Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: Biden, The Second Amendment, and God’s Gift of Life

by Bill Lockwood

Presidential hopeful Joe Biden made a campaign stop this week at an auto factory in Michigan. When asked about “eroding” the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Biden exploded and told the worker he was “full of ___.” The former VP was at the same time “shushing” his handlers who saw he was going off into the danger zone and were trying to stop him.

Elitist Biden then referred to the AR-15 as an “AR-14” and claims he supports the 2nd Amendment. Then he said the “AR-14” is a “machine gun” and declared it illegal in the United States and questioned why anyone wanted 100 rounds of ammunition.

There are so many things wrong with Biden’s position, it is difficult to summarize within a short piece.

First, the 2nd Amendment states to the federal government: “Shall not infringe.” The entire Bill of Rights is a ban on the federal government from touching the rights which Americans consider sacred. Really, the Bill of Rights is really not a “declaration of rights” at all. Instead, it is a specific list of prohibitions against the Federal Government. The Founders believed, and rightly so, that federal intrusions into the affairs of the people were the most ominous threats to the happiness and welfare of society. Therefore, regardless of the “wisdom” that elitist Biden thinks he may have if elected President, the Founders already barred him from touching the right of the people to keep and bear arms—whatever those arms may be.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment includes every American, not simply a “national guard.” Modern liberals, who apparently know nothing of the real history of America and the Constitution, all claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the organized “National Guard.” Anyone who cares to actually read what the Framers of the Constitution themselves said on the topic will recognize at once this mistake.

Richard Henry Lee stated that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” The men who crafted the Bill of Rights spoke with one accord regarding what they meant by “militia.” Samuel Adams observed, “The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to … prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Another, Patrick Henry, was quite adamant. “The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

It is sheer nonsense to suppose that the 2nd Amendment authorized only an organized “national guard.’ A United States Senate Subcommittee in 1982, after thoroughly examining the founders’ intent on the Second Amendment, concluded: “The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently use the words ‘right of the people’ to reflect individual rights… the ‘militia’ itself referred to a concept of universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit.”

Further, to prove that the National Guard is NOT the “militia” referred to in the 2nd Amendment, the subcommittee stated boldly that “Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to ‘raise and support armies’ … The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. #311 (a).” Thus, even the United States code recognizes that the “militia” does not refer to the National Guard, but to all the people.

Third, the 2nd Amendment is tantamount to valuation of life and liberty. Jeffrey Snyder is an attorney in private practice in Washington, D.C. In a publication entitled The Public Interest, under “Nation of Cowards,” Snyder makes the following observations regarding the right to keep and bear arms enjoyed by Americans.

“Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA.”

“Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e. exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social ‘re-education’ is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s famous characterization of gun owners as ‘hunters who drink beer, don’t vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend.”

Snyder points out too that the late Sen. Kennedy characterized gun owners as the “pusher’s best friend.” And who can forget Barak Obama’s picture of the ignorant masses who cling to their “bibles and their guns.”

In the end, Snyder observes that gun controllers routinely are those who devalue life, and we might add, liberty. The notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not somehow “civilized” “arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending.”

The above explains why the left not only do not wish for Americans to defend themselves against tyrannical governments, but are happily for the murder of the unborn. Life has little value to them. “One who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God’s gift of life …”

The same can be said regarding our ability to defend against tyranny and God’s gift of freedom. Biden does not value life nor liberty.

Bill Lockwood: Ocasio-Cortez Should Spend Time Reading the Bible Before She Criticizes It

by Bill Lockwood

Nothing more clearly illustrates that the ideology of Socialism is in reality a religious doctrine dressed in political clothes than the amount of vigor socialists exert to criticize the Bible. Our entire culture war is a religious one. From Barack Obama to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, socialists have felt the need to attack God’s Word. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, once again this week unleashed on biblical values. Why? Because the Bible demonstrates that totalitarian systems are wicked.

This is all very peculiar to many mistaken Christians who naively suppose that Christians have no business logging in on “political issues.” Their idea seems to be; allow atheistic socialism and communism and fascism to trample God’s Word with hobnail boots—just keep your mouth shut. Give no answer.  This evidently comes about because they cannot see divine principles behind the political machinery in America. For example,

Life, Liberty and Property

Life, liberty and property are not important values to us because they are Constitutional concepts. Instead, they are constitutional concepts because they are biblical values. This is why the Founders built our system of government upon these theological pillars.

