#25 - The Case of the Fallen Governor

The Bewilderment of Sin - By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, June 26, 2009
[As Christians, we are familiar with the teaching of the need for abstinence and sexual purity. But there are times when we can allow our passions to master us, not to do what is good [what we know is the right thing] but instead to do that which is pleasurable for us. It happens to great Christian men, as you will read, but it also happens to all of us, usually starting with one small sin. (James 1:13-15)]

"In the past 24 hours since Governor Mark Sanford admitted his affair, I’ve run the gamut of emotions: sadness, depression, anger, and most of all, bewilderment. The particular tragedy of Sanford is that he had been an outstanding governor. He’s attractive, engaging, and smart. He is an articulate and tenacious defender of family values. And he espoused the cause of Christ. Now, his career lies on the ash heap of history. He’ll have to gracefully withdraw from political life and try to put his shattered marriage back together."

"I mentioned sadness and depression. Sanford’s admission is simply the latest among pro-family conservative Christian politicians. Remember Senator David Vitter, involved with a prostitution service? Then just a week ago, Senator John Ensign of Nevada—a good friend I have known for years—he, too, admitted an affair. And now Mark Sanford, probably the last man in American public life I would have expected to so incredibly disappoint us. Sadness, depression—then there’s anger. These men dishonored their families and their offices and the Christian faith they profess. But most of all, I am bewildered. Sanford had it all—a beautiful wife and family, high public office, and he was a viable candidate, perhaps, for President. Why would he throw it all away?"

"The answer came to me as I stewed over Sanford’s demise—and as I have reflected on my own life and my own failures, particularly before I knew the Lord. We humans, you see, have an infinite capacity for self-rationalization. We reason that we can give in to those seemingly minor temptations—say an emotional attraction to a co-worker, or just one drink at the party—because we think we know the boundaries. We think our reason can keep us safe. The problem is, as C. S. Lewis wrote in his timeless essay, “Men Without Chests,” that our reason is no match for the passions of the flesh. Lewis put it this way: Our stomachs (that is our appetites) can’t be controlled by our minds (that is, reason). Something else has to come in to play—and that is the spirited element, or our chests, as he called it. It’s our will being trained to do what is right and just. Nearly every grave moral failure begins with a small sin. Because there comes a time, after we toy with sin, when one pull of the flesh causes us to cross the line, to disengage from reason, and to follow our appetites wherever they may lead. And, I’m afraid, this is especially easy today. We’re told we can have it all, that we can be free to pursue any pleasure. Our wills are not trained to do what is good, but to do what pleases us. Many of us have become, as Lewis said, men without chests."

So, fellow Christians, don’t be self-righteous. Let the Sanford tragedy be a cautionary tale. Are you toying with sin? If so, for your self, your family, and your Lord—stop. Don’t put yourself in a position of compromise. Instead, let us—you and I—prayerfully build up our chests and train our will that we might, by God’s grace and in fellowship with other believers who hold us accountable, not betray our Lord."[emphasis mine]

[It would be easy to condemn someone, such as this Governor, who falls into sin. Let us instead choose to pray for our brother in Christ (as we too, recognizing our own weaknesses, would want), that he will be sustained by God’s grace as he begins restoring his marriage.]

#24 - 'I Got the Sucker'

Obama, PETA, and the Value of Human Life -- By Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentaries, 6/24/2009

[The sudden death yesterday of Michael Jackson is getting worldwide attention. I refer you to an insightful commentary found in today's Worldmag.com posting by a liberal columnist from Atlantic: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/06/26/grieve-for-the-culture-that-created-jackson/]

[The incident last week referred to in this article addresses the absolute lack of common sense that describe the worldview of too many people, especially of the liberal (sometimes called “progressive”) persuasion. The extreme view of the value of non-human life held by not just PETA but all who place human “choice” above the sacredness of human life is at the same time silly but dangerously tragic.]

“There was a lot going in the news last week—riots over the election in Iran, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling. But the biggest story of the week, it turns out, was—drum roll, please—the story of President Obama swatting a fly. “I got the sucker!” Obama told CNBC correspondent John Harwood after killing a fly that had been buzzing around his head. Harwood laughed and the camera crew applauded. But the sight of the fly’s corpse lying on the White House rug was too much for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—and insects, apparently. They sent a letter to the Fly Swatter in Chief, expressing their disapproval. In the future, PETA said, they hoped Obama would treat flies in a more “humane” manner. To underscore their point, PETA sent the President a Humane Bug Catcher, which allows flies to be trapped and then released outside. The story of the squashed fly afforded us a moment of comic relief. But there’s a serious point at stake here. We are seeing more and more examples of people treating animals—and even insects—as if they had as much value as humans.”

