Homosexual Hijackers: The Hypersexualization of Cultural Hostages

When the celebration of a godly Catholic Saint becomes a flashpoint for the homosexual agenda, it’s just another sure sign that things have really spiraled out of control in America. How is it that the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York have become the latest pawn in the homosexual hijacking of this country?

In the current cultural clash between morality and decadence, apparently nothing is considered sacred or beyond the tainting touch of the “gay lobby.”

As the militant homosexual activists aggressively sweep through our society in their hostage-taking enterprise, they trample on religious rights — and numerous other freedoms — leaving only debauchery in their wake. Through their shameless “gay” gangland style thuggery, they defile and hypersexualize everything that they come into contact with. And the “Big Beer” brouhaha is just their latest attempt to distort a holiday observance, which is supposed to be about commemorating a heroic, holy man, into more perversity on parade. The homosexual wrecking ball has “come out” in full vengeance mode with corporate sponsors, professional sports organizations, elected officials, mainstream media outlets, Hollywood celebrities, and universities all drooling and panting to be the first to ride the “gay” bandwagon on its path to perdition.  

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to sully their Saint with the raunchy displays that are typically seen in the annual “gay pride” parades held across America? Why would the organizers want to see homosexuals prancing around in drag, genitalia-revealing clothing, or nearly naked?

And what’s the likelihood that “gay pride” organizers would ever allow Christians to march in their parades and pass out biblical literature about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or what’s the chance that they would welcome groups such as NOM (National Organization for Marriage), NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) or JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) to march right alongside the transvestites? Or what about an ex-gay marching band or Mark Regnerus as the grand marshal? Not on your life! The simple fact is that homosexual events are not “open” to everyone. Certain individuals and organizations, that don’t conform to their ideology, are absolutely barred from participating in their parades. Of course, they wouldn’t want any religious or moral principles “raining on their parade.” Homosexual extremists march along a one-way street when it comes to so-called “tolerance.”

At “gay pride” events and parades in places such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, it is not uncommon to see drag queens, phalluses, public nudity, actual and simulated sex acts, offensive signs/music, pornographic images, NAMBLA (pedophilia) representatives, S&M paraphernalia, and public spankings to raise money for AIDS efforts. So, why would the Catholic Church – and any morally sane individual – want to associate St. Patrick with those kinds of debauched displays?

In some places, the homosexual hijackers’ reign of terror is basically complete. For instance, in San Francisco, public decency ordinances are consistently and systematically overlooked during their homosexual, perversity-promoting events. Nudity and public sex acts are the norm during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” parades and festivals held in the city. Police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregate nearby and observe, making no attempt to enforce the law for fear of being labeled homophobic or worse.

And where is the mainstream media while all of this crude and vulgar behavior is so blatantly on display? They’re engaged in a homosexual-friendly, collaborative cover-up via a media blackout because they know that these sex-crazed, pornified sin-fests don’t fit the nice, neat little narrative of the happy, “normal gay family” that’s just minding their own business in relative suburban obscurity. Although not all homosexuals are militantly involved in the hostile takeover of the American culture, we can’t ignore the intimidating and morally corrosive efforts of the aggressive “gay” activists.

In advance of the September 15, 2013 “gay pride” parade in Dallas, Texas, the city officials made it clear that they had had enough of this type of outrageous behavior. They pledged to crack down on the lewdness and nudity that had become widespread at their annual gay pride parade. While past marches had featured bare-breasted women and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city would no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law. The rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” Additionally, the new parade restrictions prohibit other vile exhibitions: “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.” City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they wanted the pride event to be more “family friendly.”

The reaction, however, from the “gay” community and activists to this policy change was quite eye-opening. It shockingly revealed the true darkness that lurks at the heart of America’s homosexual movement. They expressed great outraged at the newly-implemented common sense changes. On the social media website Twitter, incensed homosexuals vowed to wear  – or not wear – whatever they wanted to the pride parade. Activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page, “The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible. It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the d*mn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” (Evidently, the word “restraint” is nowhere to be found in the homosexual dictionary.)

Based on Mr. Cates’ own words, here are a just a few thoughts:

If they “can’t be themselves” without being mostly naked, raunchy, and highly sexualized, doesn’t that contradict the whole “It’s not about sex, it’s about love” mantra? It sounds much more to me like a crotch-centric fixation than anything to do with love. 

If they’re so adamantly against “heteronormative” behavior, then why are homosexual activists also fighting so hard to get “married?” Marriage, after all, is the most heteronormative institution there is! There is obviously no method to their madness.

And homosexuals claim that they want equal treatment under the law, but as soon as they are told that they will be treated like any other citizen who breaks public decency laws, they throw a hissy fit. Apparently, they don’t really want equal treatment; what they demand is special treatment. They think that they are entitled to some sort of “protected class,” above-the-law status that allows them to brazenly break the law with impunity, and sadly, in most places and in many ways, that’s exactly what were witnessing as public officials cower in fear and cave to their every terrorist-like tactic!

Therefore, the “coexist” meme is a falsehood of epic proportions; it’s really “Leftist code” for the legal authorization of the anti-Christian forces – of which the virulent homosexual hijackers have become the worst offenders – to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree. In their twisted idea of coexistence, Christians and conservatives must live under the heel of the homofascists.

What the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers and every other religious group, cultural edifice or icon of morality need to do is implement a “we don’t negotiate with ‘queer’ terrorists” policy. Or else all will be lost to the homosexual hijackers.

