Is Not Voting Less Evil?

This presidential election is going to be about turn-out. Polls, however inaccurate they may or may not be, show the race to be almost 50-50. And while odds may be almost dead even, what’s at stake could not be more important. That’s why every Christian American needs to turn out next Tuesday to do their part in selecting the leader of this country.

The next President could influence whether or not babies will continued to be slaughtered in the womb. He could influence whether a pastor has the legal right to preach against gay marriage. He could influence whether or not hard-working Americans can find a job.

Yet, some believe that by not voting, they can somehow claim the moral high ground because neither candidate perfectly reflects their beliefs. The following article by Rev. Mark H. Creech via the Christian Post explains why not choosing “the lesser of two evils” is still choosing an evil.

Won’t Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

By Rev. Mark H. Creech , Christian Post Guest Columnist

As we rapidly approach Election Day, I’ve heard a number of my friends say that they just can’t vote for the lesser of two evils. They will neither support Obama or Romney for president; instead they’ll support a third party candidate or they won’t vote.

I have a tremendous respect for the zeal and the objectives of some of the alternative parties. Although not in complete agreement with all of their positions, I’ve been honored to speak at the conventions of the Constitution and the Christian Party in the Tar Heel state. I’ve lobbied in support of making it easier for third party groups to get on the ballot in North Carolina. I strongly believe that they should continue to make their voices heard and not lose heart.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that this is their hour. To vote for a third party candidate this election, except to satisfy one’s conscience, will do nothing more than throw the election to one of the candidates of the two major parties. Unfortunately, in such a tight race as this one, I fear it will only help give the election to Obama.

I personally believe Christians should think very carefully about the prospect of another four years of an Obama presidency versus that of a Romney presidency. Granted, Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christian. It is a cult. But I agree with Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate and a Catholic, who said he looked for where he and Romney’s “faiths come together in the same moral creed” and vision for the nation. Mormons and Catholics are strong supporters of many of the same principles of morality as conservative evangelicals. In contrast, Obama and Biden both profess to be Christians (Biden, more specifically Catholic), but tragically have put forward the most anti-Christian public-policy agenda of any presidential administration in American history. Never has there been a presidency so preferential to Islam, attacked life, undermined traditional marriage and the family, diminished religious liberty, or snubbed the nation of Israel, like the current one. I do not believe it is in the slightest hyperbole to argue that to vote for Obama, or to waste one’s vote on a third party candidate, when such a candidate cannot possibly be elected, only further jeopardizes this nation to the probability of God’s judgment.

Can Citizen Christians expect a Romney presidency to entirely meet their expectations? Probably not. They’ll have to be on their toes and fully engaged to hold a Romney administration accountable to its promises, as well as watch and trouble-shoot for unexpected problems. But make no mistake; Obama has nearly every constitutional right and virtuous way of living in his cross hairs.

Yes, speaking in the plainest of terms, Romney is the lesser of two evils for many conscientious followers of Christ. But it is also true there is a sense in which this is always the case. There will never come a day when any one politician or political party will embrace biblical values perfectly. It’s not possible because all men everywhere are totally corrupted by sin. This is not to say that every thought and action of man is tainted by evil, but only to contend, as does the Bible, that sin has contaminated every part of every person’s being. Some are more worthy of trust than others – some are more advantageous to partner with or be around than others – yet because all are inherently broken, none can ever be fully trusted.

Gary DeMar, president of American Vision, rightly contends:

“This means that any choice of a political candidate is a lesser of two totally depraved people. The people that say they will not vote for the lesser of two evils will get one of two evils whether they vote or not. In this election, they may get the greater of two evils. And it’s not just the greater evil of one man we may get, but we may get the greater of two evils when it comes to judges, new laws, executive orders, wealth confiscation, and a whole lot more. The past four years should be a wake-up call to the no lesser than two evils crowd.” [1]

Someone says, “Well then, I just won’t vote.” That doesn’t work either. It presents the same likely scenario of voting for a third party candidate, edging Obama closer to re-election.

No, this is no time for neutrality. With the deepest respect for those who contend otherwise, there are really only two choices in this election – Obama or Romney – one or the other will be president. This election, any vote cast – any vote failed to be cast – will be a vote for either the lesser or the greater of two evils.

