Don’t Trust the B — or it’s sponsors!

ABC’s trash show “Don’t Trust the B— in Apt. 23,  though a repeat, brings degradation whether it is a new episode or old.  It is what it is:  trash!

Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing profanity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

There were a total of 18 advertisers with 8 repeat (44% of advertisers were repeaters.)

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

 

Old Advertisers include:  McDonalds, Netflix, Kia, Hellmann’s – Unilever, L’Oreal and others.

 

New advertisers include:  Burlington, Mazda, Virgin Mobile and a few others. And while the word “b—ch” may not be explicitly stated in the title, it has certainly been used  within the show.  Just five years ago that type of disgusting language would have been rarely heard on network television. Now such language is becoming regular fare.

As one commentator stated:  “People are raised mimicking media — TV is the other parent — and kids are growing up without common decency and respect for each other.   They’re fed that women are second-class citizens; women are bitches …”

And Erin M. Fuller, president of the Alliance for Women in Media, stated:  “Obviously, they’re using it to be polarizing and controversial and attention-getting. Why else would you use that word?  I don’t think … that word is a celebration of women.”

Yet, as indicative of how far we’ve fallen, this new show has garnered little criticism, but loads of acclaim for its “edginess” and “humor.”

We need to let our voices be heard!  Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing obscenity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/don%E2%80%99t-trust-the-b-or-it%E2%80%99s-sponsors/#more-6737

Debating Same-Sex Marriage

This week, the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear any more arguments on gay marriage.

Appellate Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain‘s dissent was scathing: “Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign state to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia,” he said. Worse, the judge went on, the decision overrules the votes of 7 million Californians based on an interpretation of Romer v. Evans that would be “unrecognizable” to those who wrote it.

Serendipitously, this is also the week that Oxford University Press releases my new book, “Debating Same-Sex Marriage,” co-authored with professor John Corvino.

Professor Corvino and I break modest new, but important, ground in “achieving disagreement” — in understanding why and how good, decent, intelligent and loving people disagree so profoundly on gay marriage.

This is the only book in the history of the world that ever has been or likely ever will be endorsed by both Dan Savage and former-Sen. Rick Santorum — and that alone says a lot about how difficult this marriage debate has become.

Most gay marriage advocates literally do not understand how anyone can disagree with them.

But at the heart of the gay marriage debate for me is a question of truth: Is it true that two men in a union are a marriage? If not, then there is no good reason for government to pretend that they are a marriage or insist we treat them as if they are.

In “Debating Same-Sex Marriage,” I look at whether key marriage norms “work” in the same way for same-sex and opposite sex couples. The answer is clearly no. The biggest difference is that no same-sex union can ever make new life and connect that child to his mother and father.

But there are other “norms” attached to marriage that make no sense for same-sex couples. For example, for gay men, being sexually faithful appears to carry no advantage in terms of relationship happiness or permanence, just as it appears to carry no risk of creating children outside the pair-bond. Sexual fidelity is core to marriage — its happiness and its permanence. But it is not core to how two men sustain a relationship over a lifetime, or prevent their bond from being diluted by children created outside the union.

Yet gay marriage not only will have consequences, it already is visibly having them. “Marriage equality” as an idea means viewing traditional understanding of marriage as morally wicked and illegitimate — “discriminatory” and “bigoted” and “hateful” in the lexicon of sexual liberalism.

Sexual liberalism is a new public morality that tries to reform society based on two great lies about human nature: Men and women are just the same; and sex has nothing necessarily to do with babies.

At the heart of sexual liberalism is severing the ties between sex and procreation, which requires culturally shoving the reality of procreation under a big, wet mental blanket. Sexual liberalism requires a new set of sexual taboos to blind our minds and divert our attention from great and obvious and important human realities, first in the name of gender equality and now orientation equality.

The most important thing about sex is that it makes new life and either connects or disconnect babies to their mother and their father. A culture that no longer actively and energetically strives with great vigor to connect sex, love, babies, and mothers and fathers, sees these things fragment at great human cost.

The word for how we connect them is “marriage.”

That the majority of the American people continue to vote for marriage is a moving testimony to the power the truth exerts, relentlessly but not inevitably, over ideology. To willfully blind ourselves to these enduring sexual truths is a form of self-mutilation to which the human soul only uneasily accedes.

