TOPIC: Resist Aggression Towards Those Who Belittle our Faith, says Joel Edwards

Article from ChristianityToday.com

In his 2007 Christmas message, the Rev Joel Edwards has called on Christians and non-Christians alike to be tolerant of each other. The General Director of the Evangelical Alliance has addressed the question of how we embrace and worship Christ while living in multi-faith communities. He said that tolerance means people who are free not to worship should avoid making life difficult for those of us who do, but also called on Christians not to respond aggressively. “We must resist the urge to react to any belittling of our belief or our intellect with aggression.” Mr. Edwards said that Christians seem to encounter a “Herodian attitude which takes offence at the Christmas story and demonstrates a passionate intolerance to faith” and cites examples this year such as Christina Odone not being allowed to comment on Christianity at a carol service.
However, he said Christians should take their example from Jesus: “In his birth, which drew the poor and the rich, the frail and the strong, the Jew and the Gentile, we see the pattern for the rest of Jesus’ life, typified by a gracious and welcoming tolerance of diversity, but with a forthright and outspoken intolerance of narrow mindedness. He would walk with sinners, touch lepers and mingle with the poor. Our acceptance and welcome of those who do not think or look like us is surely to our credit. Even if we disagree with secular humanists we can at least acknowledge their starting point: a genuine passion of including those on the margins of power and influence.”
Mr. Edwards also praised the tolerance evident in people of other faiths: “Although people of other faiths may not bow down and worship Jesus, in the UK they have never attempted to prevent Christians from doing so. In a tolerant Britain which truly embraces diversity, freedom means the liberty to worship Christ the King. Christmas was never meant to be an imposition: it is an invitation to worship.”

TOPIC: 'Gays' Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off-Bread and Wine Replaced with 'Sex Toys'

Article from christiansunite.com

Organizers of San Francisco's hedonistic Folsom Street Fair - sponsored by Miller Brewing, Co. - have portrayed Christ and His disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event's promotional advertisement. The bread and wine representing Christ's broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci's The Last Supper.
"A picture's worth a thousand words," said Matt Barber (quoted below), Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA). "Scripture says that God is not mocked, yet it doesn't stop people from trying. As evidenced by this latest stunt, open ridicule of Christianity is unfortunately very common within much of the homosexual community."

'Gay' activists disingenuously call Christians 'haters' and 'homophobes' for honoring the Bible, but then lash out in this hateful manner toward the very people they accuse. In their version of The Last Supper, Christ, Who gave His life for our sins, is despicably replaced by sin itself as the object of worship.

We're calling on California's elected officials - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senators Feinstein and Boxer - to publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers. We further challenge the media to cover this affront to Christianity with the same vigor as recent stories about cartoon depictions of Mohammed and other items offensive to the Muslim community.
"What's equally shocking and offensive," continued Barber, "is the fact that California taxpayers are forced to help foot the bill for the Folsom Street Fair." The City of San Francisco sanctions the event, shuts down several city blocks and provides police for security. The most unimaginable and vile acts of debauchery are commonplace during the fair.

Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex - even group orgies - in broad daylight, while taxpayer funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing.

The mainstream media should cover this event with cameras in hand. There's an unbelievable news story here. The Folsom Street Fair is reminiscent of Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, and the media should document exactly what the city of San Francisco is allowing to occur - in public - in the name of 'tolerance.'

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

TOPIC: Radical Islam is Our Sworn Enemy; Why Doesn't Our Government See That Fact?

Article from ChristiansUnite.com

Colonel David Hunt told Fox News last week that our soldiers could have killed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2005. However, they were stopped from taking any action by then Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld.
What were the reasons for this insane decision? We are told that it was to protect the fragile democracy of President Musharraf in Pakistan and to further President Bush's goal of establishing democracies. When will we realize these people do not want a democracy, they want a government controlled by Radical Islam?
Apparently President Bush thinks by insisting upon giving them a democratic form of government they will accept it. What President Bush doesn't seem to realize is that these people are not our friends, they are our sworn enemies. Why don't we understand that Radical Islam is the greatest threat America has ever faced since World War II? Why don't we understand the words of Jihad being spoken nearly every day by Iran's President Ahmadinejad? Why don't we realize that Radical Islam teaches its followers to lie to non-believers?
Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values (CRAVE) said, "The real question is, Why doesn't America realize these Radical Islamic countries are our sworn enemies and that we must be defeat them by a show of force? Force is the only thing they understand." Swarthout said, "America has to wake up very soon to the real threat these people pose to our nation. Our leaders talk about the amount of chatter heard today like it is nothing. They had better wake up to the fact that Al Qaeda and Radical Islam are very real threats to us." Swarthout concluded, "We have become so politically correct that we have lost track of how America should act. Those who teach tolerance are really teaching us not to express our true opinions. Whatever happened to our freedom of speech everyone is always hollering about? Where is the value in not saying anything when you strongly disagree with something?"