“The other day, I saw what I first thought was a school bus. It wasn’t. It was a doggie daycare bus, taking the neighborhood pooches to a dog-sitting facility. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. Go online, and you’ll see many ads for expensive clothes for dogs and cats. And a few years ago, during the making of the film Men in Black, the American Humane Society was on hand to make sure none of the hundreds of cockroaches used in the film were injured. Cockroaches! Groups like PETA illustrate a philosophy of reductionism, which treats all life as morally equivalent. Of course, if reductionists really want to be consistent, they would not even boil water, because every time they do, they kill millions of innocent microbes. If all life has equal value, then the logical conclusion is to treat all life the same, no matter how lowly—or how deadly, like mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus.”
“Obviously, nobody can live in the real world on the basis of this philosophy.
A realistic and livable philosophy of life comes from Scripture, which teaches that God created us in His image and set us up as stewards over the rest of creation, from amoebas to apes to houseflies. That doesn’t give us license to treat animals cruelly. But it’s one thing to treat animals kindly, and quite another to accord them equal status with humans. Christians need to learn to press people to face the logical conclusion of their own beliefs. The idea that animals—even flies—ought to be treated with the same respect as humans may sound humane at first. But press the idea to its rational conclusion, and people will soon begin to see how irrational and illogical it really is. The good news is that this many Americans did begin to think about these ideas last week. The result: Many people told PETA to buzz off. So I think we ought to congratulate the President for squashing that sucker, as he put it. It ignited a great national discussion about the absurdity of putting flies on the same moral plane as humans made in God’s image. [emphasis mine]

#23 - “A Slobbering Love Affair” by Bernard Goldberg [A Book Summary]

Please be sure to check out the bi-monthly editorial cartoons at www.worldmag.com/articles/15514

Note :In last fall’s election, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked registered voters: “Who do most reporters want to see win?,” Seventy percent answered Obama. (Just 9 percent thought it favored John McCain.) Of these, 62 percent of Democrats and independents said the media favored Mr. Obama. In other words, people were not expecting the media to be unbiased in the election!

In the recent book by television news reporter, media analyst, and author, Bernard Goldberg, we read the incredible story of the media’s bias for our now President Obama. In its exhaustive analysis of coverage of Barack Obama by ABC, CBS, and NBS evening news coverage, the Media Research Center, among many findings, reported that: (1) Out of the 81 total reports about him from his 2004 Democratic Party Convention speech until the start of his campaign in early 2007, there was not a single negative story about him. (p. 171) “The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a ‘liberal’ 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” rising star,” or “superstar” during the same period. ..The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination [and the election] for Barrack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.” (p. 172-3)

Former Democratic Party pollster (for Senator George McGovern in 1972 in his Presidential campaign) and now political analyst, says: “There is one institution in America which has no checks and balances … And that is the press. And there was a reason for that. It wasn’t that the Founding Fathers loved the press. It was because the press was supposed to protect the country. That’s why Jefferson said, ‘I would much rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.’ But [when the media] leaves the ramparts and become a partisan outsider for one party or the other or one candidate or the other; essentially [deciding] who should be president and who should not be president; what truth people should know and what truth they should not know; then what they become, what they constitute, is a threat to democracy.” “The fundamental job of journalists is to look out for us – the American people! If nobody cares what the press says [knowing that have an institutional bias], journalists will be watchdogs in name only. They may bark from time to time, but nobody will listen. And their weakness will make it easy for a corrupt [or wrong-headed and dangerous] government to get away with murder. That is the danger we face when the mainstream media go on a noble mission to make history.” [emphasis mine] Writes Mr. Goldberg: “..just as judicial activists exploit their position on the bench to make law, so media activists exploit their position to shame the news. Instead of chronicling the news, they decide to influence it; instead of reporting on a presidential election, in 2008 they tried to determine its outcome.” (p. 166-7)

In chapter 18 of his book, Mr. Goldberg lists ten questions he would have asked Mr. Obama had he been able to interview him during the campaign. I think that these questions should still be asked of our President by an unbiased media:

1) How do you define “post-partisan politics”—because it seems to me that what you really mean is “folks on the right, come over to the left?
2) Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central
to your “post-partisan” political philosophy.
3) Is it fair to say is [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright’s sermons had not been made
public you would still be worshipping at his church? [Rev. Wright has
declared that America brought 9/11 on itself and that the government
created AIDS to eradicate black people.]
4) What did your wife really mean when she said, referring to your candidacy,
that it was the first time she was proud to be an American?
5) Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is not because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year-old girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spoke forcefully and eloquently … about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kids if you had made it a recurring theme in your campaign. Why didn’t you?
6) Regardless of your age at the time of Bill Ayers’ bombings [ Mr. Ayers is a former member of the Weather Underground, a left-wing terrorist group that planted bombs in the Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970’s.], why did you have anything—anything—to do with a man like Ayers, …who [also] said his only regret was that he didn’t do more to stop the war in Vietnam?
7) According to news reports, you have a half brother living in a hut in Kenya? Is that true? Have you ever sent him money? If not, why not—since you’ve professed compassion for the poor?
8) You won’t release your college records. That makes me wonder why not. Was it something you wrote while in college that you don’t want voters to know about? Was it your grades? [Could he have been a poor student, than even the unjustly ridiculed President Bush?] I’m puzzled, help me out.
9) How willing are you to disappoint liberals?
10) As you know, some critics have suggested the media went easy on you. Agree or disagree? What do you say to those who believe that journalists wanted to help shape history by dong what they could to get the first African-American elected president of the United States? [p. 143-5]

Some final statistics from the book to consider:- Looking at how journalists voted the past 40 years:
- In 1968, 86% voted for the Democrat, Hubert Humphrey
- In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern
- In 1980, twice as many journalists voted for Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.
- In 1984, 58% of journalists supported Walter Mondale who lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
- In 1988, White House correspondents from major newspapers, networks, magazines, and news services voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis by 12 to 1 over George H.W. Bush.
- In 1992, Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents supported Bill Clinton over President Bush 89% to 9 percent..
- In 2004, campaign journalist based outside of Washington, D.C., supported John Kerry over President Bush by a 3 to one ratio. Those inside the Washington, D.C. area voted for Kerry 12 to 1.
- In 2008, a study in Investor’s Business Daily put the campaign donation ratio of journalists at more than 11-to 1 in favor of Democrats.
- In 1981, 65 percent of journalists across the country identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.
- In a 1996 study of journalists based in Washington, 61% said they were liberals, 9 % said they were conservatives.
- In 2007 the Pew Research Center found self-identified liberal journalists outnumbered conservatives 4 to 1.

If you wonder if the media still shows bias in favor of President Obama, all you need to do is to watch a newscast by ABC, NBC, and especially CBS, any evening or read almost any major newspaper (online) any day. And in case you missed here, here are a few news stories you might not have heard about:
Item #1 – The President goes to a fast food restaurant near the White House to buy hamburgers for the correspondents who report from there. The symbolism: He’s just a nice guy who, like most Americans, eats hamburgers.
Item #2 –The President takes his wife out on a date for dinner and to see a show in New York City. He does pay for the dinner and theatre tickets; the taxpayers paid for the $74,000 it costs to fly him round trip in a military jet. The media made little mention of ths.
Item #3 - The First Lady plants a vegetable garden on the grounds of the White House. The symbolism: She identifies with Americans who are struggling in this economy.
Item #4 –The First Lady and her daughters recently flew to Paris to meet her husband (stopping over on his way back from speaking in Egypt), to go sight seeing and buy some designer clothes (which she almost always wears). We aren’t told what their transportation costs the American taxpayers.
Iten”#5 – While the First Lady was still the wife of the U.S. Senator, her salary as an administrator at a Chicago hospital increased from well over $100,000, to over $300,000 just after her husband’s efforts got that same hospital a million dollar assistance from the American taxpayers. Just a “coincidence” the media largely failed to report.

#22 - Remembering My Father and THE Father on This Father’s Day

My father was a man who worked hard to provide for his family. He demonstrated what it is to give it your all, sometimes even abandoning common sense. I remember once, during a busy lunch hour at our family restaurant, my father, like me just over 5 feet but muscularly thin, once tried to lift a hundred pound bag of rice by himself rather than stop to ask for help and nearly broke his back. Another time, he (THE cook in our family restaurant) was busy chopping some vegetables and cut his hand with the thick-bladed knife. But rather than stop and get medical help, rather than interrupt a very busy lunch hour, he just wrapped a washcloth around the bleeding hand and proceeded to finish out the lunch hour using just his other hand! It was only afterwards that we discovered the extent of his injury and had to rush to take him to the doctor (though I think even then he complained).

