Monday, February 13, 2012

What is the Future of Religion?

*******
Obama: Violating Much More than Conscience
First Amendment, Catholic Church
Rev. Michael Bresciani
Monday, February 13, 2012
In his latest show Gov. Mike Huckabee was seen interviewing a Catholic priest, as they spoke, the Governor said that since the Catholics have come under attack “we are all Catholics.” The audience accepted what he said and while they knew the Governor was not referring to some giant ecumenical switch to Catholicism he was stating the obvious. When the government suspends or denies first amendment principles to the church, be it Protestant or Catholic, we all tend to close ranks.
In what is known in theological circles as the antediluvian period (before the flood) men were guided not by the Mosaic Law or by the New Testament but only by their conscience. That particular dispensation failed miserably and it is actually what precipitated the flood. Man’s conscience failed then (Ge 6: 5) and it has not improved at all since. According to scripture that is why God had to reveal what sin and error actually were according to his laws. When that was known he provided grace; because no one could keep all the laws. At no time did God ever allow man to return to the age of conscience, it would have been self defeating.
Nothing has changed, because God, unlike man, never goes backwards. Using only conscience to be our guide is as disastrous today as it was in the ancient world. It is what allows us to lump all religions together and pick and choose one or the other that seems to soothe our conscience. In the process we tend to pick the religions that crush personal responsibility the most. We choose systems where external actions, liturgies, symbolism and religious practice become a substitute for actually connecting to, and obeying, the living word of the Living God. The result is that the conscience actually comes into conflict with God’s revealed word and it is the word that is offended, disregarded and eventually abandoned.
The practice of abandoning God’s word is not only increased during the years just before Christ’s return, but entire religions will be popularized, promulgated and fully accepted without the slightest connection to God or his word. It is a period that lasts for only a few years, but leads the world into that dreaded last period of time the Bible often refers to as The Great Tribulation.
Hearing that President Obama is requiring that Catholics pay insurance premiums that will cover abortifacients is just a primer for what is to come. It is almost too early to predict what else Mr. Obama may decide to enact as part of Obamacare or some new executive order, but we can rest assured that both he and other world leaders will be flying against the revealed word much more in the days ahead.
Exactly what is the error that’s fueling these perversions and attacks? In fact, it has already been stated, but we must carry it, just a bit further. Ignoring God’s word does bring in apostasy, heresy and the very antichrist himself, but why don’t we see it coming, why don’t we head it off at the pass. The truth is simple, there is no one, or few at best, who are willing to make a dash to the pass and stand against the enemies of God.
The error begins when even those who claim to be Christians (Including the president) begin to view the Bible on a selective basis, choosing or rejecting the part of scripture they like or want to use and discarding the rest. They think as some say that the Bible may only be inspired in spots and they will need to be inspired enough to spot the spots. When God’s word is subject to the feelings and impressions of the hearers to give it veracity; then it has been made purely subjective and is worth nothing. God’s word is true and viable whether we get it or not.
As far as Christ’s words he himself said he will hold us accountable for all his words not just some or the ones we take a fancy to, in fact to obey all his words puts us in only an entry level position. “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” (Lk 17: 10)
It is apparent today more than any time since the 2008 elections that Obama and the liberal element attached to him; use the scripture only when it suits them. The authority of Benedict in the Catholic Church means nothing to Mr. Obama or Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius who have announced as of February 13, 2012 that they don’t intend to offer any further compromises to the Catholics of America.
There is only one answer that can be given to the president at this point of impasse and it is obvious. Now 65 million Catholics can show their faith in November by voting for Mr. Obama’s opponent in the presidential race. For Catholics the choice has come down to Benedict or Barack for Protestants the choice will be between the Bible or Barack. The voting booth will be the battle ground and the outcome will determine the very future of our nation.
Both Protestant and Catholic will now have to decide if they are going to be “respecters’ of persons” or faithful to their God. This should not be a difficult choice for the faithful, but it will no doubt be a costly choice for the president in his bid for re-election.
A government that ignores its own Constitutional principles and its very foundation, will find it easy to disregard the laws of God and in so doing will have reduced its citizens to a piece of bread when it asks them to abandon their faith for a law or mandate that goes against God, his word or his church. The choice to stand as men is now ours alone to make.
