicans do if they are going to spend like Democrats anyway? Please recall: Republicans could have blocked Bill Clinton’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act back in 1995. They could have reformed the act at any point from 2000 – 2006. And the person who could have led the way: John McCain, either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee for most or all of that time. So not only would supporting – or at least not opposing – this bailout not even guarantee a McCain win, even if the guy does win there is absolutely no evidence based on his career in Washington that he will prevent messes like this from happening in the future! 

And why, you ask? The threat of Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama has these people absolutely terrified like nothing before. (By contrast, most Democrats figure that they could live with McCain.) Why? There are a lot of alleged reasons such as his liberalism (when he is really to the left of Bill Clinton on only a few issues) or his inexperience (see Palin, Sarah) or his religious background (as if skulls and bones George “all religions worship the same God” W. Bush or necromancer Ronald Reagan were orthodox) but the main fear is that Obama’s election would mean losing their country. People would feel that any nation that puts Obama in the White House would not be the nation that “our founding fathers created”, the nation that they knew and loved when they were growing up. Obama would be the final victory for counterculture. 

Of course, it is all a scam. George W. Bush appointing an openly homosexual man as AIDS czar, being the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque, and so many other things. Then there was Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter doing the “Heather Has Two Mommies” thing (funny how the right wingers who attacked Ellen DeGeneres and similar demanded that Cheney’s family be respected) and even creepy stuff like all the times homosexual prostitute Jeff “Gannon” Guckert visited the White House … security records showed the guy electronically signing in BUT NEVER SIGNING OUT!

But the best part is that even if these things weren’t true, this bailout would permanently and drastically alter this nation economically and politically anyway. The bailout would make us some odd mixture between a social democracy and a fascist plutocracy (when I say “fascist” I mean Benito Mussolini’s original definition, which is the corporatization of government power). Now fascism has a strong nationalist element. But guess what … attacking Iran would mean having to strike up the band for the pledge of allegiance and our militaristic anthems for another 10,000 times in every state, city, street corner, and public and CHRISTIAN school on the planet. And a war with Iran wouldn’t be something that affects relatively few Americans like our conflicts in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our military is already stretched to the limit and our economy already in shambles due to high oil prices and bank failures. But Iran, a much tougher enemy than an Iraq weakened by over 10 years of U.S. led military and economic aggression, would mean massive casualties and global oil shortages. And what would the rest of the world’s Muslims think? It would be our third war against a Muslim nation in, oh, a decade or so (depending on whether the attack on Iran comes closer to 2009 or 2012). What keeps the other Muslim countries from thinking “we’re next!” and acting accordingly? Oh boy, imagine what will happen if those other nations adopt a policy of “pre – emptive strikes for self defense” like we did in Iraq. Let me say that anyone who has ever read “Animal Farm” knows that patriotic ferver is necessary for regimes to stay in power during tough times. 

But that is going too far in the future. For right now, the fear of Barack Hussein Obama turning Peoria into San Francisco (or Compton) is what will cause conservatives to do the bidding of George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and adopt this disastrous bailout. (As for Hillary Clinton, well the product of white flight suburban Chicago turned out to be not so scary after all … the right wing wags are actually referring to “Hillary Clinton Democrats” in the same breath as “Reagan Democrats.”) That means that whether Barack Obama wins or loses, he will have done his job. If you ever wanted any more proof that ultimately Bush, McCain, and Obama serve the same master, then this is it!

The only question is this: whose master do you serve? Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Richard Holbrooke Would Lead Obama Administration Into War With Iran Just Like McCain!

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Iran: And the Beat Goes On The beating of war drums, that is

 

In a last-ditch, all-out effort to pave the way for war with Iran,Israel’s lobby in the U.S. has inaugurated a new front group: United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). What, “another” neocon front group – why is this important? With Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s most prominent foreign policy advisor – and a likely Secretary of State or National Security Advisor in the Obama administration – joining neocon nutcase James R. Woolsey in the top leadership of this new group, the signal is clear: UANI represents a bipartisan call for war.

In an op ed piece for what else but the War Street Journal, the four horsemen of the apocalypse – Holbrooke, Woolsey, Dennis Ross, the Israel Lobby’s ace-in-the-hole in the Obama camp (please note: Ross is a former George H. W. Bush official who also served in the same capacity under Bill Clinton and trained Condi Rice), and Mark D. Wallace, formerly U.S. representative to the U.N. for management and reform – mirror the joint statement of Obama and McCain on the economic crisis. This is “not a partisan matter” – the War Party is the only party that really matters. “We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, ” they aver,

“Yet we share a common concern – Iran’s drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon.

