Tag Archives: religion

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter to his wife Abigail in May, 1780, John Adams famously wrote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

To John Adams the most important element of life was family. His continual service to the nation included that he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an official Minister to England on behalf of the United States, and the second President of the United States. But this service he considered a “necessary evil” in order that he might enjoy pleasures of family and that his own future generations might enjoy the same.

In our modern era where warnings against “mixing politics and religion” are memorized and repeated without any real deep thought as to why or even what this means, Adams teaches us a few things about it. His keen mind was able to probe the issues of life and distill the principles and realities involved.

In analyzing what Adams meant when he said “I must study politics that my sons may have liberty to study …”, note the following.

What is Politics?

First, what is Politics? Politics simply means the management or administration of society. The word “politics’ is from the Greek word ‘politika’ meaning the “affairs of a city.” It is “the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group” (Wikepedia). Frequently the word “politics” is used negatively, such as in “play politics.” The root idea of the word, however, refers to principles by which people are to be governed.

The question now becomes, by what set of principles shall we govern society? Shall we use biblical principles or humanistic ones? Shall we use God-inspired principles upon which to base human laws, or shall we simply drift off into allowing people to do “what every man thinks is right in his own eyes?” The only issue in our society therefore is whether or not we plan to manage ourselves according to Christian principles.

This applies to a wide variety of social levels: the workplace, the office, the team, the church, or cities and nations; there is even “international politics.” All policies that are adopted in these various groups are called “public policies” precisely because those policies effect others. Once again, these policies will either reflect Christianity or humanism (non-religion).

These facts being so, whence comes the idea that Christian people should remain free from “politics?” Is it somehow inconsistent with biblical values that Christians should not influence public policy?

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

Returning to Adams’ quote above, note that he was interested in freedom for his family. He wanted to construct a society along Christian principles that by this framework of freedom his family in future generations might continue to enjoy liberty. Specifically, limited government would allow personal freedom to flourish while at the same time curtail dictatorships or top-down controls that destroy freedom.

A sidebar note: Many confuse Roman Catholicism with New Testament Christianity. Not only were the colonists almost 95% Protestant in their belief-systems, but were afraid of Catholicism. The reason for this is clear. Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical political system that was constructed through the centuries to mimic Old World kingdoms such as the Roman. It too, therefore, is dictatorial and stifles freedom. Its record as a tyrannical power is matched only by other forms of government absolutisms.

Adams was well-aware of all of this. This is why that during the tumultuous formation of the United States he felt that he needed to invest time in order to create a political landscape such that allowed freedom to ring—but this was in order that his children might be able to enjoy more pleasurable pursuits. The political machinery of a nation is a direct reflection of religious values and presuppositions that underlie the society. For future family freedom, Christian politics was necessary.

Politics was not just one “hobby” that Adams chose among others he might have chosen, even though that is the casual way people view politics today. Adams showed this by couching it in his word “must.” In other words, politics was his “duty.” It functioned as an obligation. Political freedom is foundational to other freedoms.

To illustrate, Adams used “war.” Those who enjoy freedom and liberty rely on the sacrifices of untold thousands who study war and become warriors. A warriors’ occupation is not like playing sports, or collecting old cars or antiques. Without a fight for freedom, there would be no games to play or antiques to collect. Someone must do this business of war if we are to have pleasures of life. If we were all running for our lives from enemy soldiers, who cares about playing games?

So also is managing people by politics. It is foundational to freedom at large. For this reason, Cicero, the ancient Roman statesman at the time of Julius Caesar, observed: “For there is really no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding states or preserving those already in existence.”

So exactly. Christians, being correctly informed, can change the character of the political landscape. By bringing the moral standards of Christ into the civic arena, society itself is transformed. The gospel of Christ not only changes lives and hearts of men, but the course of civil government. Why should Christians not be involved in politics?

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx?

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.

Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America

Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America  “Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad. “

by Bill Lockwood

Mark Miller, a senior attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, writes in today’s The Hill regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional an immigrant-deportation law defended by the Trump Administration. Now the High Court turns attention to an immigration-related case, Trump v. Hawaii, which has “bigger stakes,” according to Miller.

According to Miller, the “highest profile” question before the court is “does the travel ban violate the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause?” The challengers submit that the president’s “travel ban” amounts to “religious discrimination.” Oral arguments are underway this week.

The Establishment Clause refers to the first line of the First Amendment, of course, which forbade the federal government from establishing an official state religion in America.

Islam and Religion?

The fundamental error here, repeated daily in the press and in education, is that Islam is a religion. In truth, it is a political movement that has very little “religion” to it. Islam is nothing but communism that sails under a religious flag. Its goal is world domination by the edge of the sword. Global Islamic Rule.

Muslim leaders world-wide have been bold and blatant that their efforts are toward an Islamic-dominated world. Iranian leader Ahmadenejad declared it (2006); Leading Muslim cleric in the UK Anjem Choudary insisted that the Muslim flag will one day “fly over the White House;” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chair Omar Ahmad confessed in 1998 that the Islamic goal is “to become dominant worldwide;” and the Muslim Brotherhood has given us “The Project”—a 100 year-plan to establish “Islamic government on earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, claims to have more than 70 affiliated terrorist organizations throughout the world. It states that “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Note that they define “jihad” for us. It involves “dying in the way of Allah.”

“Jihad” is the sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world. This is not the creation of a few extremists or the hijacking of a peaceful religion by a handful of radicals. Jihad is mandated in the writings of the Quran, was practiced in bloody earnest by the false prophet Muhammad, and is overwhelmingly defined by classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists as a military concept of “waging war.”

According to the eminent scholar of Islamic history and culture at Princeton University, Bernard Lewis, and Cleveland Dodge, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, the “term ‘jihad’ has usually been understood as meaning ‘to wage war.’ The great collection of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad in which the military meaning predominates. …According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an obligation imposed upon all Muslims by God, through revelation … It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

Muslim Brotherhood

This brings us back to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Their outlined strategies for western world takeover include the “appearance of moderation,” the “use of deception to mask good,” the “extensive usage of social networks,” and to “cultivate Islamist intellectual community;” “using Western institutions until they convert them into the service of Islam.” Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad.  As Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradowi stated, “jihad can be fought with the pen, then the sword.”

Muslim practitioners have no intention of following the Constitution of the United States. It is a devious political movement.

The great world –class scholar and former president John Quincy Adams warned America that Muhammad had poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], a war of twelve hundred years has already waged. The war is yet flagrant … while the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motive to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Although Adams called Islam a “religion” himself, the essence of it, even by his own definition, is a political movement that presses physical war. If the High Court of the United States would recognize these simple facts Islam would be seen for what it is and travel bans would be not be challenged on the basis of “religious discrimination.”

American Oligarchy

American Oligarchy- “America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy.”

by Bill Lockwood

Oligarchy means that governing powers of a state belong only to a few persons. The concept carries the idea of despotic rule, the very opposite of a “We the People” system. Our Charter of Liberty, the Constitution, organizes power from the bottom up—this in order that free people might maintain that freedom by controlling their servants—the government. Two hundred thirty years after our founding, however, Americans find themselves ruled by a top-down federal oligarchy called The Supreme Court by which every law or expression of freedom might be negated as “unconstitutional.” Instead of tracing the course of how we arrived at this point, Americans need to begin contemplating how to rid ourselves of this despotic monstrosity.

To set the issue clearly, hear the words of President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Chief Justice John Marshall. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Jefferson added that judges are not subject to “elective control” and noted that “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Prophetic powers Jefferson did not possess, but he, as well as the entire class of founders in that generation, understood the nature of liberty, the nature of man, and the constructs that were necessary to guard our own freedoms.

Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued with Jefferson that “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere” and that the Supreme Court was that arbiter. Marshall voiced the feelings of the entire class of modern attorneys now battling in various courts for favorable rulings. “Whatever the court decides is constitutional” is the doctrine. Jefferson answers Marshall’s “there must be an ultimate arbiter” argument: “True, there must; but does that prove that it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.”

If the Constitution is what it purports to be, the power rests with the people acting through their elected representatives, not a High Court. What is WRONG with the Supreme Court being the “final arbiter” of the meaning of the Constitution?

Judicial Supremacy?

First, the Constitution itself does not erect such a tribunal. Is the Constitution, or the Supreme Court’s decisions the ultimate law of the land? Jefferson made this very point against John Marshall. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal …” Exactly. How is it that the Constitution itself gives to the Judicial system a certain limited number of jurisdictions, eleven types of cases to be exact, and “judicial review” is not one of them?

The same battle is found in religion. Is the Bible, the Word of God, or the Roman Catholic Church and its “Holy See” the final arbiter of what is God’s truth? Or, to put it more basically, do “the people” have the right and authority to interpret the Bible for themselves, or does that prerogative belong only to the Roman Church?

The Catholic Church asserts itself as the “final arbiter” as to what is or is not “scriptural.” But the God nowhere gives to the Roman Church such authority. People can read and understand the Word of God for themselves. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that arrogates to itself the authority to determine God’s Will.

In the same way The Supreme Court makes its own high-handed brazen assertions of its supposed authority. This position itself is not Constitutional.

Second, the doctrine of Judicial Review has been perverted into Judicial Supremacy. Judicial review simply posits that the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in certain cases that come before it. But this opinion of the Court necessarily applies to the particular facts and parties of the case—not to everyone else or to the entire country. A case in point. Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court in 1973 supposedly found a “right” in the Constitution which allowed a woman to kill her unborn child. That was flagrant enough. Then the Court overturned 200 years of history and all 50 state laws that protected the life of the unborn. This is not law. It is lawlessness as the Supreme Court imposed its godless will upon an angry populace.

Instead of “Judicial Supremacy” our nation was founded upon the concept of “Constitutional Supremacy.”

Third, the Constitution is a contract, drawn up between the People and its Representatives in the Federal Government. That being the case, how has it occurred that only one party in that contract maintains the sole authority to interpret the terms of that contract? St. George Tucker was professor of law at the College of William and Mary during the Revolutionary period. Writing a commentary on the Constitution he noted that it was a “compact” to which the states were parties with the federal government and that this “compact” limited the role of the federal government.

The very nature of the Union is a compact or a contractual form of government. If each side of the contract is equal, why cannot both sides to the contract, the states and the federal government, each have equal ability to assess the meaning of the Constitution?

Fourth, the Constitution was ratified by the People several years before the Supreme Court was appointed. Every provision of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (1788, 1791) had clear meanings to the people who ratified them. This is why the Founders, unlike the clandestine legislators today who wish to pass bills to “find out what’s in them,” argued every clause in the newspapers at the time. It was a People’s law. All was settled long before there came a Supreme Court to make determinations. The Supreme Court was organized in 1789 and did not convene until 1790.

If it is the case that the Supreme Court “determines” the meaning of the Constitution how was it ratified by the people who were ignorant of its meaning? How can officeholders take the oath to uphold the Constitution if they cannot know what it really means until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the clauses?

A few more questions: What if the Supreme Court takes up the liberal notion that a “militia” of the 2d Amendment is an organized National Guard unit and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is limited to government appointees? What if the court system defines “Treason” as opposition in writing such as this article? Far-fetched? Who would have supposed that The Supreme Court would take in hand to “define” our cultural practice of marriage to include a union between two homosexual persons? Where is that authority bestowed in the Constitution? Finally, why did the American people have to wait for The Supreme Court to “overturn” a lower court’s opinion that had halted President Trump’s Travel Ban—a prerogative clearly given to him by the United States code?