Combining the goods of liberalism (respect for pluralism, diversity, maximum opportunities and social respect across deep moral divides) with the great task of any human civilization in sustaining a marriage culture is hard and would require original and thoughtful moral and social work.

But it begins with the immense project of rejecting the lies on which sexual liberalism is based

Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

http://townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/2012/06/07/debating_samesex_marriage/page/full/

Marriage is Marriage – Period

In this life, a number of relationships are of great significance, such as the relationship between a customer and his banker, a patient and his doctor, or even a congregant and his pastor. These are important relationships-some of which produce near-familial emotions, binding people together at a deep, deep level.

 

And while all of these relationships are important, they are but proximate compared with the ultimate earthly relationship—and that is marriage.

 

In fact, among relationships, marriage stands out as the one which is absolutely essential to the future of humanity. Despite this inarguable fact, marriage is under assault. And while this assault is but one front in the battle against Western Civilization as a whole, it could prove the most crucial if we lose it.

 

The enemies of marriage, striking at it tooth and nail, are varied in their approaches.

 

Those who advocate homosexual behavior, bolstered by the president’s support for same-sex “marriage,” are actively seeking to redefine marriage from what it always has been to what they demand it should become, which is anything and nothing. And this entails the willingness of many such advocates ” to invoke  the authority of ancient pagan civilizations in which practices condemned by the Judeo-Christian ethic sometimes flourished.”

 

Against all evidence, empirical and otherwise, those who wish to redefine marriage contend that permanently depriving a child of a father or mother is just as good for children as providing them homes with a father and mother. They have elevated the idea of diversity to a point approaching sacrosanct, and in so doing, have trampled the unifying qualities of real marriage underfoot.

 

This assault on marriage is also being carried out by those contending for polygamy. However, the danger of these relationships was recently highlighted by the British Columbia Supreme Court, which ruled Canada’s laws against Polygamy ” must remainin place because of the harm polygamist marriages would pose to children.”

 

Others pursue quasi-polygamy in hopes of escaping such prohibitions. This arrangement is one in which a man has numerous wives, yet he only recognizes one in a state-condoned, official marriage. All his other wives, whom he uses and abuses as he sees fit, are simply regarded as “spiritual spouses.” It’s a play on words, but the damage it causes to families is no less significant.

 

Against these and many other marriage deviations stands the genuine article—the union of one man and one woman. Established in a garden long ago, it is based on the complementariness of the male and female body to produce life and unity between a husband and wife, their offspring, and their Creator. This is marriage without hyphenations and qualifiers, where a mother and a father raise a family in the way mothers and fathers have been raising families since the dawn of time.

 

In other words, the marriage we defend and protect is just that—marriage.

 

Marriage is marriage, and nothing else is. And the future of humanity literally depends on it staying that way.

Alan Sears

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

http://townhall.com/columnists/alansears/2012/06/07/marriage_is_marriage__period/page/full/

Disney’s Cynical Pro-Obama Ploy

On the heels of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest stupid regulations commanding a shrinkage in the size of sugary drinks in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums, the Walt Disney Co. has announced it will ban ads for products on its broadcast and online platforms that it has scientifically determined are “junk food” and do not meet the company’s nutrition standards.

Curiously, Disney announced that it would begin this new effort immediately — wait, no, at some time in 2015. So why announce this now? It would seem so that Disney could be praised and honored by first lady Michelle Obama — or the other way around. It just smells. It carries a distinct aroma of campaign 2012.

Imagine that: Michelle Obama praised Disney to the skies because “As parents, we know that whatever is on TV is what our kids are going to want. I remember, as (Disney boss) Bob (Iger) has discussed, going to the grocery store with the kids, and the minute you walk down the aisle the kids are singing some jingle, or they’re pulling on your leg begging you, pleading you for whatever they saw on TV.”

The first lady painted a picture that every parent is “preparing those nutritious meals and snacks, and we’re doing our best to teach our kids healthy habits. But when the kids turn on the TV to watch their favorite shows — all that hard work is undermined whenever there is a commercial break.”