“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America’s national security,” etc., etc., etc…

I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the list of threatened countries starts with Israel and ends with the United States, but I wonder…

Leaving the realm of speculation, and entering the region of hard facts: our own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program shows that the Iranians had a weapons program that they abandoned: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” While keeping the option open, the Iranian regime has not restarted its nuclear program, according to our spooks, and probably could not iron out all the technical problems and hoarding of nuclear materials until at least 2015 – and even then there is no evidence Tehran has any such intention.

The NIE was issued last year around this time, and afterward Robert Gates spoke to the New York Times Magazine:

“One afternoon in late November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was flying back to Washington from the Army base at Fort Hood, Tex., where he had spoken with soldiers and spouses about the future of Iraq. Sitting across from him at his desk in the back of the Pentagon’s jet, I asked him about the possibility of another military conflict: U.S. air strikes on Iran. ‘The last thing the Middle East needs now is another war,’ he said quietly. ‘We have to keep all options on the table,’ he went on, reciting the standard caveat. ‘But if Iraq has shown us anything, it’s the unpredictability of war. Once a conflict starts, the statesmen lose control.'”

This was supposed to signal that the much-anticipated U.S. strike on Iran – the imminence of which was predicted with near certainty by a number of commentators, including this one – has been successfully aborted. There was a collective and well-nigh audible sigh of relief, from Tehran to Terre Haute, but some of us were not convinced by this display of official caution. After all, the statesmen have lost control before….

If the NIE was supposed to blast the neocon war campaign out of the water, then its authors did not take into account the persistence – indeed, fanaticism – of the United for War With Iran crowd. The sheer relentlessness of the effort suggests its essential character as a lobbying campaign on behalf of a special interest – in this case, a very special interest. Corporate and professional lobbyists are notably impervious to facts, and tend to cherry-pick according to the interests of their clients, and foreign lobbyists certainly fall into this category. Yet the latter have a certain edge to them, lacking in the others – and Israel’s lobby has the sharpest edge of all.

No one even pretends anymore that the Israel lobby isn’t behind the effort to drag us into another Middle Eastern war. You don’t have to be me, or Mearsheimer and Walt, to make this case: you have only to listen to the public pronouncements of Israel’s leaders, who areopenly demanding that either we strike, or else they will – perhaps, as has been suggested by Benny Morris, with nuclear weapons.

In the U.S., AIPAC, the scandal-rocked central command of Israel’s amen corner, has come out of the shadows, where they remainedduring the run-up to the Iraq war, and taken the lead in calling for harsh sanctions and a military blockade of Iranian ports. Now we have this bipartisan ad hoc committee taking out full page newspaper ads and speaking in the implied names of both major party presidential candidates.

I had to laugh when I read, in the Journal op ed piece, that “Tehran’s development of a nuclear bomb could serve as the ‘starter’s gun’ in a new and potentially deadly arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Many believe that Iran’s neighbors would feel forced to pursue the bomb if it goes nuclear.” Methinks the starter gun went off long off – sometime in the early 1960s, Israel having earlier procured the technology to make the Bomb from the French.

“Iran,” say the four horsemen, “is a deadly and irresponsible world actor, employing terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine existing regimes and to foment conflict. Emboldened by the bomb, Iran will become more inclined to sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency.” One has only to insert “Israel” where Iran sits in those sentences, and the pot-kettle-black aspect of this whole issue is underscored, as is the ridiculous double standard. After all, Israel has surely been emboldened by its possession of nukes, lo these many years, and acted in a manner that could reasonably called irresponsible – and even deadly, now that you mention it. Yet Israel is not only given a pass, but the defining factor of the Middle Eastern strategic environment – Israel’s nuclear arsenal – goes unmentioned by these worthies.

They are full of laughable pronouncements imbued with the solemnity that usually accompanies the argument from authority:

“The world rightfully doubts Tehran’s assertion that it needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes. Iran has vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas, and its construction of nuclear reactors and attempts to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle are exceedingly costly. There is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.”