Source:  http://bit.ly/1ozcBWe

Read More

Gay Activists Threaten Violence

Is the culture war going to turn into a shooting war?

No one knows. But in light of what some pro-family advocates have experienced lately, the question cannot be dismissed.

A gay activist recently used the Internet to suggest that a sniper target Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth (AFT), Illinois. LaBarbera’s home address was published on a lesbian blog, Pam’s House Blend, in January. A homosexual militant in South Dakota posted this message with it:

“It’s [LaBarbera’s home] across from a park in an area with cul de sacs … Snipers take note.”

“Hyperbolic Language”?

“A lot of pro-family leaders have received death threats,” LaBarbera told Chalcedon. “The gays are the most intolerant special interest group in the nation.

“I trust in God to protect us. But we are taking precautions, and an example should be made of this guy. There are probably many others like him out there.”

LaBarbera has reported the incident to law enforcement, and a police investigation is in progress. He called the FBI first, “who directed me to call the Durham, North Carolina, police.” (The owner of the lesbian blog lives in Durham.) He has consulted an attorney who, he said, has advised him that the sniper threat made against him may have constituted a criminal offense.

The threat badly frightened his wife, LaBarbera told police.

The blogger, Pam Spaulding, said the threat was posted on her blog without her knowledge or consent. The message remained posted for almost a month, and was removed after LaBarbera made it public.

Spaulding has apologized to LaBarbera and his family.

“Probably she removed it after the police called her,” LaBarbera said. “I don’t know how you can run a blog and not know what’s being posted on it.”

The militant in South Dakota, Barry Wick, also apologized. Wick denied that he meant to make a real threat, saying he was only using “hyperbolic language … As a new member of Ms. Spaulding’s blog community, I got carried away with the atmosphere … I humbly ask your forgiveness.” AFT has published both apologies.

“While of course I’ll accept his apology,” LaBarbera said, “I believe that if he engaged in criminal acts, he should be prosecuted.”

The whole incident, he said, reveals “abject hatred and anti-Christian bigotry. I don’t know how seriously the police are taking it. But if I put something like that on my blog, threatening a gay activist, I’ll bet there would be an FBI agent on my doorstep in an hour.”

An Intimidation Campaign

LaBarbera’s experience is only one of many instances of militant homosexuals using the Internet to intimidate or threaten pro-family advocates and ordinary citizens.

“They’re very nasty,” said Evelyn Reilly, with the Massachusetts Family Institute. “We have one threat here that I’m going to talk to the FBI about.”

Reilly said she was not at liberty to reveal the particulars of the threat — which, she added, was not made against her personally. “But if our side did anything like this,” she said, “somebody would be in the can.”

The threats aren’t always physical, or specific. Sometimes the tactic of choice is general intimidation.

In 2005 a pair of militant homosexuals in Massachusetts vowed to publish on the Internet the names and addresses of everyone who signed a petition to ban court-ordered “gay marriage” in their state. They kept that promise, “outing” the signers on a website called knowthyneighbor.org.

“Many people were called and harassed about signing the petition,” Reilly said. “The gays used the threat of exposure to dissuade people from signing. They used automated phone calls, making people think their signatures had been stolen.

“I think some people were intimidated. Others got mad and went out of their way to sign. At the end, we broke all records in state history for signatures.”

At the end of 2006, the state legislature voted to put the ban on the ballot for a statewide referendum.

“Legislators who voted for the amendment got hateful and threatening emails,” Reilly said. “We also get plenty of hateful emails here at our office.”

Although the tactic failed in Massachusetts, Know Thy Neighbor tried it again in Florida last year, publishing the names and addresses of some 455,000 citizens who signed a defense-of-marriage petition.

A comment on the organization’s Massachusetts website reads, “[A]nyone who signs this awful petition has the right to receive such intimidation” (see http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2005/09/test.html).

Know Thy Neighbor plans to “out” petition signers in Illinois this year (http://emllinoisreview.typepad.com/emllinoisreview/2006/06/how_well_do_you.html). Apparently the fact that tens of thousands of citizens have signed these petitions in spite of the intimidation campaign has not discouraged activists.

Packing Heat

“I’m not afraid of these people,” Reilly said, “although I don’t know why. They just don’t scare me.”

“It’s not so much that I’m worried about myself,” LaBarbera said. “But the effect this could have on my wife and children — that has me extremely upset.”

Americans for Truth has posted a statement by a pro-family blogger, Clayton Cramer, who says:

“There is one, and only one, group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6 a.m. with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence” (http://americansfortruth.com/news/conservative-blogger-says-homosexual-activists-are-most-extreme.html). Since “the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s,” the blogger writes, “I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.”