Disney isn’t the Nanny State and has every right to proceed with its own standards, even if such supposedly critically necessary new standards, which could be implemented next week, won’t be imposed for another three years. But to what degree will Disney’s politically correct new standards hurt existing businesses that aren’t at fault?

It is undoubtedly true that most American parents believe Twinkies, super-size French fries and the like would qualify as “junk food.” But the stated ban would also kill commercials for products that just don’t fall in this category — Oscar Mayer Lunchables, and Capri Sun juice boxes, etc.

Disney, on the other hand, will suffer little financial pain. Kantar Media estimates this will affect less than 1 percent of Disney’s total annual advertising sales, which came in at $7.6 billion last year.

The Hollywood Reporter suggests that by 2015, the marketing shift will already be complete any way. “The days of whimsical commercials on Saturday morning cartoons where Cap’n Crunch fights pirates are coming to an end,” said Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research. “Now he’ll be seen checking his weight and playing baseball. … Disney is just catching up to reality.”

There’s something that is so annoying here. I mean, really. Do we really, really care? Should we throw up our hands and scream “Hallelujah!” because we can now mark the beginning of the end of CCD (Cap’n Crunch Disease) and MFLS (Mad Froot Loops Syndrome).

ABC and Michelle Obama (and the journalists following them) aren’t asking a natural follow-up: If the first lady is correct that cereal and chewing gum commercials are so powerful that “whatever is on TV is what our kids are going to want,” what about the TV that’s on in between the commercials? In other words, would someone ask Michelle Obama how she thinks her daughters would enjoy ABC’s sitcom “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23″? Is that healthy for young minds? How about the pro-homosexual lifestyle pushed by her husband’s financial supporters from “Glee”?

The official Obama publicity line is their daughters are completely denied television during the school week, and there’s been negative feedback. ABC News recently suggested online that Obama could be “the first Amish president.” For the record, I think it’s wonderful. But why take money from an entertainment industry whose product is so injurious to children you won’t let your own children near it?

It would have been fun to see a reporter ask Michelle Obama if she supports Robert Iger‘s so-called ABC Family Channel airing a show called “Pretty Little Liars” that teaches young girls about teenage sex, alcoholism, smoking and lesbianism.

ABC Family was thrilled to announce the “Liars” season debut won its time slot in females 12 to 34 and female teens. It generated more than 534,000 tweets on Twitter. Does anyone think this show is “healthy” for children? Don’t you wish Michelle Obama and Disney would say something about this rather than crusading against the alleged horror of a 30-second cartoon starring Cap’n Crunch?

Brent Bozell

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/06/08/disneys_cynical_proobama_ploy/page/full/

Who Will Protect the Freedom to Blog?

Free speech is under fire. Online thugs are targeting bloggers (mostly conservative, but not all) who have dared to expose a convicted bomber and perjuring vexatious litigant who is now enjoying a comfy life as a liberally subsidized social justice operative. Where do your elected representatives stand on this threat to our founding principles?

On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, bravely stepped forward to press this vital issue. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Chambliss decried the “harassing and frightening actions” of Internet menaces who recently have gone after several conservative new media citizen journalists and activists.

GOP Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas added his voice, telling Holder in a statement that he is “very afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech.” And the American Center for Law and Justice, a leading conservative free speech public interest law firm, announced it was providing legal representation to the National Bloggers Club — a new media association that has provided support and raised funds for targets of this coordinated harassment. (Full disclosure: I volunteer on the National Bloggers Club board of directors.)

The ACLJ described the importance of the case very simply: “Free speech is under attack.”

Chambliss and Marchant called specific attention to one terrifying tactic against these bloggers: SWAT-ting. These hoaxes occur “when a perpetrator contacts local police to report a violent incident at a target’s home.” Callers disguise their true identities and locations in order to provoke a potentially deadly SWAT/police response descending upon the targets’ homes.

As online conservatives — and now ABC News — have reported, recent SWAT-ting victims include New Jersey-based Mike Stack, a blogger and Twitter user targeted last summer after helping to expose disgraced former N.Y. Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner’s shady social media activities; California blogger Patrick Frey, a deputy district attorney at Los Angeles County District Attorney‘s Office who recently posted a bone-chilling account and audio of his summer 2011 SWAT-ting on his blog, Patterico.com; and CNN contributor and RedState.com managing editor Erick Erickson, whose Georgia home was targeted by a faker claiming an “accidental shooting” there late last month.