God help us. And may God hasten the day when there are brighter times and better choices before us.

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1573

Jesus: The Ultimate Joy of Life

“That my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.” John 15:11

I was seated next to Billy Graham at a dinner in North Carolina. I don’t know how you would have felt, but, given the circumstances, I wanted to be sure to hold up my end of the deal in terms of carrying on a good conversation. So I thought it would be interesting to ask Mr. Graham what he had enjoyed most about his many years of ministry. And then (as though he might not be able to think of an answer) I threw out a couple of possibilities. “Was it being with presidents and heads of state?” I asked, and then, feeling rather carnal for suggesting such an earthly thing to the great evangelist, I quickly added, “Or, was it preaching the gospel to millions?”

I got about that far when he took his hand and moved it across the linen tablecloth as though to wipe my lame suggestions onto the floor and said, “Joe, by far and away my highest joy has been my fellowship with Jesus! To sense His presence. To hear Him speak to my heart. To have His guidance and wisdom.” And then, as though he wanted to be sure that I had gotten it right, he said again, “My highest joy has been Jesus!”

I was riveted by his words. Billy Graham—who had traveled the world, whose fame and reputation was unrivaled, who had seen millions rush to hear him speak—had just told me in a spontaneous, unrehearsed response that his fellowship with Jesus had trumped everything else in his life!

I left the dinner feeling both convicted and challenged. Convicted because I’m not sure I would have said that right off the top of my head, and challenged because that’s exactly what I would want to be able to say. I want to know Jesus like that!

But I can hear some of you saying, “Yes, but that’s Billy Graham, God’s anointed evangelist. No wonder he feels like that!” So for all of us commoners who are not Billy Graham, let me tell you about my grandmother.

She was a farmer’s wife in south central Michigan whose life was busy with preparing meals for farm hands and keeping her end of the farm up and running. No one outside of a few friends knew her. She never did anything out of the ordinary that would have grabbed headlines or thrust her into the limelight. But often she would say to me, “Little Joe, do you know what my favorite hymn is?” In fact I can still remember her singing and humming it around the house. Its words go like this . . .

I come to the garden alone,

While the dew is still on the roses;

And the voice I hear, falling on my ear,

The Son of God discloses.

And He walks with me, and He talks with me,

And He tells me I am His own,

And the joy we share as we tarry there,

None other has ever known.

So, take it from my grandmother and from Billy Graham. No matter where life has put you or what you have or what you don’t have—a growing relationship with Jesus trumps it all!

YOUR JOURNEY…

• If I had asked you the question that I asked Dr. Graham, what would have been your response?
• Given that Jesus actually dwells in you in the person of the Holy Spirit, what could you do today to listen for His voice and to carefully seek His guidance and wisdom for your life?
• Be honest here: Is there any attitude, action, or resistance in your heart that blocks a clear and unhindered fellowship with Jesus? If so, take it to the cross to have it purged and your heart cleansed!

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/jesus-the-ultimate-joy-of-life/

North Carolina College Considering Ban on Chick-fil-A By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter

A college in North Carolina is considering a ban on products from  Chick-fil-A in response to complaints over the chicken sandwich chain’s  connections to social conservative groups.

Davidson College‘s Union Board, a student organization that oversees events  at the campus, decided last week to consider halting the use of Chick-fil-A for  its popular “After Midnight” monthly program.

Bill Giduz, director of Media Relations at Davidson, provided The Christian  Post with a statement regarding the pending decision.

“In light of the controversy over Chick-fil-A, the board has decided to  gather student input on the matter and discuss it at one of their early-semester  weekly meetings after classes resume on August 27,” read the statement.

“The Union Board serves different menus at After Midnight throughout the  year, and Chick-fil-A is served once or twice annually … Until a final decision  is made, alternative options will be served at After Midnight and other Union  Board events.”

“The only process envisioned is that the students who are members of the  College Union Board are planning to discuss the issue,” said Giduz to CP.  “They’re the party responsible for the ‘After Midnight’ events and what’s served  on those occasions. They have not yet set a date for their deliberation.”

Davidson College is not the only academic institution mulling over a ban on  Chick-fil-A products because of the fast-food chain’s connections to  organizations like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. New York University may also ban Chick-fil-A over the  ideological viewpoints of its leadership.