America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy. The battles now raging will only continue as long as the American people allows the Federal Government, The Supreme Court specifically, to act illegally by assuming “undelegated power.”

“Gotta Value Life”

“Gotta Value Life”- “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

by Bill Lockwood

One Congressman after another has been on television pleading for cessation of violence in the aftermath of the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and members of the congressional police force. “The violence has got to stop.” This in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting in Alexandria, VA as James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois opened fire on the GOP baseball team as it practiced.

Hodgkinson is a solid socialist who, according to Smoking Gun, “posted a link to a Change.org petition in late March that included the notation that, ‘Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” On various Facebook posts Hodgkinson expressed his radical leftist views. He even belonged to one group called “Terminate the Republican Party.” Hodgkinson had come to kill as many Republicans as possible.

In a similar vein, little Jeffrey Laney of St. Louis posted a Facebook Live (see below) last week in which the 6-year-old expressed his fears in the 4-minute post. “People need to stop killing each other around here because this is just making me feel bad,” Jeffrey says in the video. “I’m really serious. I’m really scared to die, and I’m really scared for my family to die. I’m scared.” His mother commented that Americans “Gotta value life.”

As much as we all agree with the sentiment of little Laney and the Congressmen who cry for cessation of violence, it sadly appears that these incidents will not stop, but continue to escalate. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit (Matt. 7:17). Americans have been sowing to the wind and we are just beginning to reap the whirlwind.

Rejection of God

George Washington’s well-known statement of religion in government reads: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Washington recognized that “national morality could not prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” America, however, has purposefully, with malice aforethought, excluded Christian values.

God and His absolute moral standard was premeditatedly removed from the public sphere in the early 1960’s. The Bible was outlawed in public schools, public prayer to Almighty God has been forbidden, “God” has been effectively ejected from every classroom except the collegiate ones in which He is mocked. It has become a liability for students under the tutelage of humanistic and Marxist professors to mention God. Predictably, immorality has skyrocketed in every single category that is measurable. Liberalism has destroyed any ethical framework in which to live.

Consider: births to unwed teenage mothers continues to rise dramatically; violent behavior has far outdistanced population growth, even being glorified in the media; sexually transmitted diseases explode in growth; divorce has skyrocketed as American families have become an unrecognizable conglomerate instead of a godly unit; the American culture is the first in world history to officially recognize homosexual marriages; our populace devours its young through abortion; and children grow up without fathers in the home.

These are the fruits of a godless society. We cannot continue to instill godless Marxism into the hearts and minds of the next generation without expecting the people to act like the devil. Sooner or later people begin to live consistently with the concepts that have been taught.

John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence; One of Two Signers of the Bill of Rights; Second President of the United States, put it plainly: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Our beloved republic is in dire peril. More laws and increased availability to healthcare is not the answer. The problem is beyond fixing by mere memorized slogans and public pleadings. There is only one viable solution: A deep repentance and turning to God by the people of the American Republic. Without this we are doomed, for without God, there is no absolute value to life.

Democrats, The LGBTQ Community and “Conversion Therapy”

Democrats, The LGBTQ Community and “Conversion Therapy”- “Use of “harmful” “conversion therapy” by Christians supposedly leads to “depression…”

by Bill Lockwood

The Democrats have begun their final assault against liberty and the Word of God. First, there was “fake news.” Former President Obama, ever favoring totalitarian governing schemes to destroy the liberty of American citizens, launched a campaign against “fake news.” Government, not individuals, is to identify what is, and what is not real or fake news. The underlying premise is that individuals are unable to sift through true or false information—therefore remove their right and responsibility to do so. Government knows best.