A History of Hatred

Homosexual rage against Christians is nothing new. Writing in 1982, in his preface to The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. II, R. J. Rushdoony says, “[T]he comments on homosexuality [made in Vol. I, 1973] outraged many. No other aspect led to more intense (if covert) opposition, slander, and sheer venom … The homosexual clergy are sometimes great champions of love from the pulpit and savage practitioners of hatred on the sly.”^[1]

And introducing Volume III in 1999, “Writing The Institutes of Biblical Law, volumes I and II, certainly brought on me savage hostilities.”^[2]

Why should this be? Rushdoony explains: “The homosexual is marked by a deep hatred of God and man, which, while often concealed, comes readily to expressions.”^[3]

What has changed is that now these expressions of hate can be instantly made public over the Internet, reaching a much wider audience than ever before. What has not changed, Rushdoony says, is that homosexuality “is a central offense against God, and the essential burning out of man in his hatred of and war against God. (In Romans 1:27, ‘burned’ should be translated as ‘burned out.’)”^[4]

The homosexual has always played for very high stakes, and never more so than now, when he has a powerful political lobby. “The goal of ungodly sexuality is chaos,” Rushdoony writes. “Homosexuality, bestiality, and every other violation of God’s law have as their purpose the destruction of order, God’s order.”^[5]

The Gay Agenda

We should expect gay activists to react furiously when pro-family advocates work to deny them their dearest dream, the destruction of God’s order. The cause of homosexual behavior is sin. Why should we be surprised when an evil tree bears evil fruit? It would be surprising, even astounding, if gay activists pursued their quest to dominate society by being reasonable, charitable, and civil. It would be amazing if they “fought fair.” Lesbian Rosie O’Donnell’s anti-Christian tirades on television typify their usual approach.

The “gay rights” movement demands the radical redefinition of marriage and the family, the adoption of children by pairs of homosexuals, and the rewriting of the criminal code to make offenses against homosexuals — both real crimes, and offenses that exist primarily in the mind of the offended — subject to more serious penalties than offenses against non-homosexuals. It also demands the restriction of free speech and, finally, government interference in the free exercise of religion: especially Biblical Christian religion.

“Look at what these guys are saying,” LaBarbera said. “They don’t believe this is a free society.”

“Gay rights” is not compatible with our basic civil liberties. The gay agenda cannot be made to stick without abridging free speech or stifling the open profession of Christian religious principles. It’s no wonder at all that gay activists have tried, on their own, to impose these restrictions: they are impatient for the government to get around to it. The sin that drives their private behavior drives their political behavior, too.

We are waiting to see how seriously law enforcement takes these latest threats. Are they, in the language of the law, “real” or “sincere” threats, or simply an indulgence in intemperate language?

We cannot know for sure until one of the threats is actually carried out. For the victim, of course, that will be too late.

For now, it’s against the law to make terrorist threats, and we ought to insist that law enforcement officials take them seriously and act appropriately.

The one thing we cannot do is to surrender our families, our churches, and our public institutions to gay activists. But political activism by Christians can only be a stopgap measure. As we have seen in Massachusetts, this ceases to be productive as soon as the “gays” have more political muscle than the Christians — for instance, control of the teachers’ unions that fund and staff political campaigns. If we cannot ignore politics, neither can we allow ourselves to be sucked into and absorbed by politics.

Strong Christian faith, strong Christian families, strong Biblically faithful churches, and strong Christian communities will always be the best defense against the gays’ ambitions.

As this went to press, police in Rapid City, South Dakota, decided not to prosecute Barry Wick for his “Snipers, take note” reference to Peter LaBarbera’s home. Police told LaBarbera that the comment was “too vague” to constitute a credible threat of violence.

“We are still considering our options,” LaBarbera said. “We want to send a message to radical homosexual activists that there is zero tolerance for threats of violence or physical intimidation against people of faith (or anybody) who stands against the radical homosexual movement. We want the next pro-homosexual zealot to think long and hard before making a violent threat against a Christian.”

---

^[1] R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. II: Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), ix.

^[2] R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. III: The Intent of the Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1999), ix.

^[3] Vol. II, 636.

^[4] Vol. III, 79.

^[5] R. J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity, 1987 edition, 66.

Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for Faith for All of Life. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and is the author of the Bell Mountain Series of novels.

Source

Read More

The Danger of Militant Atheism

Read More

Media Bias Against Faith Reporting

Last month 43 Catholic institutions across America joined together to defend the First Amendment and filed a total of 12 lawsuits against the Administration in order to protect the right to freedom of religion on behalf of all Americans.

This is the most significant religious lawsuit in U.S. history and Christian leaders all across America have joined in support of the Catholic institutions. This lawsuit is not a single action by a few “out of touch religious leaders,” as the liberal national media would like to portray it.

In addition to 12 various lawsuits against the mandate with a total of 43 plaintiffs from religious hospitals, colleges and universities, and dioceses, the U.S. Catholic Bishops are preparing for the largest campaign of civil disobedience since the 1960’s during the civil rights movement.

Despite the unprecedented and historic nature of this event, the media have largely ignored it. Bias by omission has been a repetitive theme among the liberal national media and this obvious showing of bias is almost as scary as the Obama administration’s battle against religious freedom.

The print media have buried it in the back pages of the newspapers. The Washington Post, USA Today, and New York Times hardly gave the story coverage, with a few paragraphs in the back of the first section. The TV networks also swept the lawsuit under the rug. NBC and ABC completely omitted the newsworthy suit impacting almost all Americans directly. NBC did find time to air a story on comedian Kristin Wiig leaving the show Saturday Night Live and on the death of Eugene Polley, the inventor of the remote control. CBS shared the news of the lawsuit with their audience for roughly 20 seconds.

If the lawsuit is mentioned in the media at all, it is framed as an issue of a woman’s right to contraception. Despite what the liberal national media may believe, the American people are smart enough to figure out the truth. This is an issue much larger than birth control; it is about the fundamental right of all Americans to religious freedom and all the First Amendment Rights.

