TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

Muhammad and Islam

Nearly everyone can remember what they were doing on September 11, 2001. That fateful day affected all of us and certainly increased our desire to know more about Islam. In the years following, we have all learned more about the world’s second largest religion. But many times, political correctness has clouded clear thinking about Islam.

We hear that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Some even say, “The God of Islam is the same God as the God of the Jews and the Christians.” So what is the truth about these statements about Islam?

Let’s look at some of these statements and provide a biblically-based response. We need to know the facts about Islam and this current war on terror.

The first statement we will address is often heard in religion classes on college campuses. That is that “Muhammad is like every other religious founder.” This simply is not the case. For example, nearly every major religion in the world teaches a variation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Islam does not have a Golden Rule. Instead, it makes very definite distinctions in the way Muslims are to treat believers and unbelievers. The latter are called infidels and are often treated harshly or killed. This religious perspective is very different from other religions.

For a moment, let’s compare Jesus and Muhammad. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet from Allah. He is referred to as the “seal of the prophets” (Sura 33:40). But while he is revered as the greatest of the prophets, most do not teach that he was sinless. The Qur’an does not make the claim that he was sinless, and there are passages that teach that Muhammad was a man like us (Sura 18:110) and that Allah told Muhammad that he must repent of his sins (Sura 40:55).

By contrast, Jesus claimed to be God and claimed to have the powers and authority that only God could possess. The New Testament provides eyewitness accounts or records of eyewitness accounts of the claims that Jesus made and the miracles he performed. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Muhammad’s every action is to be imitated by Muslims. His life is a model for these believers. Some Muslims even avoid eating food that Muhammad avoided or never was able to eat. In fact, Muhammad is so revered by Muslims that no perceived criticism upon him or even his likeness (e.g., through a cartoon) may be allowed.

Muhammad also taught that Muslims are to fight in the cause of Allah (Sura 4:76) and fight against the unbelievers (Sura 9:123). By contrast, Jesus taught that Christians are to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39).

In conclusion, we can see that the life of Muhammad is different from many of the other founders of religion. Moreover, the life of Muhammad and the life of Jesus Christ are very different.

Islam: A Religion of Peace?

One politically correct phrase that is often repeated is that “Islam is a religion of peace.” While it is true that some Muslims are peace-loving, is it also true that Islam is a religion of peace? To answer that question, it is important to understand the meaning of jihad.

The word jihad is actually the noun of the Arabic verb jahidi, which means to “strive hard.” This verse is an example: “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, and evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73).

Although some Muslims understand this striving to be merely intellectual and philosophical, the usual translation of jihad involves a holy war. That has been the traditional interpretation since the time of Muhammad.

Jihad was to be waged on the battlefield. Sura 47:4 says, “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.” Sura 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”

Consider some of these other passages concerning jihad. Faithful Muslims wage jihad against unbelievers: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Sura 9:123).

Muslims are also to wage jihad not only against unbelievers but against those who have strayed from the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: and evil fate” (Sura 9:73).

Another way to understand the term “jihad” is to look at the historical context. After Muhammad’s success in the Battle of Badr, he set forth various principles of warfare. For example, according to Sura 9:29, jihad is a religious duty. He taught in Sura 9:111 that martyrdom in jihad is the highest good and guarantees salvation. Sura 9:5 says that Muslims engaged in jihad should not show tolerance toward unbelievers. And acts of terrorism are justified in Sura 8:2.

While it may be true that there are peaceful Muslims, it is not true that Islam is a peaceful religion. The teaching of jihad and the current interpretation by radical Muslims of this concept can easily be seen in the acts of terrorism around the world.

The Qur’an and the Bible are Both Violent Books

Whenever verses of the sword from the Qur’an are quoted, you can be sure that someone will quickly point out that the Old Testament calls for violence. But are these two books morally equivalent? Let’s look at some of these passages and see.

The Qur’an calls for jihad against the unbelievers (or infidels). Sura 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”

Sura 9:29 says, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Prophet, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, [Christians] until they pay the jizyah [per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sura 47:4-7 says, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads…And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray. He will guide them, and dispose their minds aright, and He will admit them to Paradise, that He has made known to them.”

In the Old Testament, you have a call for military action against specific groups. Deuteronomy 7:1-2 says, “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.”

1 Samuel 15:2-3 says, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

While there are some similarities, notice the difference. In the Old Testament, there was a direct and specific command to fight against a particular group of people. These passages do not apply to you unless you are a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite, or Amalekite. These commands given during the Old Testament theocracy apply only to those people at that time.

However, the passages in the Qur’an apply to all unbelievers at all times. Notice that there is no time limit on these universally binding commands to all Muslims at all times.