Philip Lentz, director of Public Affairs for NYU, told The Christian Post  that the university had in the past seriously considered removing Chick-fil-A  from their campus.

“In 2011, the Student Senators Council passed a resolution asking that  Chick-fil-A be removed from campus. However, this spring, the council withdrew  that resolution, saying a ban would have limited freedom of expression,” said  Lentz.

“These types of issues at NYU are typically considered by our University  Senate, which consists of representatives of the faculty, students,  administrators and deans … So the issue has not yet been presented to the  University Senate.”

Lentz explained that the effort to ban Chick-fil-A from NYU reappeared on the  agenda after the much publicized remarks of COO Dan Cathy regarding same-sex marriage.

“In the wake of the recent controversy over Mr. Cathy’s remarks, the NYU  administration has asked the University Senate to take up the issue of  Chick-fil-A’s status on campus when it reconvenes this fall,” said Lentz.

“As of right now, the Chick-fil-A on the NYU campus is closed for the summer  and is scheduled to reopen when students return for the fall semester.”

Cathy said last month that he supports the biblical definition of the family  unit. He also remarked that America was “inviting God’s judgment” for saying “we  know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/north-carolina-college-considering-ban-on-chick-fil-a-79831/#l4rKjrVLrfbbKH6c.99

Billy Graham Defends Chick-fil-A, Traditional Marriage Amid Uproar By Michelle A. Vu

Renowned evangelist Billy Graham – who has been among the top 10  of USA Today/Gallup poll’s annual most admired people in the world list more  than 50 times – issued a statement Thursday in support of Chick-fil-A’s leaders  and their public stance on marriage.

Graham called Chick-fil-A’s founder Truett Cathy and his son and company  president Dan Cathy “good friends” whom he has known for many years. And he  applauded the Cathys for being able to grow their family-owned chicken sandwich  restaurant without “compromising their values.” Within less than 50 years,  Chick-fil-A has expanded to more than 1,600 stores and had over $4 billion in  sales last year.

“Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must  always be measured by God‘s word,” said Graham, who is sometimes called the  pastor to presidents for his close relationships with U.S. commander-in-chiefs.  “I appreciate the Cathy family’s public support for God’s definition of  marriage.”

The controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A and gay marriage began earlier this  month after the Biblical  Recorder published an article in which Cathy said he was “guilty as  charged” when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family.

Cathy went on to say, “We are very much supportive of the family – the  biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a  family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks  for that.”

Gay activists were up in arms about Cathy’s clearly-stated support for the  traditional family unit, which implies he is against the redefinition of  marriage to include two people of the same sex. Hollywood actors, elected  officials, and individuals have called for a combination of personal and  government boycotts of Chick-fil-A.

In response, Huckabee rallied his radio listeners and fans to support  Chick-fil-A and the Cathys by eating at their restaurants on Aug. 1.

“The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian  principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values  we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August  1,” wrote Huckabee on the Facebook  invitation page.

Graham, 93, said that he plans to participate in Chick-fil-A Appreciation  Day.

“As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to ‘Eat Mor  Chikin‘ and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday,” Graham  stated.

Graham, who is known for preaching the Good News more than taking a stand on  hot-button social issues, had also voiced his support for the marriage amendment  in his home state of North Carolina earlier this year. The amendment passed on  May 8.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/billy-graham-defends-chick-fil-a-traditional-marriage-amid-uproar-78960/#5jZSrW9yqs10hoKv.99

My New Second Amendment Diversity Plan

I’m getting sick and tired of all the violence. Every few months, the campus community gets another email blast from the police saying that a gunman is loose on the UNCW campus. For those who don’t know, UNCW stands for The University of North Carolina at We-are-sitting-ducks-because-only-criminals-carry-guns-on-campus. Our ban on guns has turned the campus into safe haven for armed robbers. It has also increased the incidence of violent crime around the perimeter of our campus. The explanation for the trend is purely common sense. And my solution is pure genius, largely because it is born of my boundless humility.

For years, North Carolina has had a law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as two major conditions are met. First, the citizen must pass a rigorous criminal background check. Second, the citizen must pass a rigorous mental health background check. But, there is one problem with the law, which takes the form of an exception: those licensed, sane non-criminals are prevented from carrying concealed weapons on any of our state university campuses.