The Catholic institutions filed the lawsuit due to new Obamacare regulations that force religious institutions to pay for coverage of anti-abortion drugs, regardless of the employers’ religious and moral objections. The new regulation mandating that all religious employers must provide health care insurance plans that include sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives (including those that can induce abortions) is an attack on the Constitution itself and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

How can the liberal media ignore 12 different lawsuits being filed in federal courts that each charge the Administration with violating the Church’s First Amendment right? The silence is deafening and seems to be deliberate.

The liberal national media continue to show their bias by their lack of coverage of this historical event.

Source

Read More

Student Tebowed at Graduation, Diploma Withheld by Mother

By Daniel Distant

A teen Tebowing during his graduation ceremony Saturday caused his diploma to be withheld by Florida school officials, who didn't want the high school senior's actions to be an "inspiration" for other antics.

Chuck Shriner, 17, of Bishop Verot's Catholic school, was bet $5 by his friends that he wouldn't go on stage and imitate the popular pose of the New York Jets' Christian quarterback. They underestimated him; he Tebowed on stage- dropping to one knee to pray- while parents and students erupted in laughter.

"I just thought it was fun," the teen told Naples News. "I was just doing it to make graduation memorable."

School administrators took the prank more seriously, however, thinking the act could lead to more shenanigans during ceremonies.

"They said what I did would give underclassmen inspiration to do something else, that it might lead to something else," Shriner explained. They then punished the football player to "set an example."

After the incident, Shriner was told that he would be cleaning up the gymnasium where the graduation was held as penance for his actions. In addition, his mother- a mathematics teacher at the school- had pushed for the graduate to have his diploma withheld.

Like us on Facebook

"She's a math teacher there," said the student. "It was all her idea."

Apparently, she suggested the punishment to "teach him a lesson"- seniors were specifically instructed not to deviate from the normal walk across stage, but Shriner did it anyway.

"We were told not to mess around during [graduation]," said the senior.

While his diploma was withheld for a short time, eventually it was released to his mother. She also admitted to the senior what she had done, and how she had influenced school administrators to exacerbate the original penalty.

"She was really mad," said Shriner. "But I think it was worth it."

The senior's mom has at least one reason to be proud: her son is attending the University of Central Florida in the fall to study mechanical engineering. Shriner was similarly proud of his stunt, and posted it on Facebook for all to see.

"Moment in my life I'll never forget, getting my diploma taken away for doing the Tebow on stage in front of (Principal John) Cavell. So worth it," he wrote.

Read More

'The Daily Show' Loses A Big Sponsor Over Anti-Christian Bigotry

This is how you deal with leftism and their cultural marxism.

Welcome to the era of economic boycotts.

Delta Airlines is pulling advertising from The Daily Show.

You see, The Catholic League put some pressure on Delta Airlines to pull its advertising from that show after Jon Stewart's "vagina manger" segment.

It was a supposedly comedic scene in which a naked woman was depicted with a nativity scene ornament between her legs.

And that's just hilarious, isn't it?

In case you're not aware, Jon Stewart is basically the comedic mouthpiece for the DNC. He and Colbert, anyway. They are both 21st century left-wing political cartoonists. And this "vagina manger" thing was an attempt to forward that whole "war on women" nonsense which has been handily and repeatedly debunked.

And that brings us to The Catholic League, who organized a boycott against companies that advertise on Stewart's show.

And, coincidentally, one of those advertisers has pulled its advertising. Although they say it has nothing to do with The Catholic League.

Sure. And the Pope's Jewish.

Read More

Delta Stops Advertising on 'Daily Show' After Anti-Christian 'Vagina Manger' Skit

Source

(CNSNews.com) - Delta Air Lines has decided to stop sponsoring Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” after it aired a political skit featuring a picture of a Christian manger scene placed between a nude woman’s spread legs.

“We are constantly evaluating our advertising strategy and at this time we no longer advertise during ‘The Daily Show,’” Leslie Scott, a Delta spokesperson, told CNSNews.com in a statement read over the phone. “Delta advertises in a variety of places in order to reach our customers and support our business. This advertising is not intended as an endorsement of any opinions expressed by these outlets.”

Scott did not specifically mention the skit in question, but it has been criticized by Christian groups. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has been running a campaign for sponsors to stop advertising on the program until Stewart apologizes.

In the April 16 “Daily Show” segment dubbed ‘Vagina Manger,’ Stewart showed a picture of a naked woman with a nativity scene image placed at her crotch, between her spread legs. The image included depictions of Joseph, Mary, baby Jesus, and an angel. (Click here to see image -- Warning: Graphic.)

“Maybe women could protect their reproductive organs from unwanted medical intrusions with vagina mangers,” said Stewart after the picture appeared on-air during the segment, which was aimed at mocking Fox News for allegedly not covering the so-called war on women.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, praised Delta for its decision to no longer sponsor “The Daily Show,” according to a May 7 press release from the organization.

“We need to support advertisers who act responsibly,” he said.

Back on Apr. 26, the Catholic League had invited Americans to contact Delta Air Lines "in pressuring Comedy Central to have Jon Stewart apologize for his 'vagina manger' assault on Christian sensibilities. the airline giant is one of 'The Daily Show's most prominent sponsors."

Over the last few weeks, the Catholic League has complained about the skit to the major sponsors of Stewart’s show, which is focused on news satire and airs on Viacom-owned Comedy Central.