A common thread among these and other online targets: They all have published web links, commentary or investigative pieces related to Brett Kimberlin, the infamous “Speedway Bomber.”

In 1978, Kimberlin was sentenced to more than 50 years in federal prison for drug dealing, impersonating a federal officer and a weeklong bombing spree in Speedway, Ind. The violent crimes left one victim so severely injured that he committed suicide. A civil court awarded the widow of the victim, Carl DeLong, $1.6 million. Kimberlin was released from jail in 2001, but has yet to pay up.

Investigative journalist/researcher Mandy Nagy, who blogs for the late Andrew Breitbart’s Internet media powerhouse, Breitbart.com, dared to chronicle Kimberlin’s lucrative business and political ventures over the past two years. Kimberlin has a large hand in two well-funded outfits, Velvet Revolution and the Justice Through Music Project, that have received funding from the likes of George Soros’ Tides Foundation and left-wing activist and singer Barbra Streisand. The charitable groups have viciously attacked prominent conservative individuals and groups, including Breitbart, investigative journalist James O’Keefe and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Nagy has been hounded relentlessly online and falsely accused of wild criminal conspiracies by Kimberlin associates for blowing the whistle on his shady online network.

After providing brief pro bono legal services to a liberal blogger who refused to whitewash Kimberlin’s past, conservative blogger and lawyer Aaron Walker lost his job. His employer was terrified by the thought of Kimberlin bombing his office and also fired Walker’s wife, who had worked for the same firm.

Walker is embroiled in Kafkaesque, free speech-squelching litigation with serial lawsuit-filer Kimberlin in Maryland. Last week, an inept judge who admitted abject ignorance about the Internet — and appalling apathy toward key free-speech Supreme Court cases — essentially gagged Walker from exercising his First Amendment rights and blogging about Kimberlin. Kimberlin pulled off a snow job in court, bizarrely claiming that an independent online effort to support Walker and expose Kimberlin’s past amounted to a criminal terror campaign against him. Renowned constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA is providing pro bono help to appeal the order against Walker.

National Bloggers Club President Ali Akbar was targeted for spearheading charity efforts for Kimberlin targets; stalkers publicized his mother’s home, and Texas authorities are now investigating. Another conservative blogger who had the audacity to report on Walker’s plight, Robert Stacy McCain, was forced to move out of his home last month after Kimberlin phoned his wife’s employer and intimidated his family.

Never in the eight years that I have worked as an independent blogger have I seen such a concerted threat to the fundamental right of citizen journalists to speak their minds freely and without fear of bodily harm. As former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams points out, it is a federal violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241 to conspire to deprive someone of his “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Members of Congress swore an oath to uphold the Constitution — all of it. Who means it?

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010).

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/06/08/who_will_protect_the_freedom_to_blog/page/full/

The Infection of Sin

The Infection of Sin.

Anybody for Servanthood?

“Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” Matthew 20:26

In politics, the paths to success and significance are paved with the right contacts, the right connections, and the right contributions. In Chicago, which was my adopted hometown for 20 years, a series of investigations and indictments have unearthed the steamier side of this cycle—political favors and premium jobs doled out in exchange for campaign funds and other perks. Sadly, the common defense in most of these cases is, “That’s just politics. It’s how things are done.” As one comedian aptly put it, “You know it’s cold in Chicago when the politicians have their hands in their own pockets!”

Actually, from an earth-side point of view, there may be some advantages to a “political” approach to life. Our world is all about “who you know” and “What have you done for me lately?” We are primed early on to look out for ourselves and to do whatever it takes to not miss the big break.

But if you see yourself as a follower of Christ, that kind of thinking bears little resemblance to His life and teaching. Take for instance the encounter that Jesus had with two of His most committed disciples. An encounter that only goes to prove that even the best of us can still have those political instincts alive and well, down-deep inside.

James and John grab for the brass ring as they try to cash in on some relational capital. In Matthew 20:21, we read that James and John may have convinced their mother to petition Jesus for some plum cabinet positions in the new kingdom: “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” Wow, what a bold request! But if you don’t stick up for yourself, hey, who will?