“To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress.” (Proverbs 28: 21)
Rev Michael Bresciani is a Christian author and a columnist for several online conservative and Christian news and commentary sites. His website is The Website for Insight covers current events, politics, Christianity, movie and book reports and much more. Americanprophet.org. Rev. Bresciani can be reached at: ampro@americanprophet.org 
*******
Barack’s Smug Assault on Freedom of Religion Isn’t Just Anti-American—It’s Unforgivable
Forcing Acts Against Conscience, Rescinded After Outcry, Reveals a Nefarious Obama
Kelly OConnell
Sunday, February 12, 2012
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44567?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=17569cfa17-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email
Could history’s greatest Republic be suffering total amnesia over the Founder’s conviction that religion is a sacrosanct zone outside of governmental authority? You’d think so, given the Obama administration’s decision to force Believers to provide birth control against conviction.
The Democrat’s sinister cabal, in typical Marxist fashion, clumsily politicizes yet another area of American freedom. We observe, again, the inevitable, serious-as-a-heart-attack, yet trite socialist power-grab.
Here, in his liberal kabuki theater, a pseudo-sincere, smart **** leftist drone solemnly dictates religious organizations must underwrite birth control. Undoubtedly, Barack and his pals chortled like hyenas over the resulting hand-wringing of sincere Believers.
But of extreme import to Barack is reminding everyone of the god that is government, with its inherent authority and right to do whatever it likes in the lives of Americans. Or, as Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark stated in response to a question during a town hall over Obamacare (video):
*******
Pete Stark: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country
*******
Female constituent: “How can legislation such as this be constitutional when it seems to be in direct conflict with the 13th amendment? ...And ...if this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”
Stark: “I think there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.”
Female constituent: “My question is: How can this law be constitutional?—but more importantly than that—if they can do this, what can’t they?...Is your answer that they can do anything?”
Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.”
There is only one approach to religion endorsed by the Founders, described in the Constitution—absolute freedom to express one’s beliefs. With America’s greatest right—freedom of religion—threatened, it’s high-time for vexed Conservatives, Libertarians, and principled Liberals to oppose desecration of our Bill-of-Rights. This is the subject of this essay.
I. History of Freedom of Religion
A. Ancient Religion
While many diverse cults flourished in the ancient world, establishing pantheons in pagan cultures, there was no freedom of religion as modern Westerners understand it. For example, in ancient Rome, newly established belief systems, like Christianity were not welcome, since they were unproved. Further, Christianity was also not welcomed in the Roman Empire because Christians would not accept polytheism, or emperor-worship.
B. Puritan Revolution Levellers
It was not until the Reformation occurred that a permanent foundation for religious freedom was established. A preliminary demand for religious freedom, founded upon Scripture, came from the Puritan Revolution dissenters called Levellers. These proposed a precocious demand for various rights, including absolute liberty of religious expression. One writer describes their philosophy, crafted from a reading of the newly liberated Bible in the vernacular:
A general underlying religious message of the movement was that all men are equal in the sight of God be they prince or pauper. That true and perfect freedom was not attainable in this world. True government was only answerable to the People, not to the Parliament or the Crown. Religious toleration and a basic Christian concern for those at the lowest level of society were central elements.
C. John Locke & Essay on Toleration
While many thinkers contributed to the notion of toleration, seminal author and philosopher John Locke was at the forefront. This is notable for in early life, Locke was a typical Puritan-sympathizer—not opposed to repressing non-Orthodox belief.
But several events caused Locke to take a broader view of religious tolerance, according to Kim Ian Parker in The Biblical Politics of John Locke. First was his university education under the remarkable John Owen, one of the greatest theologians in Church history. Owen’s own experience as Cromwell’s minister led to his witnessing first hand the slaughter of Irish Catholics, during the Siege of Drogheda for refusal to accept Cromwell’s Protestantism. Owen believed this a great sin since the biblical God Himself did not demand force in matters of religious belief.