Now we have Democrat-sponsored bill entitled the “Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act 2017.” As reported by The Washington Post (April 27) “Democratic lawmakers this week introduced a bill that would ban the practice of ‘conversion therapy,’ treatments that historically have targeted the LGBT community and claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The bill was introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), along with Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). “About 70 other members of Congress, all Democrats, have said they support the bill, which would allow the Federal Trade Commission to classify conversion therapy and its practitioners as fraudulent.” Lieu smugly remarked, “LGBTQ people are born perfect. There’s nothing to treat them for.”

A summary of the bill, whose sponsors tout as The First Federal Ban on Conversion Therapy, reads, “Conversion therapy, also known as ‘reparative therapy,’ ‘sexual orientation therapy,’ or ‘sexual orientation change efforts,’ is a practice that has been widely discredited by nearly all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological, counseling, educational and social work professional organizations. They are deceptive practices based on the false premise that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming (LGBTQ) is a mental illness that needs to be cured.”

The report also relies on a 2009 “systematic review” by the American Psychological Association which concluded that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of [conversion therapy] practitioners and advocates.”

Use of “harmful” “conversion therapy” by Christians supposedly leads to “depression, decreased self-esteem, substance abuse, homelessness, or suicidal behavior.” The bill would therefore allow prosecution against those who practice “conversion therapy” under Federal Trade Commission rules.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, conversion therapy includes “any practice or treatment by any person that seeks to change another individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.” LifeSiteNews apparently laments that Republicans will probably block passage of the bill.

Various organizations are claiming credit for getting the ball rolling on this legislation. LifeSiteNews reports that “This was borne out of a pro-gay Washington Post story headlined “‘LGBTQ people were born perfect’: A new bill would ban conversion therapy nationwide measure.”

On the other hand, Marxist-oriented The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), tirelessly working to unravel the culture of America and to bring freedom-lovers under a statist yoke, informs us that “The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against” a New Jersey conversion therapy organization called JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing). SPLC published the politically correct dictum that “conversion therapy” is a “fraudulent practice.” “Aside from being junk science, conversion therapy encourages a climate of anti-gay bigotry,” the SPLC added.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

As is always true, the weakest intellectual case needs the support of government edicts. The ipse dixit of the SPLC or even of the United States government, if the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act happened were to pass, is worthless. Our self-appointed cultural leaders better hurry to ban internet articles and burn the published books which document exactly how sodomy was removed from the APA’s “mental illness” list in 1973.

Jeffrey Weeks, author of Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, correctly points out that “The decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision.” Instead, “it was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion was a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition of homosexuality as a problem.”

This is borne out by the numerous psychiatrists over the past few decades that described how the homosexual network, led by Frank Kameny and his Gay Liberation Front, publicly declared that “Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

Kameny and his rainbow legion of homosexual storm troopers disrupted the meeting of the APA in San Francisco in 1973, took over microphones, and demanded homosexuality be “removed” from the “disorder list.” The APA, feeling the furor of hardnose politics, capitulated.

Dr. Charles Socarides comments: “This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.” Science has nothing to do with it. Yet, the SPLC has the cheek to call “junk science” and “snake oil” the fact that people are “converted” away from a homosexual lifestyle.

Perhaps most ominous is the brazen assault against religious liberty that the Democrats sponsor. Columnist Claire McCartney (Paper Mag, April 27) demonstrates the poison with which the left deals. She writes that “conversion therapy is already illegal in seven states … while the practice [conversion therapy] is widely reviled in many parts of the country, in others it is protected under the guise of religious freedom.” Further, “The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to classify conversion therapy practitioners—from church leaders to licensed therapists—as fraudulent.”

There you have it. Religious freedom is a “guise” while “church leaders” are aligned in the crosshairs of total government control. Church leaders, whether on the couch, or behind the pulpit, are to be subject to penalties of law if they appeal to homosexuals to repent and turn to God, leaving a sinful lifestyle.