Take the issue of life. God’s Word teaches (Psalm 139:13-16) that God gives life to an infant within the mother’s womb. But the protection of that life, the very purpose of law, Ocasio-Cortez likened to “controlling women’s sexuality.” When the state of Alabama outlawed nearly all abortion in the state in 2017, she could hardly contain herself and charged that the “religious right” only invoked religion to “punish women.”

This is the classic dodge by a hedonistic society that has thrown out God’s Word and is therefore left with a big empty hole of nothingness by which to determine what is and what is NOT life. Godless women may be sexually active—but there are consequences to that behavior, including the formulation of life. For a society to allow the murder of that unborn life so that women and men may feel no repercussions for their immorality is itself a gross violation of natural law, to say nothing of biblical values.

Consider the issue of homosexuality. Last week during a House Oversight Committee hearing on “LGBTQ Rights” Ocasio-Cortez compared religious people on the right with “white supremacists” and opined on the “long history” of people “using scripture and weaponizing and abusing scripture to justify bigotry.” “White supremacists have done it, those who justified slavery have done it, those who fought against integration have done it, and we’re seeing it today.”

What Shall We Say To These Things?

First, for one to claim biblical backing for a concept of “rights” does not mean that this is an accurate portrayal of the Bible. Some in history may have tried to “justify” racial superiority with scripture, but God’s Word cannot be blamed for every misuse which the invention of man may come up with. Ocasio-Cortez should understand this. The Bible declares that life is sacred because it is created by God (Gen. 1:27), even in the mother’s womb (Psalm 139). Yet, that does not stop liberals from demanding the murder of the unborn as a “right.”

Second, the legal standards historically established by our society have been biblically-based, including the outlawing of homosexuality. The New Testament is emphatically clear that homosexuality is a behavior-driven malpractice that results from a free choice that people make. Romans chapter one even points out that this grievous sin occurs in society only after that society has repudiated God.

If the absolute standard of God’s Word be no longer valid, then what would be wrong with being a “white supremacist” or a “black supremacist?” Can Ocasio-Cortez tell us? What standard condemns these ideologies? Regarding slavery, what would be wrong with slavery to begin with, if there is not an absolute standard by which to measure? Why would “bigotry” be an ugly thing, Ocasio-Cortez? What criminality or injustice would there be in being prejudiced and intolerant of others?

The natural parameters of Republican principles of government come from the Bible—including public morality. All the residents of a community are subject to these standards approved of by the majority. If not, government itself would be impossible. Ocasio-Cortez may rail against the “theology” of what she calls “religious fundamentalists,” but the only thing she has to offer in its place is a “theology” of atheistic hedonism which turns society into cesspool of wickedness and violence in which “every man does that which is right in his own eyes.”

Bill Lockwood: Throwing Babies in the Trash in New Jersey

by Bill Lockwood

As sin always does, it spreads slowly and surely, just as the CoronaVirus. It corrupts from the inside out. America has nursed a murderous culture for almost 40 years in the slaughter of the unborn children. The Democratic Party particularly has championed this unlawful premeditative taking of human life, being a part of their official political platform for many years.

Democratic governor of New Jersey, Phil Murphy, who took office in January 2018, signed as one of his first measures a pro-abortion legislation. Now, not one, but two dead infants, have been discovered in trash bins in the Garden State in recent weeks.

Pulpitandpen.org reports, “Workers discovered the first ghastly disposal of an infant hours before shocking discovering another one. The Colgate Paper Stock Recycling Processing Facility handles garbage for the city. Apparently, parents placed the children in the trash where they were transported with other garbage to be sorted.”

“The first discovery was at 9:20 AM on Wednesday. It wasn’t long before there was a second. How the babies died is being investigated by the Middlesex Regional Medical Examiner’s Office.”

Each year, approximately 48,000 children are aborted each year in New Jersey, some of them occurring because of the state’s liberal abortion laws which encourages residents of other states to travel there to kill their unborn. America is not far off from the Australian biologist’s suggestion several years ago that children be allowed to be murdered up to two years old. Like our hedonistic culture which encourages men and women to live together without a marriage contract to discover if they are “compatible”—so some suggest that we allow would-be parents two years to discover if they are able to raise a child. If not, then kill it.

As horrific as this may sound, godless people never find the bottom of moral depravity. They just keep going downward.

Bill Lockwood: Islam, Christianity, and Roman Catholicism

by Bill Lockwood

Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”

She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”

And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”

Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”

What About These Things?

While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.

This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.

Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.

This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.

Christianity

How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”

Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.

The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.

The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.

The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.

Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!

Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.

Islam

Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?

The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.

When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).

Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.

Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.

Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.

It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.

Bill Lockwood: Does Family Matter to the State of Texas?

by Bill Lockwood

LifeSiteNews.com has picked up a story from Texas Homeschool Coalition which is said to be the “most significant parental rights case” in Texas history. The Texas Supreme Court is set this week to hear oral arguments in a parental rights case “that could shape up to be truly groundbreaking.”

The case centers around a father who is battling in the courts against a non-relative for custody of his four-year-old daughter. The non-relative was the boyfriend of the daughter’s now deceased mother. Most remarkable, all parties in the case openly acknowledge that the father is an entirely fit parent. Nevertheless, the boyfriend of the deceased mother argues he should be allowed custody rights as well.

The child’s mother died in a tragic car accident in 2018. At the time, she and the child’s father were already divorced and sharing a 50/50 custody of the girl. During the last 11 months of her life, the mother was “living with” her boyfriend. Courts have amazingly ordered “partial custody” to this live-in boyfriend. “In fact,” according to LifeSiteNews, “the judge agreed with the boyfriend’s argument that he should be allowed to come before the court on an equal footing with the actual father. The judge concurred that there should be no presumption in favor of the father’s having sole custody of his own daughter.”

“What makes this case so disturbing is that a non-parent was not simply given custody of another man’s daughter — he was given custody on the grounds that the biological father had no greater right to custody of his own daughter than did a virtual stranger.”

LifeSiteNews properly laments that horrible damage could be done to the constitutional rights of parents to raise their own children, if this case goes in the direction of awarding joint custody to a live-in boyfriend.

But I am going to add another shocking result that is already occurring and perhaps will be set in stone. It is this. The basic God-given unit of society—the FAMILY, consisting of Mom, Dad, and the Kids—is by implication considered by law as nothing worth protecting.

Christians have already witnessed “no fault divorce” in the 1970’s—encouraging the rise in divorce rates; the Obama Reorientation of what constitutes a family with the legalization of homosexual “marriage”; and now, as a matter of course, not only will biological parents have no presumption of legal custody over children which will later lead to the “state ownership of offspring”—but marriage itself will be relegated to absolute nothingness but a burden to be thrown off by a hedonistic society.

Should a “live-in boyfriend” have as much custody as a biological father? If so, this means that we are equating co-habitation with marriage in the eyes of the law. So much for the family.
Pray that the Texas Supreme Court will do the right thing—even at this late hour.

Bill Lockwood: Illegal Immigration and Christianity

by Bill Lockwood

I worship with a church that supports a missionary family in Cape Town, South Africa. Several churches of Christ in the United States have pooled their resources to finance the work there, which includes feeding the poor in a soup kitchen, providing shelter to those who live in cardboard boxes, and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. The giving of our finances in the church is, of course, strictly voluntary.

What do Americans think of my preaching that we all need to assist the poor in foreign countries and “preach good tidings” to them? Obviously, they recognize that is my right. Most would probably agree that such works need be funded by American dollars.

But it is also their right to reject that work. They may prefer works closer to home than South Africa. What then if, in reaction to their rejection, I would then insist that all MUST give to this specific work or be counted as unchristian and hard-hearted? I could add some biblical warnings about assisting others in need and threatening the judgment of God if they did not.

Some may answer—“look here, we support other works that are just as charitable. Why do you insist that we participate in the specific work you and your church are engaged in?” That itself would be a charitable answer seeing the approach I had taken. Others would probably ignore me. Still others would rightly question my ability to think clearly.

Let’s take it one step further. Suppose I have influence through powerful lobbyists in the legislature of the State of Texas. Because of my frustration with my fellows for their “lack of compassion” to those in South Africa, I work through these lobbying influences until legislation is passed in the State that mandates portions of public tax dollars to the South Africa work. Now everyone WILL support the work that I have been preaching!

What Has Occurred?

First, no one could classify the money that comes because of legal action as “charitable giving.” Legislative action does not spawn charity. The very reason “legislation” is passed is to compel compliance. Money may flow and people may benefit—but charity it is not. It is redistribution by force. The socialists dream. Not only so, but no one in their right mind would consider forcible redistribution a part of the “charitable giving” of the Congressmen who so legislated. They will not write this off on their tax returns.

Second, the legislative action has a deleterious effect on real avenues of giving. As long as the government compels from me more money to apply to one specific work that bureaucrats have selected, my ability to give to other needs that I personally would rather support has depleted. And how many charitable works are there that the government demands I sponsor? As many as there are legislators. That being the case, how much of my own money do I have remaining with which to support works that I select? Other works are just as fine as supporting missionary work in South Africa, but they will have to do with less.