Aside from the propriety of assuming to speak for “the world,” one has to ask where the war propagandists have been hiding out lately: haven’t they read about those gas lines in Iran? Sanctions and official corruption have contributed to the country’s shortage, while rationing ensured it would continue. Indeed, the more tireless Iran-ophobes were at one point speculating that the resulting riots might well spell the end for the mullahs.

And I’m surprised they raised the following accusation, considering the context in which it is hurled:

“By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.”

Iran is fully within its rights, under the terms of the treaty, to develop a nuclear energy program, which is what they say they are doing – and, as those gas lines attest, they have a real need for it. At any rate, at least Iran has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, unlike a certain country whose interests seem to be at the heart of the signers’ argument:

At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be ‘wiped off from the map,’ while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.”

That old canard about wiping Israel off the map has been debunked so many times as a mis-translation of what Ahmadinejad really said – which was something more akin to predicting that Israel would be washed away by the tides of history and demography – yet it keeps bouncing right back. Just like all the other lies spread far and wide by the War Party’s propagandists. Remember that one aboutMohammed Atta meeting a top Iraqi intelligence official at the Prague airport? That one didn’t die until well after the invasion. I wonder how many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A lie, repeated relentlessly, becomes enmeshed in the public consciousness, and rooting it out is a major operation, with a problematic success rate.

That’s what we do, here at Antiwar.com – root out the lies, and set the record straight. We did it in the run-up to the last war, and we’redoing the same thing when it comes to the Iranian issue. The chances that we’ll succeed, this time, in stopping the rush to war are better now, perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. The forces pushing for war, led by the Israel lobby, are marshalling their supporters for a final push. Even if they don’t pull it off before the election, the Holbrooke-Woolsey Pact will go down in history as the turning point, politically, the crucial juncture when the American elite made the decision to go to war because the Lobby demanded it.

Our political elites speak in unison: accept the bailout, pay trillions to the plutocrats – accept the coming war with Iran – and pay with the lives of your children. Our leaders, their system in crisis, have closed ranks around the slogan of Big Government at home, and progressively bigger wars abroad. If it were one crisis, or the other, Americans might remain impassive. In this case, however, with the economy imploding and the threat of war looming simultaneously, the Washington crowd that thought it could ride out the turbulence is finding it’s a bit more of a bumpy ride than they or anyone else imagined. The people are awakening, but there is a danger in this: without leaders of their own, their rebellion is bound to be inchoate, undirected, and perhaps even violent. As Garet Garrett put it, anticipating this moment some sixty odd years ago:

“No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose.”

~ Justin Raimondo

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Congress Has Opted For A Ten Year Recession

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Ron Paul: Congress Has Opted For 10-Year Plus Depression

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Government Has $700 Billion For Bailout But Not $300 Billion To Insure Washington Mutual?

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Now I grant you, the $700 billion is to be raised over time with terms negotiated to facilitate the speedy repayment of the money. After all, the savings and loans bailout that had to be done under the LAST president Bush (the Keating scandal that implicated our NEXT president John McCain) was paid off rather quickly. Still, the very fact that we are talking about a $700 billion bailout when this article says that the government seized the assets of Washington Mutual (apparently something that they have the right to do at any time according to their prerogative, which is, you know, interesting in a free market capitalist society THAT DOESN’T EXIST!) because they didn’t have the funds to ensure Washington Mutual’s $307 billion in case they collapse. And keep in mind: the government isn’t even responsible for the entire $307 billion, since FDIC only insures up to $150,000. This adds to IndependentConservative’s thesis that it is all just funny money. See, the money that FDIC needs to ensure is somewhat tangible and real, because people worked for, invested, and saved it. So that needs a level of government protection. But the money that the government talks about … monopoly money, a figment of the imagination, that isn’t worth the number of zeroes that it takes to type it into a computer screen. 

Or at least that is one way of looking at it. I am still interested in the possible fact that the government can seize the assets of any bank at any time for any reason that they wish to contrive and that there is apparently nothing that anyone can do about it. And this makes us different from a socialist – or fascist – government how?

WaMu becomes America’s biggest bank failure

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Leading Charismatic J. Lee Grady Claiming That Sarah Palin Is A Prophet Chosen By God To Lead Christians Into Holy War!