CRAVE is contacting our Senators and Congressman to ask who is keeping a watchful eye on all of the Radical Islamic groups. We strongly suggest that our readers do the same. You may call 202/225-3121 and they will connect you to your Congressman and Senator's offices in Washington D.C.

TOPIC: Outrageous Homosexual Bill Passes California Senate
SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools
by Christiansunite.com Staff
The California State Senate voted Thursday (23-13) to pass SB 777 (Kuehl), legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against" homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues. SB 777 is similar to last session's highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens." Earlier this month homosexual advocacy group Equality California attacked CRI's opposition to the bill. A board member for the radical group sent an e-mail and video to CRI declaring that they would "bury" CRI if we "continued our efforts" in opposing this outrageous legislation. CRI also received hate mail from the so-called "tolerant" supporters of Equality California and the homosexual "tolerance" agenda.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," stated England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen" because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.
"Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented the policies in this bill," said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "In that district, boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls' locker room and restroom. Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what's taking place at school. This astonishing policy will be expanded to every school in the state if SB 777 becomes law."

The Sope-Bocks: Californians need to contact their state representatives NOW! The slippery slope that SB 777 provides is one that many generations will pay a heavy price for -- if this sort of intolerant legislation is allowed to become law. EVERYONE should be protected by the First Amendment -- not just those who choose to engage in the homosexual lifestyle.

TOPIC: The Dangers of Liberal Toleration

By Jim Tonkowich
In the polarized world in which we live, the most praised virtue is toleration. We must be tolerant of all people, we are told—all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities, religions, and cultures. Fair enough, but while I'm trying to be tolerant, somehow abortion rights, same sex “marriage,” and New York City residents changing their gender on their birth certificates seems to have come in the back door all under the rubric of toleration. Exactly what is going on?
At the recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington, D.C., Dr. J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas addressed this question in a lecture entitled, “True Toleration and the Failure of Liberal Neutrality.” In it, he concluded that the toleration that has been foisted on the American public is not tolerant at all. Toleration, which is hardly a new idea, has two possible rationales, according to Budziszewski. The first comes from the early Church fathers. This rationale grounds toleration on a paradox — the nature of the good is such that it demands that we put up with (tolerate) some bad. Their point of view centered on religious freedom. God does not coerce belief, and we cannot coerce belief either. People’s consciences may not be violated in the name of the good and the true and thus we must tolerate that which is not good and true, lovingly persuading others, but never forcing compliance in belief. This, said Budziszewski, is proper toleration.
The second rationale, claimed Budziszewski, grounds toleration on an “incoherence.” While the Church fathers urged toleration because of the nature of the good, liberals argue that we must suspend public judgments about the nature of the good. After all, as liberal philosopher John Rawls argued, while the Christian sees the good in one way, the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Marxist, or hedonistic pleasure-seeker each see it in other ways. Rawls calls each system a “comprehensive doctrine.” And since comprehensive doctrines can’t all be true, and each is more or less reasonable, the only solution for public discourse is to privatize them all, that is, ban all comprehensive doctrines from the public square. This, the argument goes, creates an environment of moral neutrality in which to make public decisions. Rawls, said Budziszewski, considers his approach tolerant and just because he treats everyone in precisely the same way — not endorsing anyone's comprehensive doctrine.
But in truth, Rawls is not being tolerant at all. His view privileges some comprehensive doctrines and suppresses others. Any doctrine that is easily privatized is privileged while any doctrine (Christianity for example) that by its very nature has public implications is suppressed. The liberal argument is nothing more than a camouflaged grab for power. We see this in the abortion debate. Women, we’re told, want and need legal abortion. Arguments to the contrary from religious, natural law, or common good perspectives are ruled out of order. These are comprehensive doctrines with values that must not be imposed on others and should be privatized in the name of toleration. You are free to choose not to have an abortion, but you must be tolerant with others who choose otherwise. And so, without a debate about the actual issue of taking unborn human life, abortion is the law of the land. Is this toleration? Certainly not.
First, said Budziszewski, this liberal toleration doesn’t live up to its own notion of toleration. Choice can never be neutral; it always discriminates between visions of the good. Same sex “marriage” is just as discriminatory as traditional marriage, because it repudiates traditional marriage. Legalizing abortion is just as discriminatory as prohibiting it because it runs roughshod over those who believe that abortion is an act of murder. Nor is liberal toleration “tolerant” in the proper sense of the word.
Advocates of liberal toleration don’t admit that they are judging, so they cannot possibly be judging justly. Since it violates others to judge them without admitting your criteria for judgment, liberal toleration is, in fact, thoroughly intolerant. Reasons can be debated, challenged, and overcome. Liberal toleration cheats by enforcing standards it will not admit to having.
This lack of candor, according to Budziszewski, leads to the great danger of a liberal confessional state. Our country has traditionally enjoyed a confessional state in that we have propounded public ideals. These ideals, our confession, have been declared, not coerced. In Communist states such as North Korea or Islamist states such as Saudi Arabia, the confession is declared and coerced. In the liberal confessional state, for the sake of toleration, the confession is not declared, merely coerced. This led Budziszewski to conclude that “in this country, for the foreseeable future, the chief danger to religious toleration arises not from our avowed religions, but from the unavowed and illiberal religion of liberalism itself.” And it is a danger to us all.