Yes, my father was a good example of hard work and was a good provider. And though he had only had a 4th grade education (was sent back to Japan while still in grade school to help on the family farm until past his teen years), he was considered even scholarly among his friends for his extensive reading of material written in Japanese. He also self-taught himself in reading English, as I remember seeing him up early every morning, without fail, reading the English newspaper and writing down in a notepad words he didn’t understand that he later would look up in a dictionary and be found reading over those words in his bedroom. Unfortunately, he was so uncomfortable with his English SPEAKING ability that I never heard him even attempt a conversation in English, not even with my brother and me. It is a sad fact that throughout my entire life, I never had a conversation with my Dad and he never even made any attempt to have one. By doing this, he did teach me how our pride can keep us from stepping out and enjoying some relationships even more fully.

Because of this, my Father was never someone who was available to me or my younger brother to share things with or one from whom we could get insights or direct encouragement. Maybe it was because his father was the same way and that, in fact, the Japanese culture taught all fathers to be aloof from their sons and didn’t teach that they had any responsibility to do more than be good providers and disciplinarians. (Though I always deserved the punishment, my father WAS never shy about being involved in any spankings I received.) I do remember that he used to take me and my younger brother to see a movie each week when I was still in grade school (those times didn’t require him to get into any conversations with us) but for some reason he suddenly stopped spending any time with my brother and I. I wish he had realized that for us, spending time with him would have still been meaningful, even without any conversation.

When my mother died on the last day of January in 2003, my father went into depression and six weeks later, while recovering from surgery, he suddenly decided he was not going to eat. (At his funeral, a family friend shared with me that he told her that he didn’t want to go on living without my Mom. They had been married over 50 years.)Because he had left instructions not to be force fed, my brother and I were not sure what to do but the very next day, my father died. I had tried to have him read the gospel message and have others try to share it with him in Japanese. But to the best of my knowledge, my father did not place his trust in Christ before he died, and so I have no expectation of seeing him in Heaven. He was basically one of those “good” people that we all have to entrust will spend a Christ-less eternity however our Just God decides they deserve to spend it.

On this Father’s Day, I recognize how blessed I was to have even had a Dad as there are so many today who grow up without even the example of a good one. I do hope that YOUR Dad knows Jesus as his Savior and Lord and has been or was more than just a provider but one who chose to be involved in your life, one who was there for you when you needed counsel and encouragement. While I have been greatly blessed to be available to help teen guys over the years, I confess to being jealous of their Dads for the privilege (and I acknowledge also their great responsibility) of being able to speak into the lives of their sons in a way I never will in this life. I only hope that God is not finished using me to at least help other teen guys to better know their HEAVENLY Father as He is the One who is ultimately not only our Perfect Provider but also our Most Wise Counselor and Guide.

Let’s always remember that Jesus came not just to die for our sins but to give us the privilege to have a relationship with our Father in Heaven, One who created us, knows us fully, and still loves us unconditionally, who will meet our every need (though thankfully not all our wants) and never fail to be there to converse with us in the language of prayer. To Him be all glory, on this Father’s Day, and every day.

#21 - Think About It: What’s with Birthdays?

[Be sure to check this blog this Sunday, June 21st, for a special Father's Day posting.]
As I anticipated this Friday (6/19) being my birthday, I became curious of the origin of this annual milestone that people almost everywhere in the world celebrate. As I suspected, I discovered that birthday celebrations are actually of pagan origin. According to the Encyclopedia Americana (1991), “The ancient world of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Persia celebrated the birthdays of gods, kings, and nobles.... The keeping of birthday records was important … principally because a birth date was essential for the casting of a horoscope. So, there is a direct connection between the Pagan practice of birthday celebrations and astrology (horoscopes and fortune telling). Of course, the Bible condemned astrology and fortune telling as in Isaiah 47:13-15. Not surprisingly then, the ancient Jews did not celebrate birthdays, regarding them as Pagan.” Finally, The World Book Encyclopedia states: “The early Christians did not celebrate His [Christ’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom. (Volume 3, page 416.) ”

So then, what am I saying? That we shouldn’t celebrate our birthdays as well as Christmas? No. As far as birthdays are concerned, I think that as far as it gives us occasion to thank our mothers for giving us birth, considering that one in four mothers choose not to give birth to their unborn child but to abort him or her, I see nothing wrong with celebrating birthdays. But, as far as Christmas is concerned, it does help us to remember that Christmas is not technically a Christian celebration with Biblical support or even roots in the traditions of the early Church. Furthermore, we should recognize that our birthdays no more represent the day that our lives began anymore than December 25th represents the day that Jesus Christ entered our world.