Second, when Locke was driven from England over religious differences with the Crown, he fled to the Continent and stayed in several remarkable cities, rich in religious diversity and tolerance. Later, an experience as a political attaché in Brandenburg made a like impression with its tolerant congregations of Calvinists, Lutherans and Catholics, living at peace with one another, according to Parker.
Third, Parker writes that Locke’s legendary relationship with Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, challenged his early repressive ideas on religion. Around this time Locke also began attending Whichcote’s Latitudinarian congregation, helping encourage tolerance.
Fourth, Locke’s own powerful mind allowed him to pick through the debate until he’d written several powerful defenses against religious mandate. In his Essay on Religious Tolerance, Locke outlines three arguments supporting religious tolerance:
1. Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints;
2. Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
3. Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.
Key to understanding Locke’s belief, which has been roundly proved by history, is his theory society thrives when religion is freely expressed, but evil builds when such belief is repressed.
D. America’s Religious Protection: Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment
The early Pilgrims and Puritan expatriates famously came to America in search of religious tolerance, something unavailable at home. They established states in America, some of which allowed more religious liberty than any place in history, according to Leonard W. Levy’s Origins of the Bill of Rights. For example, Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649 laid down protection for “the free exercise of religion.” This phrase was employed in the Constitution more than a century later, according to Levy. In Maryland, Catholics and Protestants worshiped in peace.
The Virginia constitution, the first state constitution, contained many elements later seen in the Fourth through Eighth Amendments. It protected life, liberty and property, and also secured “the free exercise of religion” as well as an unbridled press. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were assembled, the cream was taken off the crop of state constitutions and bills of rights. Defense of the freedom of religion coming chiefly, along with that of the press, as its inclusion in the First Amendment shows.
II. Theory Behind American Freedom of Religion
A. Natural Law
“Natural Rights” theory under-girds the Constitution. This idea was taken from John Locke, and others writing upon Natural Law, resulting in the Declaration’s “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”“
B. John Locke & the Founder’s Natural Law
Ellis Sandoz, in A Government Of Laws, describes Locke’s and the Founder’s view of Natural Law:
The notion is thus: there are abiding principles of justice; the law of nature is superior in obligation to every other law; and municipal law—the law of nations and of lesser communities, the positive law that is legislated by assemblies or even by the referenda of people—is subject to the demands of natural and divine law as being permanent categories of Justice. While the assertion of the primacy of natural rights beings a different and novel perspective to the argument, it is in significant part the traditional view that Jefferson is thinking about almost a century after John Locke wrote when, in the Declaration, he talks about the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
Whatever majorities do, whatever particular rulers undertake, indeed they do have great liberty; but they rule justly. If they do not, then the people are not obliged to obey. Even a philosopher as cautious as Thomas Aquinas says that. The state is an association of free men. Consent is a fundamental element in the whole Western political tradition. Even a king, Aristotle already says, must rule by consent of the people (politeuma) who are the true constitution (politeia), but “a tyrant is still a tyrant, though his subjects do not want him.” The notion of consent is fundamental to political regimes and forms the very distinction between a political and totalitarian regime.
Locke’s theory claims man was in a “State of Nature” after his Fall from grace in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, mankind still had a right of human survival, so folks were granted Natural Rights to protect themselves. These Natural Rights were then volunteered—a small part of, in order to enter into the society of men. But these Natural Rights, like a Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, can never be wholly abandoned. Each person carries these Rights with them into society, as articulated in God’s Law. Such Rights are revealed in the Bible, and also detected by the ancient pagan thinkers, forming the doctrine of the Law of Nature. Further, common sense, as well as trial and error, are added, which reveals how this law ought to be applied in present and future settings.
III. Obama’s Rank Religious Imposture: Karl Marx Approves
Barack, like numerous Marx-influenced leaders before him, has a withering and deformed view of religion. Further, it is no secret that Karl Marx, was wholly opposed to religion, calling it the “opium of the people.”
That Marx’s fabled humanist paradise could never hope to prosper while competing with Christianity and the Church is obvious. In fact, it is quite astonishing that intelligent persons do not recognize the fact that the mortal enemy of socialism, and vice-verse—is everyday Christianity. In this sense, there can be no true sharing of the mission between the two. And well-versed socialists and Marxists wholly understand this problem, which is why they perpetually seek to weaken the Church.