No Christian leader is calling for a Holy War against infidels. But many Muslim leaders cite the Qur’an for that very action. Osama bin Laden, for example, quotes many of these verses of the sword just cited within his various fatwas [legal pronouncement].

And contrast this with the New Testament which calls for believers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). In conclusion, the Bible and the Qur’an are very different in regard in calling to an act of violence.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

One politically correct phrase that is often repeated is that “Christians and Muslims worship the same God.” It is understandable that people might say that. Both Islam and Christianity are monotheistic, even though a foundational difference is the Christian belief in the trinity.

Certainly the most foundational doctrine in Islam is monotheism. This doctrine is encapsulated in the creed: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.” And not only is it a creed, it is a statement of faith that routinely heard from the lips of every faithful Muslim. It the creed by which every Muslim is called to prayer five times a day.

Because of this strong emphasis on monotheism, Muslims reject the idea that God could be more than one person or that God could have a partner. The Qur’an teaches that Allah is one god and the same god for all people. Anyone who does not believe this is guilty of the sin of shirk. This is the quintessential sin in Islam. According to Islam, God cannot have a partner and cannot be joined together in the Godhead with other persons. Muslims therefore reject the Christian idea of the Trinity.

Muslims and Christians also differ in their understanding of the nature and character of God. The God of the Bible is knowable. Jesus came into the world that we might know God (John 17:3).

Islam teaches a very different view of God. Allah is transcendent and distant. He is separate from his creation. He is exalted and far removed from mankind. While we may know his will, we cannot know him personally. Allah is called the creator and sustainer of the creation, but he is also unknowable. No person can ever personally know and have a relationship with Allah. Instead, humans are to be in total submission to the will of Allah.

Moreover, Allah does not personally enter into human history. Instead, he deals with the world through his word (the Qur’an), through his prophets (such as Muhammad), and through angels (such as Gabriel).

If you ask a Muslim to describe Allah, most likely they will recite to you a key passage that lists some of the names of God (Sura 59). The Qur’an requires that God be called by these “beautiful names.” This passage describes him as Most Gracious, Most Merciful, The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Guardian of Faith, The Preserver of Safety, The Exalted in Might, etc.

Finally, a Christian and Muslim perspective on God’s love is also very different. Christians begin with the belief that “God so loved the world” (John 3:16). By contrast, Muslims grow up hearing about all the people Allah does not love. Sura 2:190 says, “For Allah loves not transgressors.” Sura 3:32 says, “Allah loves not the unbelievers.” And Sura 3:57 says, “For Allah loves not the evildoers.”

In conclusion, we can see that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god.

Are the Bible and Qur’an the same?

A student in a university religion class may hear that all religions are basically the same. They only differ on minor details. This leads some to argue that the Bible and the Qur’an are compatible teachings. This is not true.

We should acknowledge the few similarities. Both the Bible and the Qur’an claim to be divine revelation. And both books claim to have been accurately preserved through the centuries.

But it is also true that the Bible and the Qur’an disagree with one another on major issues. The two books make contradictory claims about God, Jesus, salvation, and biblical history. Both claims cannot be true because the accounts contradict each other. Here are just a few examples of these contradictions:

• The Qur’an teaches (Sura 5:116) that Christians worship three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary) and the Son (Jesus). But the Bible actually teaches that there is one God in three persons (the Trinity).
• The Qur’an says (Sura 37:100-111) that Abraham was going to sacrifice Ishmael, while the Bible teaches that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.
• The Qur’an teaches (Sura 4:157) that Jesus was not crucified. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross.

Before we conclude, we should also mention that many of the statements in the Qur’an are also at odds with historical facts that can be verified through historical accounts.

• The Qur’an says (Sura 20:85-97) that the Samaritans tricked the Israelites at the Exodus and were the ones who built the golden calf. For the record, the word Samaritan wasn’t even used until 722 B.C. which is several hundred years after the Exodus.
• The Qur’an also states (Sura 18:89-98) that Alexander the Great was a Muslim who worshiped Allah. Alexander lived from 356 B.C. to 323 B.C. which was hundreds of years before Muhammad proclaimed his revelation which became the religion of Islam.

In conclusion, we can see that the Bible and the Qur’an are not the same and do not have compatible teachings.

In this day of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christians should have been prepared to learn that a New Jersey school district recently chose “Christian Crusaders” as an imaginary terrorist group for its first live action hostage response drill. To portray the terrorists, the school district organizers made-up a right-wing fundamentalist group that denies the separation of church and state. Then, they created a fake hostage situation instigated by the supposedly angry parent of a student expelled for praying.