Posted by Job on September 10, 2008

I know, I know, yet another political article. I promise to do better, but how can I ignore things like this? Brother PJ Miller tipped me off to this fromJ. Lee Gray, editor of the influential Charisma Magazine. Now similar to Christianity Today and Roman Catholics with evangelical Christians, Charisma Magazine should have been rejected by Pentecostals and charismatics once they started accepting oneness pentecostal anti – Trinitarian heretics among their midst. Here it is in black and white from J. Lee Grady’s pen:

2. Trinitarians must embrace our Oneness brothers. I know people in the Assemblies of God who were taught all their lives that the Jesus worshiped by Oneness Pentecostals is “another Jesus.” The Lord told us to love one another, but we have avoided this by declaring that our brothers aren’t really in the family.

So what excuse is there for calling Charisma Magazine anything but what it is, which is apostate? Even better:

It all sounds like pointless doctrinal hair-splitting to us younger types. After all, who can explain the mystery of God’s triune nature? Instead of fussing about terms or reducing the gospel to a baptismal formula, why can’t we rally around our common belief that the Father sent His Son to save the world?

Excuse me, but what vital Christian doctrine CANNOT that be said about? Creationism? It is too hard to understand. Baptism? It is too hard to obey. The incarnation? Can’t believe it. The resurrection? Can’t accept it. Salvation only through the cross? Can’t put up with it. Eternal damnation in the lake of fire for sinners? Can’t conceive it. Adulterers, liars, thieves, necromancers, occultists, homosexuals, and apostates in the pulpit? Judge not, touch not mine anointed and do my prophet no harm! Look, A FALSE GOSPEL CANNOT SAVE!

But enough of that digression. J. Lee Grady claims that Sarah Palin has the Deborah anointing. Now my position is that all of these various spirits that Pentecostals and charismatics speak of do not exist, as there is one Lord who has one spirit, the Holy Spirit. Also, the word “anointing” means “choosing”, when one is “anointed by God”, it means that a person was given a calling by God to a specific calling or ministry in service to the Lord and His people. So I would discourage Christians from going around saying that someone has “a David anointing” or “a Hezekiah anointing” or “Paul’s spirit”, but I will go ahead and say that it is a crude and possibly incorrect but still understandable way of saying that someone has the same office, calling, or task as another Christian.

On J. Lee Grady’s part, this is very problematic for two reasons. First, the Bible commands us to “lay hands quickly on no man.” That is 1 Timothy 5:22. Now the best context for this verse was the practice of the church laying hands on people when they choose officers for the church. Please recall that when Stephen the martyr and Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas were appointed as deacons in Acts 6:1-6. Verse 6 states that after the church selected them, the apostles laid hands on them after praying for them. Though laying hands on people was part of the ritual or process of actually choosing and placing people in the position of service, it became a shorthanded reference for the act of choosing and installing a person into Christian service itself. But please note Acts 6:1-6 and interpret it with 1 Timothy 5:16-25. In both cases, it is obvious that a person should not be laid hands upon, or chosen, or anointed, unless the person had demonstrated their worthiness for the position by their fruits: excellent reputations, spiritual maturity, strong knowledge of and adherence to the Word of God in the eyes of the local congregation.

Now unless Grady has some extensive past history with Sarah Palin that he for some reason chooses not to reveal in his column, he has NO BASIS for claiming under New Testament church standards that God has called this woman to leadership or anything else. If he has been in longtime Christian fellowship with Palin, he should have let us know this. Otherwise, we can presume that like 99.9% of America, he was so ignorant of this woman’s existence that he could not have picked her out of a lineup until now.

So claiming that Palin was appointed by God to anything is irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous because it causes Christians to presume that she is generally acting and leading according to God’s desires and even non – Christians that respect our faith to presume that she is basically honest and moral. Such claims also damage how Christians view church doctrines and practice. Talk like this hinders people from knowing that being called by God or even elected to service by the church MEANS SOMETHING. That there are STANDARDS that these people must adhere to in order to be eligible for their appointment (in the case of a deacon) and AFTER their appointment (in the case of church appointed deacons and God – called everything else). That people keep throwing around  “I have an anointing, he has an anointing, I feel a great anointing and move of the Holy Spirit in this place” with the same level of care and discernment as they would use to say “boy that was a mighty fine and tasty bowl of oatmeal” is a great reason why we allow anyone – especially if he is a Christian – do whatever they want with no accountability whatsoever. 