The results are predictable here in the drug-infested town of Wilmington, North Carolina: First, criminals commit crimes like armed robbery, rape, and homicide near the campus (because that is where all the young people live). Second, they flee to campus right after committing the crime (because our campus is the largest gun-free zone in the entire county).

The crime problem on our campus is, of course, exacerbated by our university’s affirmative action policy. Under our policy, we grant preferential treatment to minority applicants. But we only grant that preferential treatment to members of minority groups that are, on average, less educated and poorer than whites (e.g., blacks and Hispanics). The problem is that those groups that are less educated and poorer also exhibit higher criminal involvement than whites.

Because universities have become so immersed in identity politics, they refuse to pay attention to other minority groups that do not lobby specifically for special treatment (e.g., Asians). Because Asians generally prefer to get by on their own merits, rather than trying to climb a racial victim latter weighed down by blacks and Hispanics, they are excluded from our preferential treatment programs. This is unfortunate because Asians are the only minority group with consistently lower criminal involvement than whites.

Given that our gun policies and our affirmative action policies are both contributing to the campus crime problem, I am proposing a new crime control program that is based on a modification of both of those failed policies. My plan is simple and bold, so much so that I present it in big, bold letters: Stop offering scholarships to minorities per se and instead offer scholarships to minorities with concealed weapons permits.

The advantages to my program are pretty obvious to conservatives. But liberals require slow and careful explanations of even the simplest of ideas. The next few paragraphs are for them:

1. Reduced crime – In order for a crime to take place, a motivated offender must encounter a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian. People who carry concealed weapons are not suitable targets for violent crime. But they are capable guardians of others. So you do not even have to carry a concealed weapon in order to benefit from my new gun diversity policy.

2. Reduced need for centers like the African American Center and El Centro Hispano – Put simply, their status as armed citizens would make them feel at ease and comfortable. Therefore, we would not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on centers designed to make them feel comfortable. It would also teach them self-reliance, rather than the need to rely on government offices run by white liberals. Need a white man’s help? No way, Jose! Wiggers please!

3. Increased average age of the student population – Some have suggested that my plan will not work because concealed weapons permits can only be obtained by those at least 21 years of age – while people often enroll in college at 18 or younger. I don’t see that as a problem. Let’s increase the age of eligibility for all scholarships. That way we can worry less about teenagers squandering their opportunities because they lack the maturity to appreciate them. If they don’t want to wait until 21 for their handout that’s tough. It’s a handout. We’ll give it to you when we’re darned good and ready. If you don’t like it, hop on a leaky boat and paddle your way to Cuba where there is boundless freedom and decent health care. (Sarcasm = off).

4. Reduced racial stereotyping – Perhaps the best part of my plan is that it reduces racial stereotypes. Because we a) specifically recruit blacks and Hispanics with concealed carry permits, and b) those with concealed carry permits have clean criminal backgrounds, we will c) see a reduction in the negative stereotyping of blacks and Hispanics as criminals (Si how this works, amigos?).

My plan makes so much sense that the UNCW administration will probably implement it immediately. I’m just kidding. Instead, they will hold a meeting of all the top diversity officials and then condemn my suggestions as racist – and, while they are at it, probably sexist and homophobic. They will all hold hands and re-affirm their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance while singing a few stanzas of We Shall Overcome. But their voices shall not overcome the sound of gunfire that echoes in the distance.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/07/16/my_new_second_amendment_diversity_plan/page/full/

Breaking the Connection

So the plan was this: Take seven urchins, ages 3 to 17, on an old-fashioned vacation without high-tech gizmos. A noble intent, correct? Well, you know what they say about good intentions. The road to hell is paved with them.

Back in the pre-tech era, family vacations usually involved fresh air. But now, many American kids don’t want to go outside unless there is someone handing out money. Many modern children stay indoors so they can feed their machine addictions. Why bother risking the elements when any kind of visual you want is a click away?

The ferry ride to Bald Head Island at the southern point of North Carolina takes about 20 minutes. There are no cars allowed on the island; you transport by golf cart. The beaches are pristine, and the island marshland teems with wildlife. Radio Shack is not there.

I rented a beach house that immediately bewildered the tykes. “Where is the Xbox?” one of them said, a hint of panic in his eyes. “The TV only has shows. Where are the games?”