The truth is that, like Jesus, we entered this world the day we were conceived in our mother’s wombs, not the day we exited her womb. And so, if Jesus was (though it’s only a guess) born on December 25th, he actually entered our world – technically- 9 months before on March 25h. Which means that if we are to celebrate the entrance of Christ into our world, we would be more accurate to celebrate it on March 25th of each year. Of course, that would be at about the same time we celebrate His death (Good Friday) and resurrection (Easter) and would be too many holidays to celebrated at one time. And besides, how can we ever picture Christmas without snow, right? No, though technically inaccurate on several points, Christmas should still be celebrated for what it represents to the world – that at one point in history God chose to enter our world in order to one day sacrifice Himself for the world. That Eternal and incomparable expression of love should forever be celebrated.

But for ourselves, here’s a thought. While it’s asking a lot to have us stop celebrating our birthdays (even though as Christians we now know it is a celebration with pagan roots), may I suggest that we consider making it a greater celebration each year to recognize the day we were conceived, the day we really were first given life and technically first entered the world. Of course, very few of us will ever know exactly the day we were conceived. But what if we just took our birthday and projected backwards 9 months to the day? In my case, for instance, though I was born on a June 19th, I can reasonably conclude that I was conceived around September 19th of the previous year. With that in mind, I am choosing this year to begin celebrating, not my birthday but my “First-day,” the term I’ve chosen to recognize the day I (anyone) was given life (by God) and first entered the world.

In closing, I do have to wonder if, by celebrating birthdays inaccurately as the day we made entrance into the world, we do not perpetuate the myth that our life does not begin, that we are not “officially” a person, until the day we are born. I can’t help but wonder if people, beginning with Christians, began to celebrate their “First-day” and not their “birth-day,” the unborn will begin to be understood as being persons with lives already begun long before their “official” entrance into the world by birth. Maybe then, women considering abortions will understand that they are already mothers because their unborn child is already alive in their womb and that having an abortion is killing a person who is just not yet born. Maybe then, the claim of the abortion promoters that the unborn is only a “potential” life will be exposed for the lie it is, and, by God’s grace, fewer women will see abortion as a "choice" that should ever be considered.

#20 - The President’s Speech to the Muslim World from Egypt - Part II

[The following contains excerpts from a commentary posted on Newsmax.com written by Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerant. Rabbi Pomerant is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.]

“…While [President] Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: ‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.’ ‘On the other hand . . . ’? Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.” Rabbi Pomerant went on to say that the President talked of Islam’s “peaceful” intent throughout his speech, and that while there are verses in the Koran that support this view, “…Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.” He points out the violent conquest by Muslims of the Middle East, Spain, and half of Western Europe and of how “…the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations to convert or die.”

“In [the President’s] almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past. Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its ‘colonialism’ and history of slavery. ‘For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,’ [President] Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity. According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians. Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?”
“… [President] Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews. In his speech, [the President’s] only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education. How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for ‘crimes’ such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab? [President] Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished. [He] claimed that ‘as a student of history’ he understands more than most the truth about ‘civilization's debt to Islam.’ He added, ‘And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.’”

Rabbi Pomerant further questions how this can be when a Jew or a Christian can be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion. He further wonders why the President could not offer a single example of where religious freedom is truly honored in the Muslim world today. He spoke with pride how there is mosque in each state in the U.S. and that there exists more than 1,200 mosques in our country. And yet, the President did not speak to there being NOT ONE Christian church or Jewish synagogue within the nation of Saudi Arabia. He goes on to ask: “Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct? Why, dear president, has the ancient. Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?”

“ ‘On the other hand,’ to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths. Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections. Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities? Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel. In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine. You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.”

“You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam. Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign? Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew? …You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East. You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of ‘wiping the Jewish state off the map’ — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of. Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.”

#19 - The President’s Speech to the Muslim World from Egypt - Part 1

Islam and Religious Tolerance - By Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentaries, 6/8/2009
“Copts are murdered and seminaries are burned. The Egyptian government’s response has been less than vigorous.”