What were these guys thinking? Probably the same kinds of thoughts that cross our minds as we think about our role in Jesus’ plan: “I’m sure I could be doing that job much better than that person. When is God going to entrust that kind of position to me?” “Serve as an usher? No thanks, but don’t forget to call me when that elder position is open.” Or, “I’m really bummed that I’ve done all of this and no one has even offered a word of thanks.” Or we might think, “If I’m nice to him I can leverage our relationship to get ahead.” “We’ve had them over for dinner twice, and they have never included us in anything!”

Sound familiar? Sadly, I don’t think I’m alone in battling the inborn desire to be noticed, to be affirmed, and to feel significant. Scripture records that the other disciples were visibly ticked at James and John’s request—probably because they had beaten them to the punch and used their mother in the process. Talk about unfair leveraging of relationships!

So what is the cure for this disease of “Hey! How about me?” self-promotionitis. Well, it is found in the response of Christ when He said, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26).

A servant? The one who quietly and humbly submits to and serves the desires of others regardless of personal recognition? That doesn’t sound like the politician’s path to greatness or the world’s path to significance, does it?

But it’s the path Jesus took. Before going all the way to the cross, He told His disciples: “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). So, if we’re striving to be like Him, no task is beneath us, no person is below us, and no legitimate sacrifice is too great. From Jesus’ point of view, servanthood is the path to significance. As a friend of mine says, “In the kingdom, the way up is down!”

Let’s drop the old “What will others do for me?” routine and get on with serving others as Jesus has served us.

Your Journey . . .

• How has the world’s thinking about significance and success crept into your attitude at work, at home, and in your relationships? What struggles have you had recently with “it’s all about me” issues?
• Read Philippians 2:1-11. How was the humility of Christ demonstrated, and what was the result? What difference would having this attitude of Christ make in your life? Be specific.
• What are some practical ways that you could serve your spouse? Your children? Your co-workers? Your friends at church? The helpless and needy?
• Will your efforts to serve stop if no one says thanks or reciprocates? Serving regardless, serving because He served us, is the purest form of service!

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/anybody-for-servanthood/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GetMoreStrength+%28Strength+For+The+Journey%29

What’s Next To Do?

If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them —John 13:17

Be determined to know more than others. If you yourself do not cut the lines that tie you to the dock, God will have to use a storm to sever them and to send you out to sea. Put everything in your life afloat upon God, going out to sea on the great swelling tide of His purpose, and your eyes will be opened. If you believe in Jesus, you are not to spend all your time in the calm waters just inside the harbor, full of joy, but always tied to the dock. You have to get out past the harbor into the great depths of God, and begin to know things for yourself— begin to have spiritual discernment.

When you know that you should do something and you do it, immediately you know more. Examine where you have become sluggish, where you began losing interest spiritually, and you will find that it goes back to a point where you did not do something you knew you should do. You did not do it because there seemed to be no immediate call to do it. But now you have no insight or discernment, and at a time of crisis you are spiritually distracted instead of spiritually self-controlled. It is a dangerous thing to refuse to continue learning and knowing more.

The counterfeit of obedience is a state of mind in which you create your own opportunities to sacrifice yourself, and your zeal and enthusiasm are mistaken for discernment. It is easier to sacrifice yourself than to fulfill your spiritual destiny, which is stated in Romans 12:1-2. It is much better to fulfill the purpose of God in your life by discerning His will than it is to perform great acts of self-sacrifice. “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice . . .” (1 Samuel 15:22). Beware of paying attention or going back to what you once were, when God wants you to be something that you have never been. “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know . . .” (John 7:17).

http://utmost.org/what%E2%80%99s-next-to-do/

Liked by Most

^“Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews.” — Esther 10:3

The date was chosen. The fate of the Jews and their leader Mordecai was sealed. Even King Xerxes had consented to the plan to exterminate a minority in his own kingdom that extended to 127 provinces. As the clock ticked and the date got closer, Mordecai and Esther took action.

Mordecai was like the quarterback calling the plays and orchestrating the situation in order to save his people from the clutches of evil. In the end, he and Esther were successful. He was the hero and she the heroine. The Jews were saved and were even given an opportunity to punish their enemies.