When informed that there were no electronic games available, profound silence descended on the room.

But there were other options. We explored the marsh and saw red foxes running around. We hit the surf where the water was clean and warm. “But what about the sharks?” an urchin said urgently. When told they can’t survive the large breaking waves so they remain far offshore, the kid was mollified a bit but remained suspicious.

One night, we all participated in the island “ghost walk,” a $10-per-ticket tourist play. Three college kids dressed in pirate gear led a stroll to the island lighthouse and to an old cemetery. Along the way, they told of shipwrecks, pirate atrocities and Civil War mayhem. Apparently, the ghost of Aaron Burr’s kidnapped daughter, Theodosia, roams around the island for lack of cash to buy a ferry ticket out. For a while, the kids were enthralled, and I was encouraged. They had to use their imaginations to picture the stories being told; there were no high-tech visuals.

But arriving back at the hacienda, I discovered that one of the urchins had smuggled in an iPod, and three of the boys were huddled around it shrieking with joy. They were cyber-spaced out in a matter of minutes.

The three older girls were getting more into the swing. They wanted to get up at 1 a.m. to look for turtles coming ashore to lay eggs. The boys were asked whether they wanted to do that, as well. “Turtles?” the 8-year-old said. “Don’t they bite?”

“Not as hard as sharks,” I replied.

The girls went on their mission, but did not see any turtles. They did see more foxes hunting for turtle eggs, however. They also saw deer without the assistance of the Animal Planet channel.

In the end, the vacation received mixed reviews from the kids, but I suspect they liked it more than they are admitting. Three of them got to drive the golf carts around, everybody enjoyed the surf, and when water guns appeared, laughter filled the air and the machines were momentarily forgotten.

But the minute we arrived home on Long Island — a long way, culturally speaking, from Bald Head — the urchins headed for their sacred space. The PCs were alight faster than you could say “Theodosia.”

Bill O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of “Who’s Looking Out For You?” and Pinheads and Patriots.

http://townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/2012/07/07/breaking_the_connection/page/full/

J.C. Penney’s “Father’s Day” homosexual ad

Yahoo! Finance posted a story several weeks ago drawing attention to JC Penney’s latest pro-gay advertisement campaign.  They are at it again!

Please take this opportunity to let JC Penney know that you believe in the family unit as God designed it. Click here.

The ad features a gay “family” – two men playing with two children – with these words: “What makes Dad so cool? He’s the swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver — all rolled into one. Or two.”

 

How twenty-first century of JC Penney! All inclusive and stuff.

It’s just too bad that by featuring this homosexual couple they have insulted millions of us “traditional,” i.e. “real,” family people. We know that a family is not a mix-and-match combination of its components. It’s  a man and a woman and any children they may have or take legal responsibility for. And, in case you skipped biology, that means you can only have one father.

So why is JC Penney pandering to this four percent of the population by marketing to homosexuals rather than simply not encumbering itself in the culture war?

From the Yahoo! Finance article: “The two dads ad has inspired a slew of comments across the Web. Most appeared to be supportive of J.C. Penney. One person wrote, ‘I haven’t shopped there in years. I’m about to change that!’ Another posted ,’Kudos JCP. If I can get over my disdain for malls, I just might have to stop by your store now and then.’ A Gawker commenter wrote, ‘I’m pretty sure J.C. Penney did this on purpose to get more attention. Before the whole Ellen thing, when was the last time you heard about J.C. Penney, other than the fact that they were failing. Now they’re getting all this free press. Smart move JCP!’… The mostly positive feedback is much needed by J.C. Penney. Several weeks ago, the retailer released quarterly earnings that sent its stock tumbling.

 

Publicity. That four percent of the population and its supporters are  louder than we are.

Recent polling by Gallup has found that 50% of Americans believe that gay marriage is morally acceptable compared to 48% who believe that it is morally wrong. However, gay marriage amendments to state constitutions have been passed in 42 states including North Carolina just last month.

However, the margins by which these amendments pass (61% to 39% in North Carolina), have led many to question the accuracy of the polling. The hypothesis is that with the constant preaching of television stars, politicians, and public personalities denouncing “homophobia,” those being polled are ashamed to admit to the pollster that they are opposed to gay marriage. Shame on us.