The stated goal of the event was summarized nicely by the district superintendent. He claimed that, “You perform as you practice. We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they’re as effective as possible.” While many comments could be made about the phrase “as real as possible,” the most critical aspect of this issue is a deeper consideration.

Sadly, this is not the first time a school district had deliberately steered clear of the obvious terrorist groups, deciding instead to pick on Christians. For example, three years ago a Michigan school district substituted a group of crazed Christian homeschoolers called “Wackos Against Schools and Education” for their mock terrorism drill to avoid offending any Muslims.

Chalk it up once again for the politically correct anti-Christian crowd … trying to call the sheep wolves and the wolves sheep. I would be careful of those wolves they are giving sheep makeovers to.

Catholic League: Hagee’s endorsement worse than Farrakhan’s

The Catholic League is demanding Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain retract his decision to accept the endorsement of pro-Israel evangelical pastor John Hagee.

Saying he was “honored” by Hagee’s endorsement, Senator McCain (R-Arizona) last week called the San Antonio pastor “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas,” and praised his “close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of Israel.” But the Catholic League says Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is more troubling than Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

Catholic League spokeswoman Kiera McCaffrey says Hagee is a “larger problem” than Farrakhan because Farrakhan is “small potatoes and old news” compared to Hagee and his huge following. McCaffrey says her group is calling on McCain to repudiate Hagee, a Christian leader spokeswoman McCaffrey claims has a long history of “anti-Catholic bigotry.”

“It goes far beyond the old ‘the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon’ nonsense and into lies particularly pitting Jews against Catholics – that’s what he’s doing,” claims McCaffrey. “Hagee has received the support of Jews, [and] rightfully so because of his support for Israel. So they look [upon] him as a friend.

“But the problem is what he’s saying to the Jews,” she continues, who paraphrases Hagee as saying Catholics has persecuted Jews for years and “the evil Catholic Church” is behind this or that. “This nonsense is trying to make enemies between Catholics and Jews,” she argues.

McCaffrey says McCain should denounce Hagee just as Barack Obama denounced the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan.

The Catholic League needs to get a life past their liberal agendas and wake up and smell the coffee … comparing Rev. Hagee to Louis Farrakhan? Maybe they best go back and rethink … research … and while they are at it maybe read a little history (start with Foxes Book of Martyrs) and throw in some Bible for good measure … if they really want to be accurate before they spout off.

Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Obviously Obama believes his opinion is more important than the Apostle Paul’s verses to the Romans that condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” If it was then his opinion would cause the Bible to contradict itself in this matter because the Bible condemns the sin of homosexuality – and the Bible does not contradict itself.

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments (“anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

False prophet … wolf in sheep’s clothing? Yes, that would fit Obama!

The passage from Romans 1:24-32, which Obama dismissed as “obscure,” discusses people who knew God but turned against him. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised,” wrote the Apostle Paul. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. “I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view,” Obama said about abortion. “Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

When did women, pastors, doctors, or anyone else override Scripture?

Last Thursday, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an “open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America.” In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage – including adoption rights – and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against “gay marriage” and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same “family” status as heterosexual couples. Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth Obama!

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade – and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass – Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal. “On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …

Who is he trying to fool? … oh yes, everyone!

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a “devout Christian.” “In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts,” he said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me.”

Used to go quite often. “These days, we haven’t been at the home church – I haven’t been home on Sunday – for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

Let me give you the facts. If a person is a devout Christian by biblical standards they do not promote abortion, homosexual domestic partnerships, civil unions, or civil marriage, and kind of, homosexual relationships. Instead they value life of all ages, including the preborn, and recognize all homosexual activity and associations as sin.

It really is that plain and simple … if you are a real Christian ! A real Christian would not vote for Obama.

A Barna study (9/24/07) shows 16-to-29 year-olds are more critical toward Christianity than previous generations were at the same life stage. While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the spiritual allegiance of America’s upcoming generations.

We best not forget that imbedded in these conclusions are four deceptions that have been spread by MMD’s (Media of Mass Deception) for some 50 years.

1. Present-day Christianity is judgmental. We’ve been taught by the MMD to be “tolerant” – that is accepting of all religions, viewpoints, and versions of morality. Any Christian that stands on the Scriptures – even when it clearly calls for us to be “salt” in the culture (preserving biblical principles and calling “sin” sin) is intolerant. Fifty years ago a Christian that stood for biblical principles would have been called courageous – today they are called a bigot.

2. The MMD loves to ignore the vast number of testimonies, stories, and literature about how Christians have helped turned countless social, governmental, and cultural travesties into triumphs for the betterment of mankind. Look back to the end of slavery in any country and you will see a Christian leading the charge. Find an effort to end persecution, despotism, genocide, mistreatment of women, or suffering children in any stage of recent history and you find Christians working in the midst of the struggle. Yet the MMD refuses to publish those stories. Instead, they pick the isolated incidents of hypocritical Christians and use those unfortunate occurrences to paint a picture of the entire Christian population, and it has apparently worked.

3. Since when did having a peaceful, just, moral, society become old-fashioned? Since when did telling the truth become out-of-touch? Since the MMD made it fashionable to promote sin, violence, and hedonism.

4. Too involved in politics – I find this perception troubling as well. If the young person in America does not understand the necessary role of a Christian to be involved in his/her government, we have some educating to do. This perception is the result of the MMD’s successful campaign to convince Americans of the so-called separation of church and state – a myth created by the MMD to remove Christians from being spheres of influence.

I don’t think Christians are involved enough in politics. If, as research indicates, some 90% of Americas believe in God and some 80% believe in the resurrection of Christ, it would appear the majority SHOULD rule in politics. Yet the Church is strangely silent and, as such, has allowed these unfortunate conclusions to be drawn among our young people. Being a Christian carries with it a civil responsibility to be involved in all aspects of life – not just Sunday morning.

I hope this research is a wake-up call to the Christian. It is an irrefutable fact the MMD has, for 50 years, been spreading lies about our God, our country, our heritage, and our values. This research indicates those lies are having an effect. We need to be strong and courageous – fifty years of deception CAN be reversed. And the positive impact on our culture will result in saved souls and transformed lives transformed. New media breakthroughs and availability will help to turn the tide. People are tired of the predictable liberal bias in everything.

Farrakhan Sings Obama’s Praises

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world” that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours’ Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.

Farrakhan’s keynote address at McCormick Place, the city’s convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.

Spitzer Spits in the Eye of Life

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D) is pushing a bill in his state’s legislature that seeks to declare abortion a fundamental right for all women. The bill would make abortions virtually immune to state regulation, end conscience protections, and most likely force the numerous Christian-run hospitals in the state to close rather than be forced to violate their faith by carrying out abortions or referring women to abortuaries. The bill also would expand the field of people who can perform abortions while eliminating the possibility of passing restrictions that have wide public support, such as parental notification, informed consent laws, and waiting periods. Governor Spitzer rose to power in New York State with tremendous support from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, mainly due to his adamant support of abortion and his unbridled hostility towards pregnancy care centers. Coincidentally the two leading Democratic nominees for President, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barak Obama (R-Ill.) are cosponsors of a similar bill in the U.S. Senate introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calf.) that, if enacted, would effectively overturn most state laws on abortion. States, like Georgia, that are currently trying to reflect the pro-life majority among their population would be left with little choice but to subsidize abortions with taxpayer dollars if this legislation is passed and signed into national law.

Planned Parenthood Plans Six-Story Clinic In Houston

An entire floor will be dedicated to late-term abortions.

In October, Planned Parenthood opened the nation’s largest abortion clinic – 22,000 square feet – in Aurora, Ill.

But that’s last year’s news.

Its Denver clinic, at 50,000 square feet, is under construction. And its new, six-story Houston clinic, which will dwarf the others at 78,000 square feet, will have an entire floor for late-term abortions.

Despite complaints from Planned Parenthood officials around the country about the closing of clinics, their strategy of opening larger, mega-clinics shows they are still well-invested in the killing of preborn life,” said Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “While their tactics may be changing, the number of abortions they do each year continues to increase.”

In 2005, Planned Parenthood ended the lives of 264,943 preborn babies nationwide, according to its annual report. That was up almost 15 percent from 2002.

Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas will open the abortion center in the fall, just outside the gates of the University of Houston’s main campus.

Christine Melchor, director of Houston’s Coalition for Life, said: “They like to be situated in some of the poorer, minority neighborhoods – that’s exactly where this building is – and close to college campuses; there are several colleges in that area.”

Wheaton College is once again featuring a pro-homosexual activist as a featured speaker at its Center for Applied Christian Ethics.

Wheaton first came under fire for inviting self-proclaimed “gay Christian” (oxymoronical by grammatical definition and sinner by biblical definition) activist Harry Knox to participate in a panel discussion during which he repeated the claim that his sexual preference is a “gift from God.” While there are gifts from God – this is not one of them. God does not give a gift of something He condemns in His own book, the Bible.

On this evening Wheaton will feature Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine and author of the new book The Great Awakening, in which Wallis claims the effort to legitimize homosexual relationships in the law is “a justice issue.” No matter what type of issue you may want to categorize something in … if it is sin it is still sin! … categorization is irrelevant and doesn’t change that fact!

Peter LaBarbera, with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says the college is failing both its Bible-centered charter and its obligations to academic integrity. “We find it hard to believe that somebody who believes in the Bible – and the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination,” states LaBarbera, “… could call support for so-called ‘civil rights’ based on egregiously sinful behavior – how you can call that ‘a justice issue’?”

LaBarbera is calling for the college to invite a speaker with an opposing view to speak along with Wallis. But LaBarbera understands why the college would view Wallis as being a good draw for the event. “He seems to be one of the secular media’s favorite evangelicals because he’s basically saying that the Religious Right is wrong with all their focus on abortion and being against homosexuality,” he points out.

While LaBarbera agrees with Wallis that Christians should do a better job of caring for the poor and opposing no-fault divorce, he says those failings in no way justify support for clearly immoral choices like homosexuality or abortion. Wallis also is in favor of civil unions, another reason why LaBarbera feels Wallis is not a good role model or speaker for this event.

Wallis is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

When will these “Christian” colleges stop doing this nonsense and listen? …when the contributors stop giving so they have to terminate these liberal presidents and hire real Christians. Homosexuality proponents do not belong on a Christian campus.

Christians who ignore the clear teachings of the Scriptures are no Christians at all.

Tragic, another Christian college being taken over by liberal thought. That can be expected though when people choose to override what God’s Word says in light of trying to legitimize sin instead of calling it what it is … SIN!

QUESTION: Are you morally obligated to exercise your right to vote? That is, is it a sin not to do so?

Of course, I am posing this question to those of you who actually believe in the Christian concept of sin in the first place. Sin is disobeying God’s commandments and His will as defined in the Bible. Interesting question, isn’t it?

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Americans will once again go to the polls to decide who will lead us in government. In the 56th consecutive quadrennial election we will elect men and women to local, state and national offices who will make decisions that will affect our lives and the lives of our families. They will pass laws we will have to abide by. They will make choices that will also set the tone for our communities and our nation. They will decide what is “good” and what is bad public policy.

In short, those we elect will impose their collective morality, or lack thereof, on us. Despite what you have been told, this is why we have government – to promote good and to restrain evil. But it is how we as a society define “good” and “evil” that makes all the difference in the world. There are people running for even the highest offices in this great land … that look at “good” and “evil” a whole lot different than we do. They call “good” evil and call “evil” good as Isaiah 5:20-21 states: ²⁰ Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. ²¹ Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Some of them will even look at us Christians as “evil” … see the backwards already!

Ever wonder why we have given citizens tax deductions for financial contributions to churches and charities? Because charities and churches do the “good” work that benefit individual citizens and the greater community and the government in the past has wanted to encourage that to continue.

Ever wonder why we make citizens pay fines when they are ticketed for breaking the speed limit? Because we understand that speed can kill which is “bad” – because traditionally the majority of Americans value human life. So when someone speeds they are putting the lives of others at risk, and therefore the government wants to discourage that behavior. So we have jails and we have fines to deter such activity.

The two previous paragraphs describe in simple terms that governments do promote morality. It is “we the people” who will decide those who make the moral judgments for us … from the White House to the Courthouse. Who do we want that to be? It needs to be someone with a track record of solid biblical morals – not upside-down thinking that would call “good” evil and “evil” good. Our vote should never be dictated by what is best for our pockets. (1 Timothy 6:10; Luke 4:4)

I am one that believes God directed people in the formation of the United States of America for His purposes. I believe in a providential view of history. If you study the life of our country, it is clear that God has used certain people for certain tasks to help our country become a great nation. A great nation that has … for the most part … championed good. We have championed causes that have been consistent with a Biblical world view. Freedom. Liberty. Fighting oppression and against those who wish to dominate those who are weaker than they through military force or terrorism. If I had to take one man who best represents God’s hand on America over our 231 year history it would have to be George Washington. What an incredible life this man lived!

As we look towards November 4th let me remind you of what the Father of our nation said in his famous “Farewell Address” on September 17, 1796. Washington by this time had served two terms and did not wish to serve a third although he could have been President as long as wished because of his immense popularity. Here is a small, but poignant, part of that address to the country.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

If the United States of America is to continue to stand it needs to do so on the principles of God … and all that represents. The only way for the principles of God to be upheld is for the Christian to stand firm in the process, to be part of it, to vote responsibly holding tight to these principles of God.

Is it a sin not to vote? James 4:17 says, “Anyone then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”

What do you think?

On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 GO VOTE … by biblical and godly principles … then the morality promoted will be “good” and thereby evil will be restrained.