The Catholic League is contacting sponsors to drop their advertising as a way for Comedy Central to pressure Stewart into apologizing.

“This unprecedented vulgar assault on Christians cannot stand. If Jon Stewart doesn’t apologize, we will mount a boycott of his show’s advertisers,” said Donohue on April 17, the day after the skit aired. “And we will enlist our allies in the Protestant, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim communities.”

One of those major sponsors is Kellogg’s. In a May 4 press release, the Catholic League quoted a response from the cereal-maker.

“We understand that our customers come from a variety of backgrounds, experiences, lifestyles, and cultures and we respect their individual decisions to choose the television programs that they deem acceptable for themselves and their families. Consumers speak most loudly when they vote with their remote control and change the channel or turn off the TV if a program does not fit their personal criteria,” said Kellogg’s, which is based out of Battle Creek, Mich.

Regarding the sponsor’s comments, Donohue called for a “national boycott” of Kellogg’s cereal and accused the company of showing a “collapse of decency.”

“Kellogg’s is telling Christians to shove it. But they made a mistake. We will now send the indefensible picture to their senior management and board, as well as to community leaders, religious and secular, throughout Battle Creek, Michigan. We are also calling for a national boycott of all Kellogg’s cereals,” said Donohue.

The Catholic Leagues campaign to have Stewart’s major sponsors pull their advertising officially began on April 19. Among the sponsors contacted by the league are Kraft Foods, SUBWAY, Mars, Inc., The Hershey Company, The Wrigley Company, Paramount Farms, Anheuser-Busch, InBev, and Ace Hardware Corporation.

Delta Air Lines has been the only company contacted who has taken action to drop Stewart’s sponsorship.

On April 21, while performing in Florida, Stewart noted that the Catholic League was boycotting him.

“I’m not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance,” he said, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

After the manger scene skit aired, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell challenged Stewart to perform the same style of so-called comedy with a Koran or Torah.

“Come on, Jon. We dare you to prove you are an equal opportunity bigot. Your grotesque stunt displaying a Nativity scene in a vulgar manner to take a jab at Fox News is but the latest in a long line of unacceptable behavior and hypocrisy when it comes to the media’s treatment of traditional Christianity,” said Bozell in a press release. “Doing something similar with the Koran or the Torah is equally offensive. Since you’re so brave to offend Christians, are you equally brave to offend Muslims and Jews? We dare you."

"Stewart thought he was being cute when he displayed a manger scene in front of a woman’s genitals to mock those allegedly ignoring the 'war on women,’” said Bozell. “If he’s such a daring political comedian, he should demonstrate his boldness by performing the same routine, but this time with a Koran and the Torah. Otherwise he is not only a bigot but also an outright coward.”

Read More

By MarcusPorcius

Dan Savage is well known for being a loud-mouthed Christian-bashing jerk, unless you’re a liberal, in which case he’s a hero of the “LGBT community.” He regularly releases vulgar attacks on anyone who doesn’t believe as he does, his most infamous attack being the Google bomb on Rick Santorum. He was at it again Friday, this time attacking Christian teenagers while giving the keynote address at the JEA/NSPA National High School Journalism Convention. Warning: Graphic Language.

Remember, this is supposed to be about bullying. Seems like he’s bullying Christian teenagers, does it not?

Three things immediately come to mind.

1. While some did walk out the majority of the crowd did not, and in fact cheered him on for his Christian bashing. This is the end result of decades of Christian bashing in public schools and pro-gay propaganda in same schools. The objective of course is to raise kids that react this way to Christian bashing and to carry that attitude into their future journalism so that Christians and conservatives are routinely mocked in the press.
2. Where was the Muslim bashing? Do they not execute gays in Muslim countries to this day?
3. Where was the UN bashing when they in fact passed an amendment to remove being gay as a reason to condemn executions?

The answers to the last two questions are obvious. Like all militant liberal activists, Dan Savage is an intellectually dishonest loser whose “principles” extend exactly as far as is convenient to promote the overall liberal agenda. Don’t get me wrong. Dan Savage will bash and has bashed Muslims but not in front of gatherings like this, where he might actually be accused of hate speech and be subjected to disapproval from his liberal ilk. Which brings me to my next point.

Dan Savage is a coward.

Dan Savage is a foul mouthed jerk, but more than that, he is a coward.

I’ve long said that laws used to be about keeping order and protecting the weak, but that they’ve devolved into protecting the jerks and criminals in our society instead. Dan Savage is the poster child of that maxim. In the old days, calling someone a coward meant that you had to stand up for the claim and if necessary fight it out. If you dared people to face you, and they actually did, you couldn’t get away with filing a restraining order or calling the cops.

And you couldn’t stand at a podium, curse at children, call them “pansy assed” and expect to keep your teeth for more time than it took for a parent of one of those children to reach that podium. In the old days you got exactly what you deserved for this sort of behavior. These days you claim to be the victim, and your “attacker” goes to jail, maybe even for a “hate” crime, ironically enough.

By the way, while I would never challenge Dan Savage to a fight or try to incite anyone else to, because he would have me or anyone else prosecuted and probably sue as well (being the previously described coward). Let’s just say in general terms that given a legal and justified opportunity, I would love to see Dan Savage given a chance to prove how tough he really is. I would love, just once, to see Dan Savage prove that he is in fact not the pansy ass he claims teenagers are.