This is the opinion of Ross Douthat, for one. “ …opinion polling has consistently understated opposition to same-sex marriage since the issue rose to national prominence. Voters who say they support it when Gallup and other pollsters come calling can behave very differently in the privacy of the voting booth.”

 

Whether or not Douthat is correct in his analysis, Christians need to stand unashamed for the truths of God’s Word which calls husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and for wives to submit to their husbands. And as Pastor Kevin DeYoung noted in a recent column, “as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.”

 

Please take this opportunity to let JC Penney know that you believe in the family unit as God designed it.

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/penney%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cfather%e2%80%99s-day%e2%80%9d-homosexual-ad/#more-6745

Calif. Church Erects Billboard in NC Apologizing for Gay Marriage Ban By Anugrah Kumar

A California church led by a gay pastor has sponsored a billboard erected in North Carolina, apologizing to the gay community about that state’s recent constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions.

The billboard, sponsored by Missiongathering Christian Church in San Diego, Calif., and erected on Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte, N.C., reads: “Missiongathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who denied rights & equality to so many in the name of God.”

“The statement we are making is big and its bold. It is a message we are passionate about sharing,” the church says on its Facebook page called, “Our Hearts Are With You.”

Alex Roller, Spiritual Formation pastor of Missiongathering Christian Church, was identified as a homosexual in a recent article by examiner.com.

Rich McCullen, senior minister of MissionGathering, told The Huffington Post that the root motivation behind the banner was “to say [that] some Christians don’t speak for ALL Christians, and to tell the LGBT community of North Carolina and their straight allies that there is a community of faith across the country, and many in between, that stand in solidarity in saying that ALL people are created equal in the eyes of God, that there are faith communities that accept and support ALL people, and that this fight is not over.”

The church says the response that has been directed at MissionGathering has been positive, whereas the comments on the Facebook pages and websites

McCullen says his church might consider buying more billboards in other states where a ban on gay marriage is being proposed. “The local and global church should stand up for same-sex equality,” he was quoted as saying. “It’s not a social issue; it is a human issue. We must speak out for those who are oppressed and marginalized, just as Jesus did throughout His life and ministry.”

After the passing of the ban in North Carolina, known as Amendment 1, through a vote on May 8, a photo of the church’s original billboard put up in 2008 in San Diego in response to the passing of a similar ban in California re-surfaced online and went viral, according to the Facebook page. “People from all over the country (and even other countries) saw the photo and contacted us ‘thanking’ us for putting up the billboard. When we started returning people’s emails and phone calls to tell them ‘thanks, but that picture was taken four years ago,’ we began asking the question, what if we did it again?”

The church believes their message is “so important that we are willing to take crazy risks and go to extreme measures to challenge some of the current ‘Christian’ messages that are out there.”

“We understand that one of the risks of putting this message out there like this is that we might alienate our Christian brothers and sisters,” MissionGathering says on the Facebook page. “We might be viewed as being divisive, causing further division in the Body of Christ. However, we feel it is more important that we love the unloved and defend the discriminated. If, in the process, we ruffle the feathers of fellow Christians, perhaps that is an okay price to pay. Perhaps those feathers need a little ruffling.”

Amid the ongoing debate on gay marriage, many Christian leaders have called on the Christian community to reach out to homosexuals with compassion and love but without compromising the biblical stance that homosexuality is a sin.

“There is a saying in the South that ‘we just love people to death,’” said Dan Wilson of Harvest USA in an earlier interview with The Christian Post. “But as Christians, we need to love them to life instead of loving them to death. Most people, including pastors and church leaders, are afraid to talk to some about their sin because they feel guilty about their own lives. We simply need to all agree that we’re all sinners and that the reason Jesus died on the cross is for our sins.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/calif-church-erects-billboard-in-nc-apologizing-for-gay-marriage-ban-75947/

Mixed Doubles: Our New Civil Rights Struggle

I’m mad as h*** and I’m not going to take it anymore. For eighteen years, I’ve been playing singles tennis. But, recently, I decided to switch to doubles in an effort to attenuate some back and knee pain I’ve been experiencing on the hard courts.  So my friend Gary Faulkner and I decided to sign up to play doubles for the local tennis club. Gary, being somewhat effeminate, decided we should sign up for mixed doubles. Although technically a male, Gary likes to occasionally play the role of a female.