So what is Grady’s basis for alleging that Palin has a call on her life? Her politics. Her values. Her culture. Her family. Her actions as mayor and governor. And keep in mind: he knows NONE of these first hand! He only knows them by their reports from people who have a motive to portray Palin in the best possible light for worldly reasons, and of course Grady is ignoring all of  the people with opposing views of this woman’s performance and character. They’re just liberals who reject the Bible, right? Now if they were “Jesus Christ was born again in hell” Word of Faith teachers, “Jesus Christ was rich” prosperity doctrine teachers, or “God the Father suffered and died on the cross” United (oneness) Pentecostals, they’d be good credible people, right? 

This is replacing true Christianity, which is of the spirit, with a works – based religion of the flesh. Of the circumcision. And you know what? It is a very shallow one at that. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism … do you know what those religions require before a person is declared worthy, a lifetime process of rigorous spiritual, religious, and personal demands? Muslims according in particular to their belief system have no assurance of their salvation when they die (unless they perish in a holy war) no matter their dedication to Islam during their lives. But Grady – and those like him – are willing to say that just because we like what we KNOW of her church (its denomination is similar to mine), her culture (small town self – reliant Alaska outdoorsmen are more holy and sanctified than those inner city welfare mothers?), her lifestyle (a married mother of five is more holy than, you know, a married mother of two or a single mother of any amount?) and her political beliefs?

The last one is key. Because she shares my values, her daughter being pregnant out of wedlock is fine. It is covered by, you know, grace. But since Jamie Lynn Spears and her family does not share my values, it is horrible. No grace for you! And as for Obama, we can dismiss him by saying that if it was his daughter he would have forced her to have an abortion, convicting him in advance for something that he hasn’t even done yet and we have no idea whether he would! The opposite of grace for you! Never mind the fact that pro – abortion people who have unwanted pregnancies choose to have the baby all the time. Never mind the fact that pro – life people who have unwanted pregnancies have abortions all the time. (Studies assert that evangelicals have the same abortion rate as the national average, some claim that it is even higher.)

Now, THIS is where the 30 years of James Dobson Focus on the Family religious right mindset of conferring righteousness on people based on their lifestyles, cultures, affiliations, and political beliefs has gotten us. And we really are entering a sort of danger zone here. Where J. Lee Grady has generally not been one given to trying to influence politics, he goes and calls this woman God’s prophet. And Albert Mohler, usually a no – nonsense figure who also avoids religious right politics and is no supporter of Pentecostalism, has basically endorsed Palin, something that I can find no evidence whatsoever that he did for Mike Huckabee, a leader of his own denomination. If this is not Phariseeism as expressed in the political and cultural context, what is?

As I said of Grady, if Mohler has some pre – existing relationship with this woman that causes him to regard her as being worthy of his endorsement based largely on her being a Christian (or should I again say a Christian with the “right” cultural markers … where in the Bible does it say that shooting bears, eating mooseburgers, living in the frontier, and having 5 kids places you closer to the kingdom of heaven or is evidence of the inner workings of the fruits of the Holy Spirit?), then he should let us know. Otherwise, it is AT BEST reckless and irresponsible. At worst, it is showing much more respect than he ever would to even another professed Christian that came in different packaging. Would Grady and Mohler be as effusive over a Methodist from Chicago or Episcopal from Baltimore, especially if they were Democrats, even if they were right on the doctrinal issues and the political ones directly related to them (i.e. abortion and homosexuality)?You know the answer to that question and so do they. 

And that is just the first part. The second concern is not nearly as lengthy but even more important. Go back to the book of Judges, chapter 4 in particular for this “Deborah anointing” issue. What was the situation? The children of Israel were at war with an enemy that, oh well, could be compared to the Muslims of today without being too far off. What did God choose Deborah to be? His prophetess through whom He spoke His Word. Again, why did God raise up prophets and judges in those days? TO USE THEM TO LEAD ISRAEL IN BATTLE AGAINST THE ENEMY. And what happened? Though Barak was the judge and the leader of the army, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he would not go into battle against the ancestors of today’s MUSLIMS, in particular THE PALESTINIANS, without God’s prophetess Deborah on the battlefield leading him. Why? Because though Barak had been called by God to lead the army, because of his weak character and faith he was unwilling to do so without a woman of stronger character and faith at his side.

