A Declaration
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Churches that Abuse
|
|
One of the most crushing things that a Christian can experience is coming to the realization that a church to which one belongs was in error, abusive, or causes damage to its own followers. These two books, Churches that Abuse, and Recovering from Churches that Abuse explore the experiences of many who suffered at the hands of the leaders who were to care for them. Ronald Enroth is the author of these two works and he not only details members experiences but he also names the churches and groups who dealt the damage to these individuals.
As a member of a church organization that for many years I felt earnestly sought the will of God and cared greatly for souls, I found my jaw dropping at some of the parallels in these pages that resembled my own experience. Though my departure from this organization was a conflict between myself and the Pastor, I never thought that the organization would fall into the category and definition of these two books. Abusive? Yes, but not necessarily to me, but then maybe I am in denial on that point. However, I have taken severe damage from this organization and by the Grace of God I gain healing and move on in my walk.
These two books, Churches that Abuse, and Recovering from Churches that Abuse, not only defines and identifies what church abuse is, but it shows just how common it can be. Anyone who finds themselves in this type of relationship with their church need to read these books. Realize that you are not alone and that God does care for you and that there is healing that He can truly impart.
These two books are out of print but they are hosted in HTML and PDF format. Click on the links below the images of the books for a direct link to each.
Juan Williams Strikes Back: Here\’s What You CAN Say on NPR Without Getting Fired
We covered the firing of Juan Williams in an earlier post and as it turns out Williams was a sit in host on Friday’s O’Reilly Factor, the show in which he made the remarks that got him canned from the Ultra-Liberal federally funded news outlet, NPR. I could ramble on ad nauseum to set up the story for you but Juan does a bang up job of it on his own.
Without further ado, the spurned one himself:
Repost Link: Juan Williams Strikes Back: Here\’s What You CAN Say on NPR Without Getting Fired.
Reid: ‘But For Me, We’d Be in World-Wide Depression’
Reid: ‘But For Me, We’d Be in World-Wide Depression’
Thanks Harry, we really appreciate it. 
NPR fires Juan Williams over remarks made on the O’Reilly Factor
Juan Williams, a Fox News contributor and news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR), was fired today by the news goons at NPR for remarks made on the O’Reilly Factor. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly, Williams expressed a fear of boarding an airplane with Muslims dressed in full Muslim regalia in a post 9/11 era. Williams continued with saying that one should not let these fears cause one to act in a bigoted way. What did NPR hear? Well, apparently they heard, “My name is Juan Williams and I am bigoted and I should be fired from my post at NPR.” They took head to that voice and promptly fired Juan Williams.
Coincidentally, earlier this week we learned that George Soros donated $1 million to Media Matters in an effort to fight Fox News and Glenn Beck. Let’s see, to whom else did Soros donate money? NPR, at the tune of $1.8 million. Could it be that Juan got singled out because of his association with Fox News? No … that’s just crazy talk. Or, is it. Anyone know the name Mara Liasson? Well, she also is a Fox News contributor, and is employed by NPR. Guess who is calling for her departure from NPR? Media Matters, but obviously no conflict of interest there. No conflict because I choose not to see it.
All sarcasm aside, this is not just an all out assault on Fox News and conservative talk, it is an assault on free speech and one honest liberal was the victim.
Free Speech on Trial in Holland?
Once considered the Mecca of free speech and free thought (pun intended), the Holland Parliament is taking to task a third party politician on remarks made against Muslims while on the campaign trail. During the Enlightenment period the Dutch were world famous for protecting the right to free speech, especially if that speech bristled the ire of religious organisations. Today, not so much. It appears that if one is convicted of hate speech against Muslim interests, one can get up to a year in jail. It’s funny that our culture, and now Holland’s, its only hate speech against religious organizations if it pertains to Islam, but not when it pertains to Christianity.
Repost link.
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded—overwhelmingly—and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.
Read more
Thomas Jefferson, a Christian or deist?
Much has been debated about the faith of Thomas Jefferson. Some say that he was a deist, one who believes in a god but not necessarily the Judeo-Christian god, and others claim he was a Christian. I am not sure why there would be so much debate over this man’s faith, except to probably debunk the idea that the United States was established on Christian principles by Christian men.
Some, like Richard Dawkins, and those of his ilk, often use another quote made by Jefferson which they think calls into question the terms of his faith. The quote goes like this, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” From an atheist standpoint there is no god so, to them the inferred question of the existence of god is taken in the negative, making this quote the smoking gun to Jefferson agnosticism or atheism. However, from a Christian standpoint there is a god so, the same question is taken in the affirmative. Therefore, this quote isn’t the slam dunk on Jefferson faithlessness that atheists suppose. Rather, it is a testament to Jefferson’s belief that God is a rational and reasonable concept.
Below is a quote of Thomas Jefferson from a letter written to Benjamin Rush, a scientist, physician, and political leader from Philadelphia. I think this should shine a little light on Jefferson true faith.
Dear Sir,
In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other (emp. added).