Last Thursday, President Obama gave his much-anticipated speech at Cairo University in Egypt. The speech was eloquent and powerfully given. The theme was a “new beginning” in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and was well-received by its intended audience—building important bridges. In it, the President spoke of the need to “speak the truth” and avoid a “self-defeating focus on the past.” Well, on that score I wish that the President had taken his own words more to heart.

The next morning, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote that the President’s speech combined “idealism” and “cunning,” and included “historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalences.” Some of the President’s rhetoric was simply flattery, as when the president said that “Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.” Well, I know from my own experience that complimenting a person you’re trying to win over is part of diplomacy. Acknowledging a society’s achievements is a way of saying “we respect you.” Similarly, while the President made the Treaty of Tripoli sound much more important than it really was, this was part of an effort to put his audience at ease.

But more troubling is what the President had to say about Islam and religious tolerance. The President spoke of how Islam had demonstrated “through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance . . .” Well, it’s true that some Islamic societies have embodied the tolerance the President spoke of. The 16th-century Mughal emperor Akbar was so renowned for his commitment to tolerance and equality that he received a letter from Queen Elizabeth I of England telling him that reports of his “humanity” had reached her. But folks, that was 400 years ago. Since then, you would be hard-pressed to find another instance of this kind of genuine religious tolerance in the Islamic world.

Take the President’s Egyptian hosts—persecution of Egypt’s Christians, the Copts, ranges from systematic harassment to murder. An example of the former was Egypt’s response to the “swine flu” scare: It ordered the slaughter of its pigs—the only country to do so. Since Muslims don’t eat pork, the effect was to further impoverish the Coptic minority. As one Muslim Moroccan writer put it, “The Copts are victims of the flu without ever having been contaminated.” Why? Many Arab intellectuals—Muslims and Christians—believe it was to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, which opposes raising pigs on “Islamic soil.” Then again, they’re not crazy about raising Christians there, either. Copts are murdered and seminaries are burned. The Egyptian government’s response has been less than vigorous.

Now to be fair, if you are a Christian, there are much worse places to live in the Islamic world than Egypt. But what does that say about Islam and religious freedom today? “Speaking the truth” means acknowledging this reality. Avoiding what’s called a “self-defeating focus on the past” requires acknowledging that Akbar has been dead 400 years—and that it’s time for the Islamic world to demonstrate today “tolerance” in deeds, not just words.

For Further Reading and Information
View President Obama's speech in Cairo.
Mustafa Suleiman and Mona Moussly, "Egypt's Pig Killing Spree Causes Sectarian Tension," Alarabiya.net, 28 May 2009.
David Brooks, "The Chicago View," NY Times Op-Ed, 5 June 2009.
Jeffrey Fleishman, "When Egypt Killed the Pigs, It Undermined a Way of Life," Chicago Tribune, 29 May 2009.
Gina Dalfonzo, "A New Beginning," The Point, 4 June 2009.
View all the BreakPoint Commentaries on religious freedom and tolerance in the Middle East.

(Part 2, the next posting, will present many questionable statements made by the President. Be sure to check it out!)

#18 – ... The Accommodating Church.( Part 2 continued from posting #17

As a final point, I must make mention of the fact (that I have found rarely commented on elsewhere) that Mr. Tiller was actually a member of a “Christian” church and was serving as an usher at the time of his murder! I don’t know about you, but that fact is a very sad commentary on the state of the Christian Church today. Of course, the Church will always be a place of differing opinions, though I would expect that the accurate teachings of Scripture would be extremely difficult for those who are pro-abortion to reconcile in their reasoning. But MEMBERSHIP for an unrepentant abortionist; how can that be justified? Furthermore, I would expect that membership would require that Mr. Tiller was a Christian. But, excuse me, according to the Bible, a Christian is one who recognizes their sinfulness and accepts the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross for their forgiveness and accepts Him alone as their Savior and Lord. (Colossians 1:13-14) How could an unrepentant abortionist be considered a Christian - biblically? {Of course, a church that does not view things biblically is itself not a church and is not a part of the Body of Christ and an authentic Christian church.)

Mr. Tiller’s recognition by his “church” to be a Christian and to be accepted into membership at that “church” is illustrative of how accommodating Christian churches have tended to become. In trying to be “seeker-friendly,” many run into the danger of tailoring not just their services but their Biblical teachings to make them more acceptable to those who have not yet learned of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Many have gone so far as to not use words such as sin or mention the very real Hell that Jesus spoke of more often than He did of heaven itself because “it might offend some visitors.” Shame on those churches!