So here we are in America in a war against terror against a Muslim ideology. And – if their electoral hopes and dreams are fulfilled as I think they will be – the commander in chief will be another Barak, a man who professes Christian faith (raised Episcopal but now Southern Baptist evangelical) but does not wear it on his sleeve in the appropriate manner or keep company with the right and proper powerbrokers in the evangelical world (as a matter of fact Palin is his third try at short circuit people like Dobson and also the more Baptist – oriented evangelicals for lesser known Pentecostal figures like John Hagee and Rod Parsley) and is not sufficiently socially conservative in his beliefs.

So where Barak fell short in his true faith, McCain similarly falls short in this new universalist pluralist ecumenical dual covenant (or truthfully many covenant!) works based religion that serves the aims of the religious right. Again, never forget that the preferred candidate of most of this crowd was Mormon Mitt Romney, who fit their “culture and views” requirements precisely and the fellow’s actual religious doctrines (as well as his basic honesty and integrity or more accurately his complete lack thereof) was of no consequence. (Extending this a bit, this also explains J. Lee Grady’s embrace of oneness pentecostal heretics, whose beliefs are totally wrong, but who nonetheless have been a part of the Pentecostal religious scene since 1916, are growing in prominence and influence especially in music and with famous preachers/televangelists and their many theologians in Pentecostal seminaries and Bible colleges, so they must be accepted.)

So the morally flawed less than faithful Barak – McCain needs the pure and faithful prophetess Deborah – Palin at his side to fight the Lord’s battle and win against the Philistines – Muslims. (Please note: correlating Philistines and Muslims is not so coincidental when you consider that the term Palestine, or PALESTINIAN, is what the Roman Empire came up with to denote the Philistines, and they named Israel Palestine after their ancient enemies to spite and mock the Jews.)

I suppose that in this imagination, their first Muslim conquest will be on election day against Barack HUSSEIN “McCain has not made in issue of my Muslim faith/I still remember the Muslim call to prayer at my madrassa, one of the most beautiful sounds in the world” Obama. That is fine. What then? Will the prophetess Deborah – Palin tell Barak – McCain to put every Muslim in Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Somalia, Chechnya, Turkey, Kosovo, Kenya, PALESTINE, etc. to death with the sword? Or more accurately WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS? I don’t know Mr. Grady, that sounds more like McCain anti – Christ Palin false prophet to me! (So you folks thinking that Obama is the anti – Christ may have the right time but the wrong candidate!) Maybe your interpretation of scripture is different. Then again, it would have to be for you to claim that we are brothers with people who blatantly deny scripture by rejecting Trinity, not to mention those who preach the false prosperity and Word of Faith doctrines.

You might say that Grady did not have a militaristic – eschatological intent in calling Palin “Deborah”, that he was only looking for a woman in a leadership position. First of all, even if that were the case, the guy is still wrong. Do you know why? Because words mean things. Especially words from the Bible. We can’t just go around throwing Bible terms and references around because they sound nice, make us feel good, and help us advance or win arguments (or elections). God raised up Deborah to a specific office to perform a specific task. Claiming that a woman that is being appointed to run a college or a bank or even a church ministry is bad enough because of the context. But saying the same of a woman who actually would be the advisor to a commander in chief to a nation that is at war is making a direct parallel between McCain and Palin and the actual Barak and Deborah of the Bible that cannot be ignored!

Also, this paragraph by J. Lee Grady proves that he is not merely applying a Biblical female leadership analogy, even in poor context:

When McCain announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate, I was reminded of the biblical story of Deborah, the Old Testament prophet who rallied God’s people to victory at a time when ancient Israel was being terrorized by foreign invaders. Deborah’s gender didn’t stop her from amassing an army; she inspired the people in a way no man could. She and her defense minister, Barak, headed to the front lines and watched God do a miracle on the battlefield. In her song in Judges 5:7, Deborah declares: “The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose, a mother in Israel” (NASB). Sometimes it takes a true mother to rally the troops.

Seriously, what else am I supposed to think when I read something like that? So in less than 30 years Christians have gone from cheering when Ronald Reagan largely endorsed the claims of Mormon founder Joseph Smith in declaring America to be New Jerusalem in his “we are the shining city on a hill” speech (which basically gave salvation to all who earned it by agreeing with Reagan culturally and politically, and condemned all dissenters to the lake of fire … hey didn’t Palin’s pastor do largely the same in alluding that Bush critics and Kerry voters are going to the lake of fire?) to claiming that God will use Palin to raise up his army? 