So, while spineless preachers dither about whether homosexuals are perhaps “born that way,” and their soft-shell preachments reflect more theological thimble-rigging than an honest exegesis of the biblical text, the government is set to make up their minds for them. With a blatant disregard for freedom of speech, Democrat lawmakers, along with pro-sodomite organizations, are setting the stage for prosecution of the pulpit.

Will Humanism Save the Planet?

Will Humanism Save the Planet?

by Bill Lockwood

Laws are always theologically based, whether or not they are so acknowledged,” observes Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction). This is why in the societies of the ancient Near East, laws were always associated with deity. The famous Hammurabi stele, for example, shows the sun god Shemash giving the Babylonian laws to the king. This illustrates the fact that humanity recognizes that law must have ultimacy—be recognized as the ultimate standard—if it is to give any conviction that it must be followed.

Conversely, when people lose the conviction that law must be followed as an ultimate standard, then we have societies degenerating into pragmatism—everyone does that which is right in “his own eyes” (Judges 21:25) — and the breakdown of society itself is near. Right and wrong are only questions of risk and reward and morality is only a matter of personal reflection. As atheist Richard Dawkins put it, “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 301).

This is why people who reject the first commandments of the Decalogue (Exodus 20) [“thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc. …] can not be expected to recognize any ultimate significance in the last six [“honor thy father and mother; thou shalt not kill …]. At a society level, when God is erased from a culture, as our political and intellectual leaders are feverishly seeking to do, chaos between people is the predicted result. This is exactly what is occurring in America.

Humanism

Humanism removes God from public or private consideration. “No god will save us,” says the Humanist Manifesto. But that leaves man without any basis upon which to assess any action as ultimately right or wrong. “Ethics are situational and autonomous.” No ultimate savior and no purpose in life. However, people instinctively need a moral base and a purpose for living which cannot be supplied by Humanism itself. Therefore, from the Christian world-view, humanists bootleg some type of value into their system. Not the saving of souls, for the Manifesto boasts that there is no damnation to fear. But we must have “planetary salvation.” What is this?

Greg Epstein, who serves as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and is Executive Director of the Humanist Hub on that campus, a place where atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers connect with each other, authored Good without God. In it (p. 148) he quoted another with approval:  “This [ecological crisis] is a different kind of issue than Christians (or any other humans) have ever faced, and continuing to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life may even impair our ability to see clearly its depths and significance … What is now needed is a reordering of the whole of human life around the globe in an ecologically sustainable manner – something heretofore never contemplated by any of our great religious (or secular) traditions.”

Whatever else might be said regarding Epstein’s sounding of the ecological alarm, it is a purposeful call to arms. His ecological “crisis” demands concerted action and he has proposals to accomplish it. He is seeking to re-infuse into a vacuous world-view some sort of ultimacy—a standard which should be followed with conviction. The words SHOULD and OUGHT are written all throughout Epstein’s manifesto. What of this?

First, this is precisely what his world-view disallows. If there is no god, and ethics are completely and truly “situational” and “autonomous”—arising solely within each individual—then Epstein’s should and ought have no more value than for him to say “I itch.” When he says “What is needed …” we must remember that his convictions on the subject are nothing more than the combination of atoms bumping into one another. Only physical sensations brought about by physical chemical reactions. There is no real value in this.

Second, as all atheists, Epstein criticizes religion and specifically a God-centered world view. Religion is somehow to blame in what he calls our current “ecological crisis.” But if Epstein is correct in his basic world-view then my religious belief is produced solely by matter in motion, just as his world belief is produced. Whatever we believe and do cannot be the fault of religion since religion is only the product of matter in motion. No moral fault can be laid at the feet of those who “continue to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life …”

Where did his matter get the right to criticize my matter or even to speak about the earth being treated justly? Why blame Christianity? Why even speak about “global injustice?” There can be no such thing as injustice unless man is more than matter in motion. Of course, the particular arrangement of matter in motion known as Greg Epstein cannot help making these judgments since he is not a rational being but only matter responding to the brute force of matter.

Back to Homepage