Oh, and please, please, please God let Dan Savage do some Muslim bashing (for a change) to a gathering of Islamic journalists. Go on Dan. I dare you.

The Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association are Christian haters and hypocrites.

Dan Savage of course holds no remorse for his cowardly, may I say, pansy-assed behavior. But the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association should, and they don’t. This was the extent of their “apology:”

We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,” the NSPA wrote. “some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.”

The NSPA said they did not have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech and that wish “he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists.” They also said it provided a “teachable moment” for students.

As for Savage’s attack on people of faith?

“While some of his earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions,” they wrote.

Where to begin? How about the line about journalists listening to speech that offends them, for starters? If Dan Savage was a fundamentalist Christian giving a speech bashing gays, would they have expected the kids to sit for that? Somehow I doubt it.

They said they didn’t have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech. Didn’t they ask for one? Of course not, and that’s because they knew exactly what he was likely to say. They booked him as the keynote speaker, did they not? I’m sure he wasn’t picked out of the phone book at random. They knew exactly who he is and exactly what kinds of things he’s infamous for and that is exactly why they booked him. The NSPA and JEA are liberal, pro-gay, Christian-hating organizations and they picked Dan Savage for the specific things they knew he would say to these kids.

“Teachable moment?” Really? Like what, that Christian bashing is okay? That you must accept the gay agenda or be mocked and attacked in front of your peers (true to life, unfortunately)?

Some of his comments were “strongly worded?” Is that would they would have said if he had replaced Christian with “Muslim” and Bible with “Koran?” Again, I think it’s okay to doubt that. Hypocrites all.

They didn’t want students to “get hurt?” No, it’s more that they didn’t expect any students to be hurt, because they assumed that they would be approving of Savage’s Christian bashing, and in fact most of them were. Furthermore the NSPA and JEA didn’t care the least if some of the students were in fact hurt, because those Christian anti-gay bigots deserved it, right?

You people should be ashamed, but I know you aren’t because you did this deliberately. Unfortunately the law protects your teeth as well.

Source

Read More

Dan Savage: 'Tolerant' bully

They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.

You know: “Forward.”

The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.

Creepy stuff.

No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.

Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).

Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.

While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls–t in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls–t in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.

He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).

But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya–ed people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles as “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”

Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f–k himself.”

Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.

Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f–k himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f–king dead.”

Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.

Thanks for proving my point, Dan.

Source

Read More

American Idol Producers Tell Contestant to Tone Down Christian References

The producers of the hit show American Idol apparently told one of its top contestants to tone down his overtly Christian references if he wants to win the competition.

According to Today.com, Colton Dixon doesn't care and "plans to continue using the show and social media to spread his message of faith":

"When we first started the Twitter and Facebook stuff, they said beware of political and religious tweets," he told TODAY.com. "Just because it can turn off voters or whatever. But, you know, being a Christian is who I am. It is a part of me musically. It is what I want to do after the show -- go into Christian music." [...]

"I am not going to hide it, and I am not going to stray away from it just because I am on a TV show." [...]

"I wake up and I do devotional every morning," he added. "It reminds me why I am here, which is to share the love of God. I know there are several other contestants who can say the exact same thing. But it is a part of me and I want to share it -- no matter what, good or bad outcome. It is me."

Frankly, I'm not sure the producers understand who their audience is.

Fans of the show know full well that country singers like Carrie Underwood, Kelli Pickler, and Kelly Clarkson do well on the program because so many of the viewers are folks from red states as opposed to California and New York.

We got proof of that in 2009 when blue state favorite Adam Lambert lost in the finals to the more folksy, Arkansas-born Kris Allen.

At the time, many felt this actually became a red state-blue state battle with folks having little interest in the show casting votes to show support for liberal and conservative values.

As Allen ended up winning, Idol producers might want to rethink Dixon toning down anything as he has cruised into the top ten and definitely seems a favorite of the judges and the audience up to this point.

On the other hand, as these are the same folks that decided to pay tribute to President Obama in the middle of Wednesday's show, their political views might regularly get in the way of knowing what's in their financial best interest.

As for Dixon, he's been a breath of fresh air in this writer's opinion, and that was before I had any idea what his religious beliefs were.

Just seemed like a fine young man with a heck of a voice to me.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/16/american-idol-producers-told-contestant-tone-down-christian-reference#ixzz1pJdwdl6J

Read More

Democrat Calls Obama’s Contraception Mandate “Bone-headed”

Yeah, about that "mandate" thing...

“At least five Senate Democrats have expressed serious concerns over the new regulation, many of them being of Catholic faith. One Senator, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) called the decision by the administration and the Health and Human Services “bone-headed.”

West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin, introduced a bill to the Senate today which calls for blocking the federal mandate.”

Read More

Evangelical Pastor and Followers Violently Attacked by Hindu Mob

Seems like militant atheists and muslims are not alone in their drive to kill Christians

An Evangelical Pastor and Christian church goers were attacked by a violent Hindu mob, in what critics have identified as religious hate crimes.

According to sources, the Pastor, identified only as Pastor Kiran, was accompanied by a group of evangelical Christians while visiting a fellow church member in Nalgonda district, South East India's Andhra Pradesh state.

According to witnesses, an unidentified group of Hindu fundamentalists became outraged after they spotted Kiran and his group carrying some Christian literature, according to All India Christian Council (AICC).

The mob accused the evangelicals of plotting to conduct forced conversions, suggesting that Kiran and his group were seeking to convert non-Christians to Christianity whether or not the non-Christians were willing.

Although Kiran has vigorously denied the allegations, he and the church members were reportedly severely beaten although sources deny that there were any serious injuries.

It is believed that the pastor was taken to a local police station, by the angry Hindu mob, where law enforcement failed to file any charges against him which critics attribute to Kiran's innocence.

Hindu extremism appears to be on the rise in India, with an increase in attacks against Christian pastors becoming more prevalent.

On Wednesday, Protestant Pastor Pabita Mohan Kota's Kandhamal district home was attacked by what sources confirm was Hindu extremists, according to BosNewsLife.

Kota's wife, whose name is being withheld for security purposes, said that her family was attacked in a religious hate crime.

One of the extremists was, "...in an inebriated state due to consumption of liquor and came shouting towards our house...He pushed my daughters, shouting 'You Christians must not live here. It is not your permanent owned or legal land,'" Kota's wife told BosNewsLife.

Kota, who is an already frail old man, has seen his health worsen since the attack and one missionary described the toll which the attacks have had on the pastor and his family.

"Though damage to the house is not much, the mental torture, tension and fear is much and irreparable," Missionary K J Markose of the Catholic Montfort Missionaries group said.

Markose also said that the pastor is on trial vigorously denying "false claims" that critic argue have stemmed from heightened religious tensions.

Hinduism is the dominant religion in India with over 80 percent of the population identifying themselves as Hindu. Christians are still overwhelming minority, accounting for roughly 2 percent of the population.

The Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) are urging Christians to write to the Chief Minister and demand security for Christians and their churches.

Benge Nsenduluka
Christian Post Contributor

Read More

Hate speech against Tim Tebow

"Tim Tebow is more than just a sports phenomenon. He’s a cultural phenomenon. For starters, Tebow’s very existence is somehow controversial. He’s a walking pro-life testimonial. He’s been pulling off comebacks since before he was born. Pam Tebow, Tim’s mother, courageously chose to carry baby Tim to term despite doctors’ recommendations that she abort him.

You may recall that before Tim went pro, the Christian group, Focus on the Family, commissioned an innocuous TV ad that ran during the 2010 Saints-Colts Super Bowl game. It briefly told the story of the Tebows’ pre-natal struggle. The word “abortion” was never even uttered, but a positive portrayal of childbearing was all it took.

And so began the left’s hate affair with Tim Tebow. Radical feminist groups, media-types and liberal pundits alike lost their collective noodle even before the ad ran.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW), told ABC News that Tim’s story of survival was “really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!” she barked. Tim wasn’t dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother’s womb, you see.

The New York-based Women’s Media Center launched a failed censorship petition drive to pull the ad, framing it as an “attack on choice.” Get it? Pam Tebow chose alright; she just happened to make the wrong “choice,” and dared to share about it publicly.

But as a Denver Bronco, Tim Tebow’s profile has grown exponentially. So too has the left’s hatred for him. This is due in large part to his very open Christian faith. After each game, Tim begins by thanking God: “First and foremost, I’d like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

And who hasn’t heard of “Tebowing,” wherein one drops to a knee in prayer?

Source

Read More

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895).

“His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5).

Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms.

A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325).

In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged.

In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time.

Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule.

There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....

These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide.

In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37).

Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer.

He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden).

Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure.

Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable.

Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle.

Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.

Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895.

At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas.

According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.

There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible.

A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)

On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today).

Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued.

Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

Fonte

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.

Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.

Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.

Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.

Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.

Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).

Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.

Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.

Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Read More

Hating Tim Tebow

January 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - I grew up in Denver and am admittedly biased. I’m a Denver Broncos fanatic. In the Mile High City, the Broncos are more than just a football team; they’re an institution.

Everybody loves a comeback. Former Broncos quarterback John Elway — one of the greatest QBs in NFL history — had comebacks in his DNA. Since he retired in 1999 after back-to-back Super Bowl wins, Denver fans have been jonesing for that regular shot of adrenaline Elway provided week in, week out.

Enter Tim Tebow. In the category of, “Holy cow, can he actually do it?” no Broncos QB since Elway has delivered like Tebow has. He feels familiar. This is what Broncos fans expect. We don’t do steady. We prefer up and down, high and low until that improbable rocket launch to victory in the final seconds of the game.

Tebow’s very existence is somehow controversial. He’s a walking pro-life testimonial.

Will Tebow end up an NFL great like John Elway? That remains to be seen. Opinions are all over the place. But what is certain is that Tim Tebow is more than just a sports phenomenon. He’s a cultural phenomenon.

For starters, Tebow’s very existence is somehow controversial. He’s a walking pro-life testimonial. He’s been pulling off comebacks since before he was born. Pam Tebow, Tim’s mother, courageously chose to carry baby Tim to term despite doctors’ recommendations that she abort him.

You may recall that before Tim went pro, the Christian group, Focus on the Family, commissioned an innocuous TV ad that ran during the 2010 Saints-Colts Super Bowl game. It briefly told the story of the Tebows’ pre-natal struggle. The word “abortion” was never even uttered, but a positive portrayal of childbearing was all it took.

And so began the left’s hate affair with Tim Tebow. Radical feminist groups, media-types and liberal pundits alike lost their collective noodle even before the ad ran.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW), told ABC News that Tim’s story of survival was “really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!” she barked. Tim wasn’t dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother’s womb, you see.