This is where the religious right and the false doctrines surrounding it is taking Christanity, people. (The religious left is no better, so don’t even try it.) If you wish to make your calling and election in Jesus Christ sure, you had best repent yourself of it and love the next world and not this one.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Christianity Or Constantism?

Posted by Job on September 4, 2008

Constantinianism

Constantinianism Part II

Dangers to the Modern Church

Dangers Part I: Conforming to the World

Dangers Part II: The Mediocre Church

The Disunity of Politics

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Best Way To Increase State Power: String The Children – ESPECIALLY THE MALES! – Out On ADHD Medication!

Posted by Job on September 3, 2008

I wonder if there is an entry on Christina Hoff Sommers’ work on “The War Against Boys.”

Study: Boys’ parents more likely to report problems

Parents of about 15% of kids spoke to school staff or health care providers about their children’s emotional and behavior problems in the last year, according to a survey released Wednesday, the first-ever to gauge the issue …

Nearly 1 out of 5 boys had parents who discussed such difficulties, and about 1 out of 10 girls, says the report from more than 17,000 parents with children 4 to 17 years old. The survey, released by the National Center for Health Statistics, was done in 2005 and 2006 …

About 5% of children were prescribed medicine, mostly for attention-deficit disorder (ADHD), with another 5% receiving other treatment, such as therapy, alone or combined with medication …

Bringing concerns out in the open is all to the good, says David Fassler, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and clinical professor at the University of Vermont. “More and more American parents are recognizing the symptoms of emotional and behavior problems, and they’re asking for help,” he says. The survey was done after pediatric use of ADHD medications and antipsychotics had skyrocketed, show figures from Medco Health Solutions, a large pharmacy benefit management company

The high number of parents who confide worries shows “the very, very narrow range of normalcy allowed for children these days,” says behavioral pediatrician Lawrence Diller of Walnut Creek Calif., author of The Last Normal Child. “Welcome to the age of anxiety, where more is expected of children academically and in self-discipline, while both parents are working, so there’s less support and structure.” … (And where are these higher expectations created? By the government, especially government schools, and the media! Instead of telling our boys and girls that Jesus Christ loves them, we burden and scare them with all of our demands that have NOTHING to do with their salvation or their walk with Jesus Christ.)

For kids who do get counseling, 39% receive it at school, and 27% at their doctor’s office, the survey finds. (So … people aren’t taking their kids to get counseling AT CHURCH? By the way, it makes no difference whether the counseling takes place in a government school or in the office of a member of the American Psychological Association whose theories are totally given over to the discredited atheistic perversions of Kinsey, Freud, and similar … a person who rejects Jesus Christ cannot truly help your child.) More pediatricians are bringing mental health experts into their offices, or bringing them on-board as consultants, says Jane Foy, a pediatrics professor at Wake Forest University and spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatricians are hearing more about mental health issues, and therapy services are sparse, especially for children whose problems are not severe, she says.

Some school districts have increased their mental health services for students, says Kathy Cowan of the National Association of School Psychologists. “But there’s still a huge dearth of help for kids in many districts,” she adds.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin’s Fascist Dominionist Theology

Posted by Job on September 2, 2008

Update: curiously enough, the videos of the pastor of Palin’s former church are no longer available at this link. Instead, there is a very diplomatic message. Now while some people might immediately jump to a “what are they trying to hide!?!?” conclusion, there is also the possibility that so many people like myself going to their website is burdening their bandwidth and server.

From a liberal site that does not represent Christianity. My goodness, whoever wins, persecution against actual Christians in this country who truly believe in the Bible and serve the real Jesus Christ will increase. I wonder if Albert Mohler and the other serious Christians have had a chance to see this yet. When they do, will they pass it off as just another liberal attack, or really ask themselves whether the anti – Christ globalists chose this woman to advance their agenda for a reason?

Now my record of predicting things is very poor, but I now believe that McCain will win. But even if the ticket loses, this woman will be back in 2012. Trust me. The right wing blogs are already talking about even if McCain wins, his retiring after one term and a mega – showdown between Palin and Clinton in 2012. Who would win? WHAT DOES IT MATTER? That is the point. Whether it is the Stalins on the left represented by the Democrats or the Hitlers on the right represented by the Republicans, THEY BOTH SERVE THE SAME MASTER. The only question, professed Christian, is which master do YOU serve?