Unfortunately, the Wilmington Tennis Foundation (WTF) rejected our request to play mixed doubles. They insisted that the definition of mixed doubles requires a man and a woman. They further insisted that the terms “man” and “woman” are determined objectively. In other words, it isn’t enough that someone plays the role of a woman. She actually has to be a woman to qualify as a woman. In the wake of the WTF reaction, Gary plans to file a complaint with the Obama Department of Justice.

For those who are not Swift enough to detect satire, Gary Faulkner is not really my friend. To the contrary, he is a gay rights activist who is deeply distraught over North Carolina’s recent passage of Amendment One limiting the definition of mixed doubles – oops!, I mean marriage – to unions involving one man and one woman.

Gary Faulkner’s strong emotional reaction to the vote is perplexing for two reasons: 1) He insisted that Amendment One was “unnecessary” prior to its passage, and 2) He was already married before the amendment came up for a vote. Both of these points are important and deserve separate treatment below.

First, anyone following the Amendment One controversy in North Carolina knows that it was necessary to pass in order to keep judicial activists from redefining marriage by judicial fiat. Gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner know that blocking the judiciary with a constitutional amendment was the only way to preserve the institution of marriage from Marxist social engineers who want government, not family, to be the foundation of society. Were the amendment unnecessary, Faulkner would not be so emotionally distraught in the wake of its passage. In fact, Gary Faulkner hasn’t been this upset since Victor Willis of the Village People married a woman.

Second, heterosexual gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner do not lead the march for same-sex marriage out of a love for gay people. Most do it out of a hatred of Christians. Faulkner, who has a well-documented history of making hate-filled and defamatory statements about Christians, has a political motive for supporting same-sex marriage. He wants marriage re-defined. Then he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies stripped of their tax-exempt status. Finally, he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies shut down in the name of “equality” and “tolerance.” The result would be a nation in which the only Christian churches remaining would be those that have abandoned basic Christian principles.

It’s been a hard few weeks for Gary Faulkner. But he holds out hope for the future by referencing the fact that young people are more supportive of same-sex marriage than older people. That’s because Gary and his Marxist contemporaries have gained the kind of control over the schools that they have not yet gained over the churches.

Of course, the fatal flaw (and I mean that literally) in Gary Faulkner’s grand vision for America is that he and his Marxist contemporaries have been pushing abortion as steadfastly as they have been pushing same-sex marriage. The problem with abortion is that it produces an aging population that does not replenish itself. As people age, they have a tendency to discard silly emotionally-driven ideas – like the idea that 96-98% of society’s conformists should re-arrange themselves on behalf of 2-4% of its deviants.

If Gary Faulkner were not such a champion of abortion rights, 53 million more people would have been born since 1973. About two million of them would have been homosexuals eligible to marry someone of the same sex. And, who knows, some of them might have played mixed doubles in their spare time.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/06/04/mixed_doubles_our_new_civil_rights_struggle/page/full/

A Sense Of Dread

In Tennyson’s classic poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” valiant cavalry troops riding into battle are described by the imposing phrase, “Into the valley of death rode the six hundred.” Those words portray a sense of foreboding that anticipated the tragedy that lay before them.

When I was a pastor, I sometimes felt a sense of dread when heading to church meetings. Being aware of current or potential areas of conflict can easily cause serious concern. But this does not need to be the case in the church.

To a young pastor struggling with the pressures of ministry, Paul wrote, “Avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife” (2 Tim. 2:23). This applies to pastors as well as church attenders. Our personal conduct can help to reduce the amount of friction instead of elevating it through unwise actions or words. We can model for others the biblical way to avoid, manage, and even resolve conflict. Verses 24-25 encourage us to be gentle, patient, and humble in relating to others.

As James says, “The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18). Pursuing the goal of being a peacemaker can reduce the sense of dread that conflicts generate.

O Lord, help us to turn aside From words that spring from selfish pride, For You would have Your children one In praise and love for Your dear Son. —D. De Haan

Christians at war with each other cannot be at peace with their heavenly Father.

http://odb.org/2012/05/27/a-sense-of-dread/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+odb%2Ffeed+%28Our+Daily+Bread%29