A linchpin argument against Obamacare is it elects government as a blind overseer for millions, regardless of personal differences. In other words, given the nature of bureaucratic decision-making, a vast ocean of choices will be made for those personally opposed to the policies. This is not merely inefficient, but morally wrong, in extremis. Further, it cuts against the Founders’ wise desire to keep government smaller and less intrusive.
So when the Obama administration decides that Christians must pay for birth control, regardless of personal conviction, they achieve a handful of important goals. First, Obama extends-out the mission of Obamacare, delivering it to one of the many frontiers of human choice. Second, the administration vexes its “enemies,” unnerving them by proving itself unafraid to make waves, causing critics dread at its intrepid ambitions. Third, and most importantly, the maneuver establishes that government controlled healthcare is the proper authority in those most godlike activities—the creation of life, and decision-making for death. And if the government owns these rights, secularists can posit it has ransomed men’s souls, as well.
IV. What Can be Done to Save America’s Liberty?
Only a bona fide fool could look at Washington and not see a total destruction of our Constitution and Liberty, itself. In exposing his contempt for citizens, Obama has done a huge favor by arming opponents with fresh evidence of his utter opposition to American ideals and principles. Yet, the Founders were keen to respond to acts of tyranny, sparking the American Revolution. As Thomas Jefferson said,
Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!
Typical for burgeoning tyrants is to play naive citizens like a fiddle, throwing out illegal, contradictory and power-grabbing maneuvers to confuse and break their spirits. Citizens must finally wake up to this administration’s many depredations against the natural liberties of free-born Americans. Now it’s revealed Obama despises religious liberty—the seed and nurturer of every other right—so we must come to our senses and vote out this tin-horn. As reminded by Thomas Kidd’s God Of Liberty, A Religious History of the American Revolution, let us never forget another ringing statement by Jefferson, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”
Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com
*******
Obama Still Poised to take over Churches and Eliminate First Amendment
Knowing that Obama truly is the one who has systematically devastated our country--by design--in order to subjugate its people are we, nonetheless, now ready to be his slaves? Are you?
Sher Zieve
Friday, February 10, 2012
With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.
The president of the United States has no authority—whatsoever—to make any laws or influence religion in any way, whatsoever. Therefore, Obama had and has NO authority to demand that anyone or any body—let alone the Catholic or any other Christian Church or Jewish synagogue—must appease him by providing birth control, abortions or anything else the tyrant requires. Further, he does not have the authority to compromise or ‘work a deal’ with any Church about anything. Question: Does anyone in this country still remember that the US Constitution is our foundational LEGAL document? And what is it about “no authority” that seems to confuse so many of the Obama media?
As I have written over and over again for years, if Obama is allowed to get away with flaunting the Constitution and its essential Bill of Rights, it’s as if our founding document no longer exists and Obama may now make up any law he wants to install.
But, as Congress continues to illegally give Obama more and more dictatorial powers (sadly, I wrote that—if Obama was elected—this would occur in October 2008), we have now reached the point that Obama is—fully—the Dictator-in-Chief of the USA. I have also written myriad columns warning that Obama is grabbing more and more power for himself, gutting more and more programs in order to pull in more and more money for himself and his friends yet, no one in Congress or the courts are even trying to stop him. And all too many of the former We-the-People will do anything about it.
As Obama continues to decimate our economy by destroying the US treasury and gut any of our remaining freedoms in order to force us into submission, I’m reminded of the tribes of Israel when they originally settled in Egypt. Genesis 47:19 states: “Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.” They were willing to become slaves to Pharaoh for bread and grain.
Knowing that Obama truly is the one who has systematically devastated our country—by design—in order to subjugate its people (he is a true Alinskyite) are we, nonetheless, now ready to be his slaves? Are you?
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
Sher can be reached at Sher_Zieve@yahoo.com
*******
Also See:
Religion of the New World Order
16 December 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/12/religion-of-new-world-order.html
and
One World Religion - Closer Than You Think
03 October 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-world-religion-closer-than-you.html
and
Rev Moon, Money, and Corruption
26 December 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/12/consortium-rev.html
*******