With all that said, it’s more than surprising when the book of Esther concludes by telling us that Mordecai was held in high esteem by many of his fellow Jews. Many, but not all. After all that had happened, there were still people who weren’t Mordecai’s fans.

What was wrong with those people? Didn’t they know what Mordecai had done to save their lives? How was it possible that there were still people who did not hold Mordecai in the highest esteem?

The truth is that to anyone who has been in a position of significant leadership this isn’t a question at all. When you are a leader it is impossible to please everyone. There will always be those who believe that they can do better and they will make it known to whomever will listen.

Leaders have to make decisions that are wise, not popular. A leader who no one likes won’t have much of a following, but a leader who everyone likes probably isn’t really leading at all, either. There always needs to be a delicate balance between being sensitive to the feelings of others and doing what is best, even if unpopular. Mordecai got the balance right, and the fact that most people – but not all –loved him is the greatest tribute to his success.

Whether you are a leader out in public or just in your own private life, you too will have to make unpopular decisions. Like it or not, it’s impossible to make everyone happy all of the time. There is one person’s opinion that counts more than any other’s and that person is YOU! If there are a few people who don’t like you as a result, there is a pretty good chance that you have chosen right!

http://www.holylandmoments.org/devotionals/liked-by-most

Manny Pacquiao: Fighting the Good Fight By Chris Johnson

Have you ever tried to work out with a heavy punching bag? I got one for Christmas a few years back, set it up in the garage, did a little research on different work out routines, and went to it. The fundamentals of a heavy bag workout (from what I found online) are three minute workouts of nothing but bouncing around the bag throwing at least four punch combos. That night was my first and last workout with a punching bag.

I know I’m not the most exercise motivated guy out there, but those three minutes stretched on for what seemed like forever, and by the time it was done I was wupped.

That’s one reason that I have huge respect for Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao, known to many as the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world. Pacquiao is known for his speed, and after watching a few of his training videos, I can only imagine the training and perseverance it took to learn to throw that many punches that fast.

I say that’s one reason for my respect of Manny Pacquiao. There are many. He’s a congressman in the Philippines, he works hard to fight poverty, and he’s a reservist in the Philippine army, and he’s one of the most popular athletes in the world but most admirably, he dedicated his life to Christ several months ago and he’s pursuing Him as hard as he’s pursued his boxing career.

After a recent interview with the boxer, Pastor Rick Warren called Manny a “Bible-Quoting Maniac.” According to the Christians Post, Pacquiao told Warren, “Now, I’m a Christian, I make all my team … we all memorize Scripture together.”

His official congressional website describes how his dedication to scripture has changed his training regimen. “Pacquiao and his whole team started his “high-altitude” training at the so-called “City of Pines” since April 17 with rigid jogging for his daily morning routine and intensive gym workouts for the afternoon routine, plus the Bible sharing and Bible studies every night that make his “high-altitude” training really “high” and quite far different compared to his previous trainings here.”

 

Asked about how his new found faith would affect him in an upcoming fight, “Pacman” replied, “I have been authorized by my opponent to hit him. I have authorized him to hit me. It’s just our careers… When I hit my opponent it doesn’t mean that I don’t like him. I love him.”

Although I’m sure there are theological differences between many of us and Pacquiao, I think we all can learn from his dedication to the faith, his urgency in memorizing and living out God’s word, and his willingness to stand up – and stand out – for God.

Most recently, Pacquiao has gotten flak for disagreeing with President Obama’s recently adopted stance on gay marriage.

From the LA Times, “In an interview with National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao addressed President Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage.

 

‘God’s words first … obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man,’ Pacquiao told the Examiner.

 

‘God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married,’ the boxer is quoted as saying. ‘It should not be of the same sex, so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.‘

 

The article goes on to say that ‘Pacquiao’s directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin, inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation.”

For those remarks, the boxer has been called bigoted and hateful and was even banned from the Groves Mall in Los Angeles.

Thank God for public figures like Manny Pacquiao who are willing to proclaim His truth no matter how unpopular.

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/manny-pacquiao-fighting-the-good-fight/#more-6733