You think Obama’s Pastor problem was bad? Palin’s is off-the-charts

Jump to Comments

Well, we see Palin embraces the zealotry of the Evangelical fundamentalist POV, just as Bush does. I feel sorry for the real Christians who actually believe and follow Jesus’ teachings, and understand, as our founding fathers did, the necessity for separation of church and state. This is not Christianity. This is fascism.

From Huffington Post:

Palin’s Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

By Nico Pitney and Sam Stein

Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska’s governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.

Palin’s address, much of which was spent reflecting on the work of the church in which she grew up and was baptized, underscores the notion that her world view is deeply impacted by religion. In turn, her remarks raise important questions: mainly, what is Palin’s faith and how exactly has it influenced her policies?

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin’s longtime spiritual home.

The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war “contending for your faith;” and said that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode.”

It is impossible to determine how much Wasilla Assembly of God has shaped Palin’s thinking. She was baptized there at the age of 12 and attended the church for most of her adult life. When Palin was inaugurated as governor, the founding pastor of the church delivered the invocation. In 2002, Palin moved her family to a nondenominational church, but she continues to worship at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.

Moreover, she “has maintained a friendship with Wasilla Assembly of God and has attended various conferences and special meetings here,” Kalnins’ office said in a statement. “As for her personal beliefs,” the statement added, “Governor Palin is well able to speak for herself on those issues.”

Clearly, however, Palin views the church as the source of an important, if sometimes politically explosive, message. “Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place,” she told the congregation in June. “What comes from this church I think has great destiny.”

And if the political storm over Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.

If the church had a political alignment, it would almost surely be conservative. In his sermons, Kalnins did not hide his affections for certain national politicians.

During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush’s performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. “I’m not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I’m sorry.” Kalnins added: “If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”

Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. “I hate criticisms towards the President,” he said, “because it’s like criticisms towards the pastor — it’s almost like, it’s not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That’s what it’ll get you.”

Much of his support for the current administration has come in the realm of foreign affairs. Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a “world war” over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.

What you see in a terrorist — that’s called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what’s going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. … We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. … Jesus called us to die. You’re worried about getting hurt? He’s called us to die. Listen, you know we can’t even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. … I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say “war mode.” Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he’s like the good shepherd, he’s loving all the time and he’s kind all the time. Oh yes he is — but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.

As for his former congregant and current vice presidential candidate, Kalnins has asserted that Palin’s election as governor was the result of a “prophetic call” by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory. “[He made] a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know.”

Even Palin expressed surprise at that pastor’s advocacy for her candidacy. “He was praying over me,” she said in June. “He’s praying, ‘Lord make a way, Lord make a way…’ And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m gonna do, he doesn’t know what my plans are, and he’s praying not, ‘Oh Lord, if it be your will may she become governor,’ or whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, ‘Lord, make a way, and let her do this next step.’ And that’s exactly what happened. So, again, very very powerful coming from this church.”

In his sermons, Pastor Kalnins has also expressed beliefs that, while not directly political, lie outside of mainstream Christian thought.

He preaches repeatedly about the “end times” or “last days,” an apocalyptic prophesy held by a small but vocal group of Christian leaders. During his appearance with Palin in June, he declared, “I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them.”

He also claims to have received direct “words of knowledge” from God, providing him information about past events in other people’s lives. During one sermon, he described being paired with a complete stranger during a golf outing. “I said, I’m a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you — you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn’t your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, ‘Who the blank are you?’ And I says, ‘well, I’m a minister.’ He says, ‘how do you know about my life? What do you know?’ And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out.”

Kalnins has, of course, preached on a bevy of topics ranging from humility to “overcoming bitterness.” But the more controversial remarks reported above were not out of the norm, appearing in numerous sermons spanning the four years of available recordings.

As for Palin, her views on these topics is more opaque. In the wake of the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, a debate has raged about whether political figures should be held responsible for the comments of their religious guiders. Clearly, however, Kalnins, like many national conservative religious leaders, sees Alaska’s governor as one of his own. “Gov. Sarah Palin is the real deal,” he told his church this past summer. “You know, some people put on a show…but she’s the real deal.”

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: