Trying To Imagine How Left Would React If US Military Started Indoctrinating Troops To Respect The Bible

This title from the Los Angeles Times says it all about God damn America:

I took a screenshot because stuff like this has a way of mysteriously changing.

Stop and think about that: Obama is demanding that troops be indoctrinated to respect the Koran even as the same Obama is demanding that Catholics be forced to repudiate their own religious tradition that had endured for one-thousand five-hundred years prior to the coming of the first demon possessed Commander-in-Chief.

Imagine a world in which US troops were ordered to sit down by their command structures and taught to start respecting the Holy Bible.

And then imagine how the hypocrite left would react to such a world.

Notre Dame Faculty Responds To Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’

Let us simply call this what it is: it is a new front in a culture war for purely political reasons that Obama started on religion, religious freedom and the right to individual conscience.  It is the imposition of excessive and burdensome regulation from a government that has already repeatedly demonstrated that it is way out of control:

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 12, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame’s top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree.

Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame’s History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.

Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame’s May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.

“Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame’s decision to grant Obama an honorary degree–pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born “person.”

In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate–even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday–remains an “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”

“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”

“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”

When you’ve got Harvard, Princeton and Standford agreeing with Catholic Notre Dame, it is rather glaringly obvious that Obama is just WRONG.

Let me provide a couple of illustrations as to “what an insult to the intelligence” of all concerned this truly is:

1) the Catholic League – very obviously a Catholic organization – is one such organization that will be required to purchase insurance coverage to provide “free” birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations.  Obama says the Catholic League won’t have to pay anything for this; rather the insurance company that represents them will.  But what insurance company is that?  It turns out that the health insurer of the Catholic League is Christian Brothers.  But guess what?  That is ALSO a Catholic organization.  So Catholics are STILL being forced to violate their consciences as Obama tramples all over their religious freedom.  But it won’t just be Christian Brothers who pays for this “:care”; Christian Brothers and the Catholic League share costs such that each pay a percentage of the burden.  So the Catholic League will STILL be compelled to pay for treatment it morally objects to on religious grounds that the Catholic Church has held for one thousand five hundred years.

Many religious – and particularly many CATHOLIC – organizations are self-insured.  So Obama is still demanding that the Catholic Church must pay for “care” it has never had to pay for before.  It’s just a bait-and-switch tactic for fools who love nothing more than having “their intelligence insulted” to make it appear that the Church isn’t under attack when in fact it clearly IS under attack.

2) Take the garden variety situation in which a Catholic organization is not self-insured or insured through another Catholic organization.  In this case, Obama is STILL a liar.  He claims:

“Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.”

But they still have to pay for them INDIRECTLY.  And how is that anything other than a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction???

Unless Obama is volunteering to take over the premiums of all the religious organization that he is imposing his new policy on, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.

Unlimited and unrestricted access to Birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations isn’t free just because Obama declares it by fiat.  Somebody still has to pay for it.  And it is beyond “magical thinking” to believe that the insurance companies won’t increase their premiums to reflect this new level of “care.”

This “accommodation” simply reveals that Obama is a truly dishonest weasel.

One last thing.  If you look at the way the mainstream media propaganda continually depicts this story, it is all about “preventative health care for women.”  This whole boondoggle is being imposed and packaged under the guise of “preventative health care.”  Well, it’s one thing to require an insurer to provide “preventative care” for issues such as the deadly disease of diabetes.  But when you use the same language to describe a human baby as you do a deadly disease, you have crossed the line into being genuinely morally sick.  That is NOT mainstream thinking; that is the thinking of the far radical feminist left that is being deceitfully repackaged into something that masquerades as mainstream thinking.

The other thing that is just beyond nauseating is that the left and their mainstream media allies continually depict this issue as a “birth control” issue as if this is the first time in the entire history of the republic that woman have ever had “access to birth control.”  That is obviously a red herring; rather, this is the first time ever that Catholics have been put in a position in which they had to sacrifice their religious beliefs and violate their consciences to provide something that has obviously been “widely available” for decades if not centuries in America.  It is a false facade, pure and simple.

I am not a Catholic.  I do not believe that providing birth control is evil (although I most certainly DO oppose abortion-inducing drugs as evil).  But the Catholic Church has consistently maintained their belief regarding birth control for 1,500 years.  It is simply stunning that a theology which has endured for a millennium and a half cannot survive the wickedness of one Barack Obama term of office.

Reflections On The Life And Death Of Whitney Houston

I’m no musical genius, but I would put Whitney Houston in the top ten women’s voices of all time – and certainly one of the greatest voices in American music history.  Barbara Streisand – another of those voices - possessed magnificent depth of feeling; but in terms of sheer power and range and the ability to send delicious chills coursing down your spine, Whitney Houston’s voice was simply unmatchable.

She was also beautiful.  I remember watching the movie The Bodyguard and seeing Whitney’s face filling the movie screen and thinking over and over again what an incredibly pretty woman she was.

Fame, fortune, beauty and talent all in amazing quantities.  If you wanted to know what it was like to have it all, Whitney Houston would have been the one to ask.

I also remember seeing her last year – gaunt, emaciated, sick-looking, eaten alive by drugs – and wondering how such a beautiful woman could so quickly come to resemble a gargoyle.

Now she’s dead, very likely the same way Amy Winehouse ended up dead.

And it’s so incredibly sad that somebody so successful, so talented, so beautiful would destroy herself the way she did.

The quickest path to a fast death is to be a rich drug addict.

But why did she – with all of her amazing talent and resources – take this path?

It is amazing how many of “the beautiful people” have ended this way.  And there is a lesson worth pondering in that.

Imagine being able to have anything in the world that you want and being miserable.

Imagine having everything the world can offer and discovering that nothing in this world makes you happy.

I think about the poor person who buys a lottery ticket and dreams and schemes of what his or her life could be like if he or she just got lucky.  Whitney Houston had long since lost hope of having any such dreams and schemes.  Imagine the desolation of her soul.

To answer the poor person who says, “If I only had a thousand – or a million – more dollars, I would be happy,” my response is, “No, you wouldn’t.  If you had a thousand more dollars, you’d very quickly want a thousand more, etc., etc.  Nelson Rockefeller – the richest man in the world at the time – was asked how much money is enough; and his response was, “Just one more dollar.”  And that’s the way degenerate human nature has rewired itself.  We’re all like that.  We can try to fill ourselves with money or fame or success or sex or food or drugs or any other idol you can possibly imagine.  And it is never enough.

And Whitney Houston had experienced that condition until she was sick to her soul.

God hardwired us to find rest and completion only in Himself.  And nothing else in this world – no matter how much of it we try to fill ourselves with – can possibly make up for the absence of God in our souls.

I remember watching a news program – I think it may have been Nightline but I can’t recall – during the war that was going on in Yugoslavia between the Serbs and the Croats.  Croatians, Slovenians and Bosnians were driven out of their homes by an ancient hatred that the collapse of the USSR allowed to erupt yet again.  And these people – who had been educated, successful people – were relegated to picking through the garbage of American troops to look for food or something of some value that they could sell or trade.

One of these victims of war paused in his scavenging to respond to a reporter.  And I will never forget what he said:

“We are living like animals.  Is this all there is to our lives?  Is there nothing more?”

And see, the incredible thing about that is that Whitney Houston, or Amy Winehouse, or Heath Ledger, or Kurt Cobain, etc., etc. – with all of their fortunes – were asking themselves the very same questions.

What would it be like to have everything the world can offer and still be miserable?  What would it be like to have be able to get anything you want – except hope?

If you wanted to know what it was like to have it all and discover that everything the world could ever offer was worthless, Whitney Houston would have been the one to ask.

There is one way out of this world besides the route that Whitney Houston took tragically early.  Saint Paul described it thus:

“I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done.  Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith.  I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, so that one way or another I will experience the resurrection from the dead!” — Philippians 3:7-12

Mock us all you want, secular humanist world, but we have one thing that you will never have if you continue down your same path – we have Jesus.  And we have the hope of resurrection life.

No matter how bad things might get for us, no matter how terrible of a mistake we may have made, we have hope.  Hope of forgiveness, hope of a better tomorrow, hope that Jesus Christ will one day make everything as new.

Whitney Houston began her music career singing in a church choir.  I truly hope that beautiful, fragile soul heard the gospel and believed it before her life turned into something ugly.

Christians can be wretched sinners; in fact, the first necessary condition of coming to Jesus Christ in faith and asking Him to heal you and make you whole involves acknowledging that you are a wretched sinner.  Because it is from that beginning that God begins to work out His resurrection life in your soul.

And once you have tasted that eternal life, you never lose it.  If you have eternal life, how can you lose it?  Which means that if Whitney Houston ever tasted it, she’s in heaven with Jesus right now.

I pray that Jesus called Whitney home to Himself to spare her from more self-inflicted pain.

And I and many others on this earth mourn the loss of one so beautiful and so talented who didn’t know how to find joy in this world.

And I send up a prayer that Whitney Houston is truly resting in peace this night.

Obama Announces Pseudo Birth Control Waiver On Top Of 1200 OTHER ObamaCare Waivers

One paragraph tells you how crazy this “accomodation” by Obama in forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptive and abortion-producing services even if their religious beliefs forbid such services:

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway.

So if you move the burden back one organizational level everything is okay?

Imagine if you are a manager at an organization such as the Catholic League.  According to Obama’s “accomodation” you are exempted – at least until after Obama gets re-elected when he’ll come after you with a vengeance for making him look bad.  But even though your health insurance provider is an organization that was created by the Catholic Church, it will NOT be exempted, so all of the Catholic employees at that insurer will still be required to violate their consciences or lose their jobs.  But meanwhile you over at the ostensibly exempted Catholic League will be required to tell all employees that they can get birth control and abortion-inducing services because they work for you.

Here’s another example: Holy Cross Hospital would still be required under ObamaCare to provide free access to birth control, abortion and sterilization which it believes is all morally evil.  They don’t have to do it “directly” by Obama’s “accomodation”; rather, they have to pay an insurance company to do provide those “mortal sins” for them.  Now, on Obama’s magical thinking, the insurance company is providing birth control, abortion and sterilazation for “free.”  But that is quite literally insane; of COURSE it won’t be for free.  The insurance company is going to increase Holy Cross’ premiums.  Which is to say that Holy Cross is still going to be forced to pay to provide “services” that they view as genuinely evil.

Here’s a description of the continuing moral dilemma that is the Obama presidency:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm that recently filed three lawsuits on behalf of Catholic institutions against the new contraception rules, has come out against the the administration’s compromise.

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the Presiden’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” Hannah Smith, an attorney for the group, said in a statement. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”

The statement continued: “According to a White House statement, some religious employers will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception … However, at least three problems remain. First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.”

Obama, ever the perennial political weasel, said this:

I understand some folks in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way,” Obama said. “This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions.”

See?  Obama is giving his far-left base exactly what they want while he further divides the country with still another wedge issue.  But there’s absolutely nothing political about that.

This facade is an outgrowth of what überliberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said about Obama’s style of governance:

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

And of course is God really political partisan???  Of course not.  Your god Obama would never do anything that might even hint at merely mortal politics.

The New York Times expressed this facade thus:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

The bare-naked truth is that Obama has been cynically running for re-election since the day he got elected.  This low-brow Chicago thug politician has amassed a $1 BILLION political warchest to acheive that end.  And simply consider the “core promise” of the Obama campaign that he would “transcend” Republican-Democrat politics, that he would “end the partisan and ideological wars,” that he would “move beyond the divisive politics of Washington,” that he would “bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together.”  And think about what Obama is doing right now.

And realize that this incredibly cynical liar is the most evil man who has ever held the office of the presidency of the United States.

We have never seen a more blatantly cynical political whore than Barack Obama.  And the formerly most liberal Senator in the United States is rightly THE most divisive president we have ever had.

ObamaCare is blatantly godawful and profoundly unconstitutional.  The Obama administration has already handed out more than 1,200 waivers to say, “You won’t have to do what Obama is going to force every other American to do.”

Obama In Truly Deep Doggy-Do Following His Hateful Attack On Religious Freedom As Even LIBERAL Catholics Recognize He Is A Truly Evil Man

a religious tradition and moral value system that has endured for five hundred years be trampled upon at Barack Obama’s whim?  Should the First Amendment be thrown out along with the rest of our Constitution that liberal judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg believe is completely obsolete?  Should anyone have the freedom of conscience in America?

Should being slammed by the Supreme Court 9-0 for yet another Obama attack against religion stop a truly demon-possessed man from continuing his war on religion and moral values???  This is now the fourth time Barack Obama has fundamentally attacked religion and religious freedom in America.

If you are a Catholic or ANY person of any religious belief whose belief has ever run afoul of the State, Barack Obama is graciously giving you the “freedom” to shut up and comply.

I post this from a “liberal” “Democrat” Catholic who says there is no way he can vote for Obama in good conscience again:

J’ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 21, 2012 Distinctly Catholic

President Barack Obama lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again.

I do not come at this issue as a Catholic special pleader, who wants only to protect my own, although it was a little bracing to realize that the president’s decision yesterday essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us. Nor, frankly, do I come at the issue as an anti-contraception zealot: I understand that many people, and good Catholics too, reach different conclusions on the matter although I must say that Humanae Vitae in its entirety reads better, and more presciently, every year.

No, I come at this issue as a liberal and a Democrat and as someone who, until yesterday, generally supported the President, as someone who saw in his vision of America a greater concern for each other, a less mean-spirited culture, someone who could, and did, remind the nation that we are our brothers’ keeper, that liberalism has a long vocation in this country of promoting freedom and protecting the interests of the average person against the combined power of the rich, and that we should learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I defended the University of Notre Dame for honoring this man, and my heart was warmed when President Obama said at Notre Dame: “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

To borrow from Emile Zola: J’Accuse!

I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.

I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps you were busy last week, but the Supreme Court, on a 9-0 vote, said that the First Amendment still means something and that it trumps even desirable governmental objectives when the two come into conflict. Did you miss the concurring opinion, joined by your own most recent appointment to the court, Justice Kagan, which stated:

“Throughout our Nation’s history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”

Pray, do tell, Mr. President, what part of that paragraph did you consider when making this decision? Or, do you like having your Justice Department having its hat handed to it at the Supreme Court?

I accuse you, Mr. President, as leader of the Democratic Party, the primary vehicle for historic political liberalism in this country, of risking all the many achievements of political liberalism, from environmental protection to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, by committing a politically stupid act. Do you really think your friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were going to support the candidacy of Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich? How does this decision affect the prospects of Democrats winning back the House in districts like Pennsylvania’s Third or Ohio’s First or Virginia’s Fifth districts? How do your chances look today among Catholic swing voters in Scranton and the suburbs of Cincinnati and along the I-4 corridor in Florida? I suppose that there are campaign contributions to consider, but really, sacrificing one’s conscience, or the conscience rights of others, was not worth Wales, was it worth a few extra dollars in your campaign coffers?

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections. You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Do tell, Mr. President, how many bullets have the people at Planned Parenthood taken for you? Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?

Zola, of course, wrote his famous essay in response to the Dreyfuss affair. Then, the source of injustice was anti-Semitic bigotry. Today, while I cannot believe that the President himself is an anti-Catholic bigot, he has caved to those who are. In politics, as in life, we are often known by the company we keep. Hmmmm. Sr. Carol Keehan, a woman who has dedicated her life and her ministry to help the ill and the aged or the fundraisers and the lobbyists at NARAL? Is that really a tough call? I have not joined the chorus of those who believe that this administration is “at war” with the Catholic Church. Yet, I must confess, when I first learned the new yesterday, an image came into my head, of Glenn Close and John Malkovich in “Dangerous Liaisons” when Ms. Close looks at Mr. Malkovich and says, “War!” That said, while not wishing to detract one iota from the gravity of this decision, the bishops are well advised not to read more into this than is there. It is a shameful decision to be sure, but it is not the end of the world and war is a thing to be avoided whenever and however possible.

Some Catholics have sought to defend the President, to hope that there might be some silver lining in the decision, to argue that because many Catholics use contraception, or because some states already mandate this kind of coverage, this decision is really no big deal. The fact that there is much to defend in the President’s record does not mean that anyone need defend everything in that record, especially something as indefensible as this decision. And, it is a mistake of analysis to see this as a decision about contraception. The issue here is conscience.

Some commentators, including those in the comment section on my post yesterday, have charged that people like me, Catholics who have been generally supportive of the President, were duped, that we should confess our sins of political apostasy, and go rushing into the arms of a waiting GOP. I respectfully decline the indictment and, even more, the remedy. Nothing that happened yesterday made the contemporary GOP less mean-spirited, or more inclined to support the rights of our immigrant brothers and sisters, or less bellicose in their approach to foreign affairs, or more concerned about the how the government can and should alleviate poverty. It is also worth noting that the night before the decision, Mr. Gingrich said that he would halt the U.S. Justice Department’s suit against the State of Alabama regarding that state’s new anti-immigration law, a law that raises exactly the same kind of issues of religious liberty and the rights of conscience as are raised by the HHS decision. Religious liberty cuts both ways. Nor, is religious liberty the only issue. Voters should still consider how candidates for the presidency are likely to address a host of issues. As for myself, I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the current Republicans seeking the presidency.

But, yesterday, as soon as I learned of this decision, I knew instantly that I also could not, in good conscience, ever vote for Mr. Obama again. I once had great faith in Mr. Obama’s judgment and leadership. I do not retract a single word I have written supporting him on issues like health care reform, or bringing the troops home from Iraq, or taking aggressive steps to halt the recession and turn the economy around. I will continue to advocate for those policies. But, I can never convince myself that a person capable of making such a dreadful decision is worthy of my respect or my vote.

Even if Obama manages to squirm out of this one, you need to realize that all it will take is an election to enable him to impose his attack on religious values once again.

Catholics represent one out of every four voters in America; they have voted for the winner in every single presidential election going back decades.  And nothing would be more appropriate for Obama to be thrown out of office as an intolerant religious bigot and an enemy of the American Constitution that he has so often trampled upon.

Obama says, “You have the right to believe whatever I tell you is right to believe and you have the right to do whatever I force you to do.”

This is the religious variation of taxes: In regard to religion, Obama believes that the State triumphs over ALL religious institutions and ALL individual moral conscience, and it is right for you to do whatever the State dictates.  In regard to taxes, Obama believes the State owns you and owns everything you earn, and you are allowed to keep only that which the State allows you to keep.

I have been saying it ever since I first heard the vile and incredibly evil revelations from Obama’s “reverend” and “spiritual leader” for over twenty years: Barack Obama is a truly evil man.

This is God damn America.  And it will continue to remain God damn America until this disgrace to decency is thrown out of office.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Hussein Obama has done everything he possibly could do to prepare the way for his master the Antichrist.

Tim Tebow, John 3:16 And The Strangely Repeating Number 316

Tim Tebow and the Denber Broncos won a game pretty much nobody said they would win to leave the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers stunned.

But that aint all he did.

He also managed to somehow insert the number “316″ throughout every aspect of the game.  Even though he can’t put his favorite Bible verse (John 3:16) on his eye black:

Tim Tebow’s 316 Passing Yards Evokes Biblical Number
The Internet practically exploded once astute football fans noticed the coincidence. Did all that Tebowing pay off?
By Glen Levy   January 9, 2012

Marc Piscotty/Reuters

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow prays after the Broncos defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers in overtime in the NFL AFC wildcard playoff football game in Denver, Colorado, January 8, 2012

It would have been more than enough for the polarizing Denver Broncos quarterback to simply lead his underdog team to victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday in the AFC wild-card game. And Tim Tebow did, thanks to his 80-yard touchdown pass on the first play of overtime that left the Steelers and the watching world simply stunned.

But then the facts and figures emerged, and the Internet verily exploded: Tebow threw for exactly 316 yards in the 29-23 upset win, presenting an eerie allusion to the Bible’s John 3: 16 passage — whose number Tebow famously wore in the black under his eyes when he led the Florida Gators to victory in the 2009 collegiate national championship game. What’s more, that event took place exactly three years ago on the same day as his latest miracle comeback. And that wasn’t it for the coincidences: Tebow set an NFL playoff record with, you guessed it, 31.6 yards per completion and the TV rating on CBS peaked between 8.00-8.15pm ET with a rating of, say it ain’t so, 31.6.

(PHOTOS: John 3: 16 in Pop Culture)

A cursory glance at Google Trends hot searches Monday morning presented three of a kind: the top trio were, in order, the 3: 16 passage (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”), followed by Tebow and Tim Tebow.

So Tebowmania is somehow getting bigger. We’ve been down this road before, of course, but surely nothing can match these twin events, right? Could Tebow’s Broncos manage to pull off a win next weekend against the New England Patriots — who not only will be a heavier favorite than the Steelers but also schooled Denver in the regular season? If so, then surely only God (or, to dial back the hyperbole, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees) will be able to stop Tebow from winning the Super Bowl. For now, he is working in mysterious ways. (Via CNN.)

So Tebow can’t put John 3:16 on his eye black.  So instead he passes for 316 yards, sets an NFL playoff record of 31.6 yards per completion (although he clearly can’t throw from what I’ve been repeatedly told), and does it on television for a 31.6 rating.

Get out your probability textbooks and calcuate the odds of that happening, all you liberal math whizzes.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

And thanks to Tim Tebow and a little Something-Something else, that verse is all over the place even though he couldn’t display it.

Update: As is pointed out by Larry and Liz below, there are a couple of other neat things about the Denver victory and “316.”  Turns out that the Steeler’s only interception of the game took place on 3rd down and 16 yards to go.  And the Broncos’ winning touchdown catch in overtime was caught by Demaryius Thomas – who was born on Christmas.

This stuff is just great.

I have no idea how the Broncos will fare against the Patriots this week, but they already sure have put on a show and I’m one who hopes the show continues over New England.

Update: Well, that one certainly didn’t break Denver’s way.  On the bright side, at least Tim Tebow won’t have to ponder over what would have happened had he come through on that one play…

The Denver Bronco season ended with the “repeating 316.”  And that’s a pretty good way to end.

If you were hoping for a “come from behind miracle victory,” here’s the best I can do:

Tim Tebow was supposed to be an abortion

In a recent email, I read about a woman named Pam, who knows the pain of
considering abortion. More than 24 years ago, she and her husband Bob were
serving as missionaries to the Philippines and praying for a fifth child.
Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by
a parasite found in contaminated food or drink. She went into a coma and
was treated with strong antibiotics before they discovered she was
pregnant.

Doctors urged her to abort the baby for her own safety and told her that
the medicines had caused irreversible damage to her baby. She refused the
abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her
son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians
predicted. Pam said the doctors didn’t think of it as a life, they thought
of it as a mass of fetal tissue.

While pregnant, Pam nearly lost their baby four times but refused to
consider abortion. She recalled making a pledge to God with her husband:
If you will give us a son, we’ll name him Timothy and we’ll make him a
preacher.

Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and
eventually gave birth to a healthy baby boy August 14, 1987. Pam’s
youngest son is indeed a preacher. He preaches in prisons, makes hospital
visits, and serves with his father’s ministry in the Philippines. He also
plays football. Pam’s son is Tim Tebow.

:)

 

‘Thank God’: Coalition Of Rabbis And Mental Health Experts Refutes Political Correctness On Homosexuality

Here’s something worth reading (and being happy to finally see):

Coalition of Orthodox rabbis, mental health professionals, community leaders release bold statement on homosexuality
Refutes liberal Jewish groups
POSTED: Dec 28, 2011

The religious Jewish community is striking back!

A coalition of over 150 Orthodox rabbis, respected mental health professionals, community leaders, and others from across America and several foreign countries have released a statement that strongly refutes and repudiates the liberal Jewish political correctness and misinformation regarding homosexuality.

The document, entitled “Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality,” (see below) clarifies the timeless theological understanding of the Biblically mandated prohibition. That position is that no one is “born gay” — and that same-sex attractions can be modified and healed.

The document’s list of signers includes well-known figures in the mental health field as well as a pantheon of major figures in Orthodox religious circles. It also includes Brian Camenker of MassResistance and others, as community leaders.

The Biblical understanding that no one is “born gay” coincides with mental health experts who are not intimidated by political correctness.

The statement declares that the only Torah-approved course of action with regard to homosexuality is psychological therapy coupled with teshuva, or repentance. Moreover, it presents what the authors and signers see as a practical and achievable solution for those faced with same-sex attractions — a position often viciously suppressed by the homosexual movement and its allies.

The declaration was released on Monday, December 26 — the 6th day of Chanukah. That timing was not coincidental. Chanukah celebrates the Jews’ resistance to forced Hellenization. (See description of Chanakuh as resistance movement.) Homosexuality was one of the hallmarks of ancient Greek culture.

See the Declaration’s website HERE along with lots of other information, including a clarification of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) findings, which have often been mis-stated and mis-interpreted by many on the Left.

This is probably the clearest (and truest) statement that we’ve seen on this subject from both a religious and medical standpoint. The list of signers has continued to grow since it was released.

But more importantly, this kind of bold action needs to happen more and more. People need to stop being afraid and fearlessly tell the truth.

The document:

Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality

Societal Developments On Homosexuality

There has been a monumental shift in the secular world’s attitude towards homosexuality over the past few decades. In particular over the past fifteen years there has been a major public campaign to gain acceptance for homosexuality. Legalizing same-sex marriage has become the end goal of the campaign to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality.

A propaganda blitz has been sweeping the world using political tactics to persuade the public about the legitimacy of homosexuality. The media is rife with negative labels implying that one is “hateful” or “homophobic” if they do not accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate. This political coercion has silenced many into acquiescence. Unfortunately this attitude has seeped into the Torah community and many have become confused or have accepted the media’s portrayal of this issue.

The Torah’s Unequivocal And Eternal Message

The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct. Furthermore, the Torah, ever prescient about negative secular influences, warns us in Vayikra (Leviticus) 20:23 “Do not follow the traditions of the nations that I expel from before you…” Particularly the Torah writes this in regards to homosexuality and other forbidden sexual liaisons.

Same-Sex Attractions Can Be Modified And Healed

From a Torah perspective, the question whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable. G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, life long, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. Such an attitude also violates the biblical prohibition in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 “and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

The Process Of Healing

The only viable course of action that is consistent with the Torah is therapy and teshuvah. The therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development. Teshuvah is a Torah-mandated, self-motivated process of turning away from any transgression or sin and returning to G-d and one’s spiritual essence. This includes refining and reintegrating the personality and allowing it to grow in a healthy and wholesome manner.

These processes are typically facilitated and coordinated with the help of a specially trained counselor or therapist working in conjunction with a qualified spiritual teacher or guide. There is no other practical, Torah-sanctioned solution for this issue.

The Mitzvah* Of Love And Compassion

It requires tremendous bravery and fortitude for a person to confront and deal with same-sex attraction. For example a sixteen-year-old who is struggling with this issue may be confused and afraid and not know whom to speak to or what steps to take. We must create an atmosphere where this teenager (or anyone) can speak freely to a parent, rabbi, or mentor and be treated with love and compassion. Authority figures can then guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.

The key point to remember is that these individuals are primarily innocent victims of childhood emotional wounds. They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing. Struggling individuals who seek health and wellness should not be confused with the homosexual movement and their agenda. This distinction is crucial. It reflects the difference between what G-d asks from all of us and what He unambiguously prohibits.

We need to do everything in our power to lovingly uplift struggling individuals towards a full and healthy life that is filled with love, joy and the wisdom of the Torah.

[*Note: "Mitzvah" is the Hebrew word meaning Commandment from G-d.]

The Declaration was written durng a year-long process by a 25-member committee which included not only Orthodox rabbis but also parents and some former homosexuals and others currently struggling with homosexuality. The well-known Jewish group JONAH, which helps people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions and live a Torah-sanctioned lifestyle, was extensively consulted and is strongly supportive of the Declaration, which has received overwhelming acceptance in a relatively short time.