Third, are those who oppose the legislation that FORCES tax money to flow to South Africa “unchristian?” Are they “uncharitable?” Shall I go about bellowing how “unchristian” my fellows are because they oppose that specific piece of legislation? Since it is not charity to begin with, it hardly is logical to say that those who oppose it are stingy, greedy, unchristian Scrooges. Common sense and even-handed reasoning recognizes that many people support many different causes and if you do not support the cause which I prefer it does not make you unchristian.

The Border

Now look at the southern border. Border states have been crying for as long as I have been alive for the federal government to do its job and curtail illegal crossings. But no politician has been brave enough—or desirous enough– to get that job done–until President Trump. President Obama even single-handedly, without constitutional authorization, negated some of our own laws in order to allow more foreigners to pour into America.

Now we are told we need to assist these foreigners from poor countries because that is our Christian duty! Translation: this is the charitable work that the liberal intelligentsia has selected for you to participate in, and money will be forced from your pocketbook to sponsor it. Not only so, but these poverty-stricken people that beg to come in will be housed in your neighborhoods at your expense. If you have misgivings about it, you are unchristian. Christian duty demands open borders, so the story goes.

Here are some questions. If it is Christianity to force Americans to pull down our border fences, is it not also Christian duty to allow the poor to camp in your front yard? Does ‘Love your Neighbor’ mean pull down the fence? Why are all of those who preach “open borders” shored up behind walled communities and housing area, normally in white middle-class neighborhoods? Is it not hypocritical to demand your neighbors to care for the poor, while we do very little? Why have front doors on our homes?

Shall American families be required to sponsor various families from south of the border? If so, should these families be forced to adopt-a-family by bringing them inside your homes? If not, why not?

If one selects some other charity work instead of the “open borders” program, is that less charitable? Is it necessary to follow the government’s agenda in order to be charitable? What if, as a Christian, I am for closing the border completely and funneling my resources to care for the poor among us?

Would it not be better just to GO to the country of origin of many of these people and do voluntary charity work there?

If I do NOT give charitably, should the government take control of my finances to make me be more charitable? Would that be charity at all?

Bill Lockwood: “The Glory of God” Emphasized by President Trump in State of Union

by Bill Lockwood

House speaker Nancy Pelosi theatrically tore up the copy of Trump’s speech as soon as he concluded on Tuesday night. Why? Perhaps it is in the fact that our president emphasized that which should cause Christians everywhere to celebrate.
Religious Freedom, The Glory of God, and the Celebration of the Life of the Unborn—these were major themes of the State of the Union on Tuesday night.
The News Division of Pulpitandpen.org wrote, “In what was quite possibly the most Christian-affirming State of the Union in history, President Donald Trump defended Freedom of Religion, denounced anti-religion ‘cancel culture’ and lauded the glory of God.”
“My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in the public schools.” He added, “In America, we don’t punish prayer. We don’t tear down crosses. We don’t ban symbols of faith. We don’t muzzle preachers and pastors.”
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney declared at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Tuesday morning that “faith drives the Trump administration’s policy proposals, arguing that ‘the principles of our faith are being manifest” under the president’s watch (RNS News).
Apparently, however, belonging to the Democrat Party “trumps” religious considerations and moral principles, for Democrat Russell Moore, who chairs The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, has offered “no accolades to Trump for his remarks about religious liberty.” Instead, pulpitandpen.org notes, “the ERLC research fellows began a new round of attacks against Trump in social media.”
This freedom is why Nancy Pelosi demonstratively tore up the speech as soon as the final word was spoken. Cut liberty — especially religious liberty.

Bill Lockwood: Methodist Church Asks the Elderly to Leave the Congregation

 

by Bill Lockwood

This headline appeared last week in The Washington Post. The Cottage Grove United Methodist Church on the outskirts of Minneapolis-St. Paul, is a small dwindling church of about 30 members that has put in place a new “strategic plan” for church growth among “younger people” such as Millennials. A major part of that plan, which one 70-year-old member calls “age discrimination,” is to ask the elderly to leave and worship elsewhere.

After this news went national, Dan Wetterstrom, the “head pastor” of the church, claimed that these allegations of “age discrimination unfairly represented the strategy for a church that has been on the decline for two decades.”