Oh, but you say, not my church. Really? Let me ask you. For one, when was the last time you heard a sermon on why, biblically, abortion is murder? Secondly, when was the last time your church prayed for an end to abortion in this country? Then, is your church either helping those pregnancy resource ministries who offer free help to women considering abortions and/or have members who actually go to an abortion clinic to counsel the women there with appointments to have their unborn babies killed? And finally, does your church continue to extend membership to those who, knowing the evil of abortion, decide to abort their unborn child? If a church is not in some way standing for Life and against the forces of Evil, than it is by default accommodating that Evil.

Several years ago, I was asked to give a prayer on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. (This is usually the 3rd or 4th Sunday each January that coincides with the annual anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in the U.S.) I was quite disappointed that the pastor himself did not step forward to offer the prayer. But I was shocked by what happened when I stepped forward on stage to offer a prayer. From behind me, the worship leader stepped forward and whispered in my ear, “Now, be sure not to say anything that might offend the guests in our church.” I was so incredulous and upset that if I went by my feelings I would have turned and yelled at the guy! There I was, about to pray for the end of the most horrific ongoing holocaust in our country’s history (at least 50 MILLION unborn killed and tens of millions of Moms and others victimized) and he wanted me to be sensitive to what some people might think! Even if I had said something that inadvertently upset someone who disagreed, I would find the whole idea that we as a nation legally allow the murder of our most innocent citizens to be offensive enough to outweigh anyone’s slighted feelings. And besides, if the truth about evil upsets someone, maybe they are just too comfortable with that evil and NEED TO BE UPSET at that instead of at my words of Truth!

If your church is one of who does one of those things I’ve described, I commend your church. But if your church does not do any of those things, then, I submit, as a friend confessed to me once, that the killing of the unborn “is not even on my [your church’s] radar screen,” and I say with sadness that you belong to an accommodating church. It confounds and yes, angers me, that many Christians today are so determined to be seen as “tolerant” that we go far beyond just accepting the views of others who hold anti-biblical and pro-death views, but we are actually afraid to challenge such wrong-headed and dangerous thinking for fear of appearing “judgmental.” God’s Truth will always in itself pronounce judgment on lies and by nature will offend those who choose to believe those lies. The Body of Christ represents the Church of Jesus Christ and a Christian church is never to be the “Church of Tolerance and Accommodation.” When we devolve into such blasphemy, then we are no longer part of the Church but, by our accommodation, support the very Evil that the Church is called to stand against. And, I believe, when the Church fails to be the Church of Jesus Christ, it invites God’s judgment upon itself and, tragically, by its failure, also upon this nation that professes to be “under God.”

#17 – The Murder of a Baby-Killer And What About Accommodating Churches - Part 1

(Hey, if you like great editorial cartoons, please check out those at Worldmag.com every Friday (today!) Just look for the link in the right hand column. REALLY GREAT STUFF!)

You may have heard that this past Sunday, Wichita, Kansas abortionist George Tiller was murdered while serving at an usher at his church. For decades he has been one of the most infamous and most greatly protested late-term abortionists in the country. In case you are not aware, he was one of the few (thankfully) who kill an unborn baby even on the day her or she is scheduled to be born! We may never know how many tens of thousands of babies Mr. Tiller is responsible for killing but it is not stretch to say he was one of the greatest mass murderers in our nation’s history (even though the law persists in calling them “legal.”)

No matter what you may here, let me assure you that that this man was anything but a “health care” provider or even a “doctor.” (1) First of all, the “health care” referred to by abortionists almost always refers to the “mental” health of the mother, not her physical health.(Once a baby is conceived, a woman is ALREADY a mother!) In other words, rarely will you find that a mothers’s life was in any way endangered but that for whatever selfish reason the birth of her baby was an inconvenient stress or cause of some anxiety for her. In those extremely rare cases where the physical health of the mother is in danger, many of the doctors so diagnosing her condition have later proven to be wrong. We know this because there are many reported cases of mothers who have courageously carried their baby to term despite having such a diagnosis who go on to deliver a perfectly healthy baby and her physical health is not affected. And even when the self-sacrificing mother does die giving birth, it must be remembered that she chose to respond to a mother’s natural instinct (rather than suppressing that instinct) to put her child’s life above her own. These are mothers in the truest sense. On the other hand, those who choose to place their interests above their child’s and contract a killer abortionist to kill their child commit the ultimate hate crime and betrayal against their unborn child and they dishonor their privilege of motherhood. And secondly, while some who call themselves doctors no longer choose to take the centuries old Hippocratic Oath that in part says they will “do no harm,” I will always only refer to a person as a “doctor” ONLY if they swear by that oath. Since an abortionist is anything but one who does no harm, I refuse to ever honor them with the title of “doctor.”