The New York-based Women’s Media Center launched a failed censorship petition drive to pull the ad, framing it as an “attack on choice.” Get it? Pam Tebow chose alright; she just happened to make the wrong “choice,” and dared to share about it publicly.

But as a Denver Bronco, Tim Tebow’s profile has grown exponentially. So too has the left’s hatred for him.

This is due in large part to his very open Christian faith. After each game, Tim begins by thanking God: “First and foremost, I’d like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

And who hasn’t heard of “Tebowing,” wherein one drops to a knee in prayer?

Then there’s Tim’s favorite Bible verse, John 3:16, which he’s known to wear painted in black swaths under each eye. After the Broncos’ recent electrifying playoff win against the Pittsburgh Steelers in overtime, John 3:16 was reportedly the most popular search term on the Internet.

Remarkably, during the game Tebow passed for precisely 316 yards and averaged 31.6 yards per completed pass. The television viewing audience for the last 15 minutes of the game was 31.6 percent. This only added to the mystique.

So big was the story, in fact, that major news outlets like CNN ran the text of John 3:16 in its entirety: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

The attention that Tebow’s bold Christian faith has drawn to the Gospel message has secular “progressives” and other God-deniers tied in knots.

American Atheists, a New Jersey-based group that promotes religious cleansing from the public sphere, says that Tebow is “full of cr*p.”

“Tebow takes religion and injects it into the mix and divides the fan base,” complained David Silverman, the group’s president.

“[Religion] injects the divisive force into football,” he continued (because, absent religion, football is just a touchy-feely snuggle fest). “Why in the world are we talking about religion when we are talking about football?” he demanded.

Of course, Tim Tebow is merely doing what Jesus asks of his followers: “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32)

The problem is that secular “progressives” don’t want Christ acknowledged before anyone, period; and they endeavor to shut down or mock anybody who tries.

During the Broncos’ regular season loss to the Buffalo Bills, for instance, “progressive” troglodyte and pseudo-intellectual funnyman Bill Maher tweeted about the game, encapsulating the left’s visceral hatred for Tim Tebow in 140 characters or less: “Wow, Jesus just [expletive deleted] #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler ‘Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.’”

Jesus addressed the Bill Mahers of the world — past, present and future — on more than one occasion. In John 15:18-20, for instance, He reminds His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Those who belong to the world do indeed hate Tim Tebow. He stands for much of what our postmodern popular culture despises: sexual purity within the bonds of natural marriage, the sanctity of human life, selflessness, personal charity, humility and much, much more.

I mean, Tim Tebow has never even been arrested for drug possession or sexual assault, for crying out loud. We simply can’t allow children this kind of role model.

So, does God care about who wins NFL football games? Probably not. Does he care about those who play, watch and love football? Unquestionably.

Win or lose, no matter what happens with the rest of the Denver Broncos football season, one thing is for sure: people will keep talking about Tim Tebow. And when people are talking about Tim Tebow, they can’t help but talk about the profound faith that drives him both on and off the field.

In the meantime: Go Broncos!

Source

Read More

Feds' War on Religion

Chuck Norris

Anyone who knows me knows that for my whole life, I've been a huge supporter of our U.S. military personnel, whom I congratulate about their victory in Iraq. But when our president and officials in the U.S. Department of Defense exchange a war abroad for a religious war at home, can't we see that something else is seriously awry in this administration?

It's one thing to watch "merry Christmas" be omitted from signs in your favorite department store but quite another to see Bibles withheld from wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

It's true! On Dec. 2, the Family Research Council reported that it had discovered a memo released in September at the esteemed military hospital, in which Navy officials announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

Thank God for those in the FRC, as well as Rep. Randy Forbes and other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who demanded to meet with officials at Walter Reed and in the Navy about the matter. Just a few days ago, Vice Adm. John Mateczun confessed that the memo had not been properly evaluated and was being rescinded, and Walter Reed posted a public apology on its website.

But imagine if the FRC had not found this memo. Imagine how many others like it aren't found and are circulated around the federal government.

If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.

--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."

--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.

--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."

--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.

--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.

--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.

--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.

--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.

--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.

What is going on in the U.S. military? Why is it so difficult for the feds to understand the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which says they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

And how many of these restrictions of our religious liberties are direct results of President Obama's being in office? And if these occurred in just the past six months, imagine what would happen in another four years if Obama were to be re-elected. Our service members, as well as our devoted military Christian chaplains, deserve better.

Gone are the days when the commander in chief rallied the troops and nation with a religious presidential call as Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt did. FDR declared in his Christmas address to the nation Dec. 24, 1944 (the first Christmas after D-Day):

"Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will. ...

We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth, in which all the nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come."

SOURCE

Read More

Debbie Schlussel can't take it anymore

Deborah is tired of liberal double-standard.

I’m getting sick and tired of the attacks on Tim Tebow from the religiously intolerant. Even though I am not a Christian, as a religious Jew I see the attacks on him as attacks on me and all religious Jews and Christians. Later on that night, I received the e-mail below from the radio host, who invoked his barely-there Judaism, as if that has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

You should note that there are many Jewish fans of Tim Tebow, including Jared Kleinstein, the man who founded and runs Tebowing.com and several rabbis, as detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

But the message on the air was very clear: Islamic terrorists and their enablers–good, VERY GOOD! Devout Christian NFL players who are successful on the field–Just plain TERRIBLE!

Read More