Instead, he explained, the church’s services are “being cancelled” and will re-open after a major refurbishing of the building, its staff, and its worship services, including replacing the traditional hymnals. A church memo also recommended that “current members stay away for two years, then consult with the pastor about reapplying.” That is according to the local news outlet, the Pioneer Press.

“The plan is to shut down the church in June and reopen later this year with a new pastor, new programming and building updates ‘aimed at engaging more members of a growing community.’” “While older members will not be physically barred from attending, the expectation is that they will not.” Wetterstrom added, “We are asking them to let this happen. For this to be truly new, we can’t have the core group of 30 people.”

So, it is technically not “disinviting” the elderly. They are only “physically shutting the doors” and the current elderly membership must “re-apply” to get back in after a recommended two-year absence.

Bruce Ough, the Methodist “bishop” of the Dakotas-Minnesota region and provides oversight to congregations, defended the strategy as part of a “relaunch effort” that has been “successful in other parts of the region.”

It is difficult to know where to begin to comment on such items as this. It does give a frightening insight into the mindset of many Americans which sees the elderly as a hindrance instead of an opportunity to serve. No wonder many churches have completely capitulated to a godless culture that demands the ceasing of preaching against sin.

 

Bill Lockwood: “Bring on the Lions!” — Homosexual Agenda Seeks to Destroy Christianity

by Bill Lockwood

Several years ago a relative of mine was in a major northeastern city for a short visit and it so happened that a “Gay Pride” parade was occurring. Shocking as it seems, some of the marchers were carrying signs that read: “Bring on the Lions!” That, of course, referred to the extermination of Christians after the order of the ancient bloody Roman Empire and presented a completely different picture of the Homosexual Goal for America than the MSM would like for you to see.

The entire political & cultural battle today may be boiled down to a War on God by the political left, which is being driven by the Homosexual Agenda. Nothing can be clearer than this. Even Islam joins with homosexuals—for now–in this same goal of eradication of Christianity. Read the text of the Democratic Party’s so-called Equality Act (H.R. 5) and be in the dark no more. It completely eradicates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), originally passed in 1993, let alone respect the First Amendment which promised that the federal government is FORBIDDEN to touch religious speech and freedom.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et. seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application of enforcement of a covered title.”

The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. This resulted in a huge national movement of Christians to protect their God-given rights.

How does this link to the Homosexual Agenda? GrasstopsUSA re-published a portion of homosexual activist Michael Swift’s Manifesto from 1987. For a real stomach-turner, read the entire text on Fordham University’s website entitled, “Michael Swift, ‘Gay Revolutionary,’” reprinted from the Congressional Record itself.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity … Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding … All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men… There will be no compromises … All churches who condemn us will be closed … All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice … Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

As Grassroots correctly stated, “Disguised as a measure to extend civil rights protections” to homosexuals and “transgendered individuals,” H.R. 5 actually “forces every man, women and child in the United States to not simply accept anti-biblical behaviors but to actively affirm them under penalty of law.”

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo, a homosexual Opinion Writer for USA Today and who wishes to “outlaw” “conversion therapy”, while claiming to be “libertarian,” headlines the following, “Gay Conservative: Equality Act would crush religious freedom. Trump is right to oppose it.”

Polumbo calls the “Equality Act,” “the landmark LGBT rights bill.” “From my vantage point as a gay conservative, I can see that the Equality Act goes too far for any level-headed gay rights advocate to support, and its blatant disregard for the basic right to religious freedom is appalling.”

The bill purports to protect LGBT Americans like me by prohibiting discrimination ‘based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit and the jury system.’ On the surface, this sounds unobjectionable—after all, no one deserves to face discrimination. Yet the bill defined ‘public accommodations’ so loosely and called for regulations so sweeping that it would crush religious freedom and radically reshape American society.

Polumbo warns that “The Equality Act could potentially see houses of worship deemed ‘public accommodations’ and subjected to anti-discrimination law. It would also declare any hospital or establishment providing medical services a ‘public accommodation,’ which would include religious organization and hospitals.”

Steve Warren

Homosexual activist Steven Warren issued in 1987 a “Warning to homophobes.” In it he stated that homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an “honorable estate” and “you can either let us marry people of the same sex, or better yet abolish marriage altogether.”

Throwing down the gauntlet to Christianity, he warned, “You will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements” and you will “instruct your people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each others’ sexuality without embarrassment or guilt.”

If the older people object “you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation.” “Finally, we will in all likelihood, want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others …”

The final warning: “If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory.”

Bring on the Lions.

« Older Entries