The document is a long overdue repudiation of left-wing Jewish groups (such as the ADL) and liberal Jewish congregations which attempt to reject, confuse, and re-interpret the Bible on this issue for (ultimately destructive) political purposes.

We hope that other religious denominations will be influenced to do similar declarations!

Mind you, Christian organizations have been doing so for years… But bashing Christians is easier than bashing anyone else for anything else.

It’s also great to see mental health experts joining in on the politically-correct charade to legitimize what is obviously an indredibly toxic and destructive “lifestyle.”

Christopher Hitchens And Billy Graham (Or Bill Maher Vs. Tim Tebow) As Missionaries For Their Religions. And Which One Was ‘The Intolerant Hater.’

Yes, for the record, atheism IS a religious view. Atheists have actually demonstrated this themselves in demanding to be included in the number of religious traditions, and atheism has been declared a religion in the courts. So please don’t post trying to argue that Christopher Hitchens wasn’t a missionary for his atheism.

I don’t write this with the intent of attacking the recently deceased, but rather to underscore a point that occurred to me as I scanned through an LA Times op-ed by liberal Meghan Daum.  Her piece began:

As fans of the late Christopher Hitchens cycle through the five stages of grief, it’s interesting to see which of his opinions can still inspire the kind of anger that is unlikely to ever fade into acceptance. There are, of course, the obvious candidates: his characterization of Bill Clinton as “a rapist” or his vilification of Mother Teresa as “a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.” There is also his oh so chivalrous shout-out to the Dixie Chicks, whom he called “fat slugs” (or “slags” or “sluts” depending on your source) despite later admitting “having not the least idea of what any of them looked like.”

I actually hadn’t realized that Christopher Hitchens was such an equal-opportunity hater.  I mean, I thought he just hated religious or Christian people like me.

You could go on and on for quite a while, actually.  Here’s Christopher Hitchens pouring hate on the Republican Party and particularly on Sarah Palin:

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

And I was thinking, “So it wasn’t just Christians and religion in general he dumped hate on.

I’ve cited Christopher Hitchens in a couple of articles:

Atheists Get The MOST Angry At The God They Claim Not To Even Believe Exists

Tolerant Leftist Academia Tries To Impose ‘Thought Reform’ On Christian Student

And a frankly irrational anger and a determination to impose an agenda by force rather than by consent were the scope of both pieces.

In the immediately above piece, Hitchens is quoted:

“How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith? Religion … has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young… If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.”

Ah, if we could just forcibly remove the children of those Christians and those religious nutjobs and allow the state to indoctrinate them instead, you know, like the Soviet Union or North Korea, imagine what a “different world” we could have.

It occurred to me to wonder how many hateful and vicious quotes came from the mouth or pen of Christopher Hitchens’ most obvious counterpart, Billy Graham?

I found Billy Graham saying the following despicable thing about Bill Clinton:

[audio here]

Oops, I’m sorry.  Billy didn’t actually say anything hateful about Bill Clinton.  I’m sure it was only because they were both “Bills” rather than that Billy Graham isn’t hateful, though.

Oops, Billy Graham didn’t say anything hateful about ANY Democrat candidate for president, let descriptions such as “fanatic,” “boastful,” “ignoramus,”  as “those who despise science and learning,” as ”morally and intellectually slothful people,” “who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured,” as ”theocratic bullies,” and as “wickedness and stupidity.”

I mean, the sheer tolerance of Christopher Hitchens as compared to Billy Graham is really something.

I mean, maybe I’ve been wrong about which side is so really intolerant.

I did find an article from an atheist entitled, “Dear Billy Graham: You’re A Hateful Bigot,” but if you click on that hoping for ammo against Rev. Billy, you won’t get very much.  Billy’s most hateful quote, the pièce de résistance, was:

Only God can give us the moral and spiritual foundation we need for our lives. This is why the most important step you can take is to turn to Jesus Christ and commit your life to him. When you do, God will forgive your sins and make you his child forever. He also promises to be with you in the future. By a simple prayer of faith ask him to come into your life today.

Jesus, that hater!  Forgiving sins and being a child of a loving God!  Just vile!  Atheists like Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il were the lovers of humanity!

Yes, Joseph Stalin was a famously tolerant and loving atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist who was rather famous for his care for the poor and the little people:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, "Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21"].

You gotta love the comparison between these great leaders of their respective movements.  I mean, Jesus said ugly things like:

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” — Matthew 5:39

“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” — Mathew 5:44-45

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” — Matthew 26:52

Just naked hate from that Jesus Bigot, I know.  I can only apologize for having repeated His dark and evil teachings.

Stalin and Mao, on the other hand, offered a far more glorious perspective for the world:

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude -

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

- or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Ah, well.  What can you say?  War is peace!  Freedom is slavery!  Ignorance is strength!  Jesus is hateful!  Christianity is intolerant!

There is only one name under heaven by which we can find true love and true peace, and that is the name Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

And how about that tolerant lover of those who disagree with him, Bill Maher?

Here’s Bill Maher viciously ripping on Christian quarterback Tim Tebow:

Comedian Bill Maher drew the ire of Tim Tebow fans and Christians over the weekend after a profane tweet reveling in the Broncos’ blowout loss to the Buffalo Bills.

“Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere … Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,” Maher tweeted.

Tebow, whose team suffered its second straight loss after a six-game winning streak, did not respond to Maher’s tweet.

After the disappointing 40-14 road loss, Tebow tweeted, “Tough game today but what’s most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB2.”

GB2 is a phrase Tebow has made popular that means “God Bless + Go Broncos,” according to his official website.

The tweet prompted some to call for a boycott of Maher’s HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Maher, an atheist, made a 2008 documentary called “Religulous” that mocked organized religion, and he routinely jokes about religion on his show.

More of the same from the same sort of people.