TOPIC: In the Name of Love... NOT!
In the name of love, many things are accepted. BUT, in truth and justice, some things cannot be accepted, embraced and celebrated.
Folks, liberalism is killing the Christian church. More and more, we are trading the truth of the Bible for the message of tolerance. The Word says, "There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the way therein is death." Liberalism and tolerance are the ways that *seem* right to many (under the guise of peace and love), but the way therein is death -- death of freedom, death of sensibility and death of the truth. Our culture, our children and our faith will all suffer as we continue to re-define sin as things that are to be tolerated (divorce, homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion, etc).
We had better wake up and get busy or we're going to reap what we have allowed far-left liberals, sodomites, extremist feminists and fascists to sew.

TOPIC: Who REALLY Cares? Conservatives or Liberals; Christians or Atheists?

by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra

The Religious Right really does put its money where its mouth is—at least more so than its secular rivals, according to a recent study from Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks. Published in late November, 2006 the controversial findings in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism have grabbed the attention of political commentators.
"If you asked me, I would have expected to find that religious conservatives are stingy," said Brooks, a committed Catholic and political independent. "That's what academics think. That's what we are told all the time." What he found instead was the Religious Right gives more in "every measurable way," from writing checks to volunteering time to donating blood.
Brooks attributes the difference to four factors— church attendance, two-parent families, Protestant work ethic, and distaste for government social services. But he said church attendance is by far the most telling. "Religious liberals and religious conservatives give at the same rate," he said. "What you find is more religious conservatives than religious liberals." Ninety-one percent of regular church attendees give to charity each year, compared with 66 percent of those who said they do not have a religion. The gap adds up— the faithful give four times more money per year than their secular counterparts. While most of that money is given to churches, religious people also give more to secular charities, such as the Red Cross or their alma mater.
Religious people also donate twice as much blood and are more likely to "behave in compassionate ways towards strangers," Brooks said. For example, they are much more likely to return extra change to a cashier when they are accidentally given too much. Generous giving is part of the religious conservative identity, according to sociologist Tony Campolo. "The Religious Right, by conviction, is convinced that helping the poor is something that should be done individually or by the church," said Campolo. "[They say that] asking the state to do it is wrong." But religious conservatives might not want to pat themselves on the back quite yet. Christian research organization Empty Tomb Inc. said evangelicals gave away 6.7 percent of their income in 1968. By 2004, that figure had dropped to 4.4 percent, but growing attendance and rising incomes have kept many churches from feeling the pinch. At the same time, more money is staying within the church to pay for things like music and technology. Evangelical churches, on average, devote only about 2 percent of their budgets to missions.

The Sope-Bocks: While this is NOT bragging, it is an indictment of those who preach tolerance and liberalism. It is also an indictment of those who spew hateful speech about the "evils" of religion, especially targeting Christians. The fact is -- they are TALKING, while believers are DOING.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you saw Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW or the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) working in a disaster area? When was the last time one of these organizations held a blood drive or food drive? When was the last time a feminist group worked in a homeless shelter or gathered garments for the local clothes closet? When have you ever seen PETA sponsor a fund-raiser that aided the poor?
The fact is -- those organizations are bent towards hate speech, accusatory rhetoric, anger and, worst of all, self-righteous pride. They don't really HELP anyone. And frankly, they NEVER will. It is NOT part of their make-up, their thought processes or their beliefs.

Isn't it time people starting THINKING -- and realizing -- that these groups are NOT helpful, but hurtful, hateful and destructive to true peace and cooperation among humans?!?