All this being said, as one who is strongly pro-life, I’ve felt conflicted as have others like me about the murder of the one who was called “Killer Tiller.” (I’ve read the commentary of one Christian online on this murder and read through, at last count, the 84 comments it had elicited and which collectively expressed this conflict of emotions.) Of course, I agree that this murder was wrong and needs to condemned. The murder of even an abortionist is still the taking of a human life and the murderer needs to face the full penalty of the law as a consequence. (Ezekiel 18:23, Matthew 7:2) It must be recognized as well, however, that the murder of this MORALLY (though not legally) guilty man was not one of someone who was innocent in any way before God as were the tens of thousands of babies who he was very well paid to murder LEGALLY (to the forever shame of all Americans). I do feel for his family that is experiencing grief at this time but I feel even greater grief, on balance, for the truly innocent lives that were taken by this, one of the most heinous mass-murdering hit men in our nation’s history. And while it is said another abortionist is already planning to take Mr. Tiller’s place, I do NOT grieve that there is one less of these murderers to inflict such tremendous lasting harm on so many lives. (While the aborted babies are without question the primary victims, never forget that the mothers are often physically and emotionally and certainly spiritually victimized, not to mention also the lasting impact on the fathers, family members, and future siblings.)

Mr. Tiller, who never repented of his monstrous sins before death, will eventually face the eternal judgment and condemnation of the Author of All Life. The punishment he will undoubtedly endure throughout eternity will far surpass the horrors he inflicted on so many in his lifetime is something unimaginable. It is for that reason that whenever I pray for the end to the American Holocaust of abortion, I pray that every abortionist will, unlike Mr. Tiller, choose to finally repent of his evil deeds and fall on the mercy and surrender to the matchless grace found only in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I pray for the hundreds who already have, that they will somehow find peace in this lifetime despite the horrific memories they are likely to have the rest of their lives.

(If you are a Christian, be sure not to miss Part 2 of this posting next time.

#16 - Just the Right Person for the Job?

Some Preliminary Thoughts on the President’s Choice for the U.S. Supreme Court

President Obama and the mainstream media have been hyping Judge Sotomayor’s race – Latino – and her gender – a woman, ever since he nominated her for the U.S. Supreme Court. It is noteworthy and instructive that New York (her home state) Senator Chuck Schumer has said already that the Republicans “dare not vote against her.” Of course, the not so veiled implication is that Republicans would suffer politically among Latino (a growing voting block) and women voters. Is it possible, you must ask, that the judge’s race and her gender were the primary consideration in her selection as we were told for weeks prior that several other women (and why only women, hmm?) who were qualified were also being highly considered? What do you think? Well, do dogs bark and cats purr?

No, it doesn’t take a cynic to see this but just a political realist. But that being said, if you are a Latino or a woman, you should feel offended– not honored- because here is another example of politicians insulting your intelligence by saying that you will vote for a candidate purely/instinctively because they are of your same race or gender. After all, these people believe, there’s nothing as sure in winning politics as playing the race and the gender card. We just had an election less than 7 months ago in which tens of millions (including the mainstream media) in effect said, “Oh, if we have an African-American President, it will show the world that we are not a racist country anymore and we can stop feeling guilty that we ever were.” (This country has made such monumental progress in our racial views in the past 50 years that this view is just laughable. It’s funny how these same people like to say how so much more “progressive” other countries are than the U.S. in other areas but that they curiously fail to mention the much more deep racial divides in many of those very same countries.)

Finally, this selection was made by a President who as a candidate stressed again and again how he would bring people together and remove the divisions in this country. If this continued emphasis on a person’s race and gender is supposed to bring healing to those divisions, I sure don’t see it. Let’s all pay very close attention in the months ahead as more and more of the content of Judge Sotomayor’s record and judicial pronouncements over the years will be closely examined I don’t know about you, but as I said the last time regarding the President, I sure don’t care what a person’s race or in this case neither also his or her gender might be. Again, the only thing that should matter are the ideas they profess and the beliefs they hold, because in the final analysis those will speak more about the person and ensure how well they will serve us and NOT do us any harm.