The Two Beautiful Names Behind ‘Merry Christmas’

Christmas – and the meaning of Christianity itself – can be summed up in two names.

The first is “Immanuel,” which translates from Hebrew to “God with us.”  It comes from a prophecy written approximately 700BC about the future Messiah 

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” — Isaiah 7:14

Of this same miraculously conceived child the same prophet writes about other things this same child would be called in addition to “Immanuel”:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” — Isaiah 9:6

I often marvel over the bickering of unbelief over whether the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 should really be translated “virgin” given what is said about this same child in Isaiah 9:6.  How ELSE would one expect this child, this son who would be born, who would be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace to be conceived other than by miraculous supernatural means?  Seriously?

What does “God with us” mean?

It means that this child – rightly called “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6, would literally be God come to be with mankind in some powerful way.

It is a beautiful reference to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the unique, One-and-Only Son of the Living God.  Isaiah prophesied that some day in the future, God would somehow take a human nature and be born as a child, as a son.  It was a prophecy of the coming birth of One who would one day call Himself “the Son of Man” (e.g. Mark 10:45).

The other name that completes the meaning of Christmas and Christianity is “Jesus.”  It comes from the Hebrew name “Yeshua” (or ”Joshua”) which means, “Jehovah is Savior.”

Two things emerge from this name: the first is that God Himself would one day come to personally save and deliver mankind from the bondage and death sentence of sin; the second is that One particular bearer of that name would be Himself God on earth.

The same Book of Isaiah that we have been discussing amply attests of our Lord Jesus Christ taking upon Himself the name both of “Jehovah” and “Savior.”

Isaiah 43:11 makes it most clear:

“I, even I, am the LORD [i.e., Jehovah], and apart from Me there is no Savior.” — Isaiah 43:11

See also Isaiah 45:21 to see that this is no fluke description from the prophet who described the coming of “Immanuel” who would be “Mighty God”:

Declare what is to be, present it–let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD [i.e., Jehovah]? And there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me.” — Isaiah 45:21

But as we celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the birth of the One of whom the angel proclaimed:

“Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord.”

The mystery of Jesus, of this Savior who would be born in spite of the fact that only JEHOVAH could be called “Savior,” is given a little clarity in the first words of the Book of John as it identifies Jesus Christ as “the Word”:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being.” — John 1:1-3

When St. John says, “In the beginning was the Word,” it is a direct reference of Genesis 1:1, which begins, “In the beginning God…”

When St. John says, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” he is pointing out that while the Word, Jesus, is divine (i.e., is God), He is not God in the logically exclusive sense that the Father and the Spirit are not also God.  Jesus is God (the Son), and Jesus was also with God (the Father and the Spirit).

When St. John tells us, “He was in the beginning with God,” we know that Jesus was NOT a created being.  He could not have in any way, shape or form been created, because in fact He always existed; He was with God the Father from the very beginning.

If this wasn’t clear enough already, St. John further elaborates on the eternality of Jesus Christ when he says, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being.”  All things came into being by Jesus Christ.  God the Son was the Creator Moses describes in Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”).  Not only that, but “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  Which is to say that this Son of God, the Word - who would one day become Incarnate under the name of Jesus who was born of a virgin in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 – created every single thing which has EVER been created or come into existence.  It is a logical impossibility that the One who created ALL things could Himself have been in any way created.

A short poem sums it up more simply and more concisely that I ever could:

“He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.”

He was truly God.

But He was truly God become man.

How?  Why?

God the Son added to Himself – added to His eternal divine nature - a human nature in the Incarnation.  God became man.  And 700 years before it happened, He revealed it to His prophet Isaiah.

One verse from the first chapter of the first Book of the Bible becomes significant in understanding this:

“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” — Genesis 1:27

In Genesis the Son of God, the Word, created man in His divine image; in the Incarnation, that same Son of God assumed the image He had created.  Which is to say that God made man in such a way that He could one day become man Himself.

In the most remarkable act of other-centered love in the history of the universe, Christ the Son of God did the following as recorded in Philippians 2:5-11:

“You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.  Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.  Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.  Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” — Philippians 2:5-11, (NLT)

In verse 7 of that marvellous passage in the original Greek language we have the word “kenosis” occur.  It means, “emptied”:  “He emptied Himself.”

In becoming a man, God had to temporarily let go of attributes of deity that belonged to Him by very right of His divine nature.  He entered into time, which means He had to divest Himself of His eternality while on earth so He could age and grow and die.  He set aside His omniscience so He would experience living as a man, depending on faith just like any other man before or after Him.  He laid aside His omnipotence, such that He could experience the helplessness and fatigue that all men feel.  And so on.

Jesus was completely dependent upon His Father and upon the Spirit for all things, because He had made Himself weak in the Incarnation in order to fully experience human frailty.  He had to walk by faith and live by the power of faith, just as we do.

We can imagine the One who created the Cosmos – and in whom all things literally hold together (Colossians 1:17) – emerge from Mary’s womb that first Christmas as a tiny, helpless baby, struggling just to open His eyes.  He grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) because He had made Himself a man in every way that it was essential to be a man.

It makes me weep to think about what Jesus laid aside so He could come to live with mankind as a man.  Think of the choice of God to do that!  We all want to become great and mighty and awesome and have all the status that accompanies our greatness; Jesus radically went the other way and took a plunge from all the glorious majesty of heaven to a trough that farm animals ate out of.

And the obvious question is, why did He do this?

He did it to take the blame that rightly belonged to me, to live and then die in my place.

He did it to be my Savior, because He as God knew that I, a miserable sinner, desperately needed saving.

In the Incarnation, Jesus lived a perfect life in our place because we could never hope to live such lives.  And then, as the perfect God-Man, He gave His life to take the death sentence earned by OUR sins upon Himself, so that we would not have to experience eternal death the way that all sinners apart from His grace will one day experience.

This mighty act of salvation was God-sized; no mere man could even attain his own salvation, let alone that of the entire human race. And yet just as sin entered the world through a man, only a man acting as a true representative of man could deliver us from that sin.

Enter the God-Man.  Enter Jesus.

Jesus explained His mission to a Jewish Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus in the most beautiful and powerful words ever spoken:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life.” — John 3:16

Isaiah 64:6 says,

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Isaiah 53:6 says,

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” — Isaiah 53:6

On Christmas morning, a little over 2,000 years ago, in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4), God came to save me from that from which I most needed saving: from myself; and from my sins which separated me from my Creator, my King and my God.

God is holy and righteous and perfect and sinless: He can not tolerate sin in His presence; nor can any sinner survive His presence.  As a sinner, I deserved hell.  And apart from the grace of God, hell is precisely where I would have gone.

Only there is a God who loved me, and gave Himself for me (see Galatians 2:2o; Ephesians 5:2; Titus 2:14) so that I could be alive in Him and share eternity with Him in His glorious presence forever and ever.

Thank you, Jesus.  I bow down before You and thank You with all of my soul that You alone had the power to save.  I desperately needed a Savior, and You came to save me.

I pray that you, too, bow down before Jesus your King and thank Him from the bottom of a saved, delivered soul this Christmas day.

Liberal Rabbi Continues Secular Humanist Hatred For All Things Christian And Tim Tebow

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, in tooting his own horn as loudly as he knows how, boasts that he is the winner of the Rockover Award (which just so happens to be “the highest honor in Jewish journalism,” by the way).  And his columb appears regularly in New York Jewish Week.

Here is his latest and greatest wise musing:

“If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.”

I mean, you could literally sing those lyrics to the tune, “If Hitler hadn’t killed six million Jews, the world would have been a much worse place.”

Interestingly, our Rabbi is a coward.  He delected those words from his blog, oh, much the way the Daily Kos deleted from its site allegations that Sarah Palin was faking her pregnancy with son Trig because the baby was really Brittany’s by incestuous relationship with her father (and Sarah’s husband).

The hatemongering continued until it was revealed that Bristol was herself pregnant – and that it was therefore biologically impossible that she could have been pregnant with Trig.  At which time the Daily Kos purged their site.  They didn’t apologize, they just slunk away like the despicable and vile cowards that they have always been.

When the going gets tough, you can always trust liberals to change their story.  Unless they can delete it and claim they never said it to begin with.

You would think of ALL people, Jews would have learned the lesson about such hateful demonization.

You would also think that a rabbi who says that Christians are so damn intolerant and hateful would think about how hypocritical he was being when he made such a despicable statement.  He literally singles Tim Tebow out – whom I’m willing to bet has never said a hateful thing about Jews or about burning mosques in his life – and attributes fanatical and deragened hate to him and to those who root for him.

But not this Jew.  And not most liberal Jews for that matter - who continue to vote for Democrats and vote for the most profoundly anti-Israel president in American history.

Understand, this attack against Tim Tebow and the Christianity said Tim Tebow believes in is just another in a long series of leftist attacks.

Now, understand, I am a fierce supporter of Israel.  Which is to say that I am FAR more pro-Israel than most American Jews (for the record, there are all KINDS of American liberal Jews who regard Israel and their fellow Jews who live there with naked contempt).  For too many liberal American Jews, the subject of “the Jewish state” is met with embarassed silence.  And liberal Democrat Jews continue to believe that liberal Jews don’t much care about Israel.  Hopefully that is changing as more American Jews understand that Barack Obama represents an existential threat to Israel that is frankly worse than the threat of Iran (and that because it frankly doesn’t matter who their enemies are if America remains her steadfast friend).

Norman Podhoretz writes a thoroughly-researched book in which we find him ”maintaining that Democratic attitudes toward Israel range from unsympathetic to passionately hostile while the Republicans, with some exceptions, have been solidly to fervently supportive since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War.”

A review of Podhoretz’s book, “Why Jews Are Liberals” has this to say:

Yet, in terms of Israel support, there were reasons to think 2008 would be a good year for the GOP. John McCain’s long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him an advantage over Barack Hussein Obama, whose history consisted of associating with enemies of the Jewish state like the unapologetic bigot Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Nevertheless, proving Pod’s assertion that Statist “Jews” have not cared about Israel/Judaism for decades, Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by roughly a 70-30 ratio. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic/religious group, sans blacks, and Podhorertz relays some stats:

The Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

In his closing paragraphs, Podhoretz clarifies a final time:

“The social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings tyhroughout the centuries over the face of the earth.”

We fundamentalist Christians – unlike liberal Jews - stand strongly besides Israel and we vow to stand WITH Israel.  Even to our own hurt.  And the interesting thing is that this uberliberal rabbi implicitly affirms that.  It’s not Jews that we’re going to target if Tebot wins the Super Bowl; no sir, we’re going to burn down all the mosques and target every single immigrant BUT Jews.

At suppose that’s an improvement from this hypocrite hater; he could have accused us of hating on Jews, too.

I use the term “Judeo-Christian” to understand my faith.  I believe that Messiah Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and said that every jot and tittle of it would ultimately be fulfilled.  That means that there is a place for Jews and a place for national Israel in God’s kingdom.  And with my fellow evangelical Christians, I eagerly wait to see that day when God brings all of His people together.  And I continue to stand up in vocal support of the state of Israel and call for America to defend God’s chosen people against her mortal enemies until that blessed day the prophets anticipated comes to pass.

That faith is far stronger than Rabbi Joshua Hammerman’s hate and bigotry.  So my attitude toward Israel and toward faithful Jews does not change so much as a single degree.