THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS

01/27/09

Our priorities speak volumes about us. They indicate our core values and most closely-held beliefs. Obama made the slaughter of the unborn one of his priorities.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan established a policy of banning the use of American foreign aid to fund abortions under the guise of "family planning". During his first week in office, Barack Hussein Obama terminated that ban.

It is interesting to note that Obama signed that executive order without the media coverage that accompanied his announcement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

It is also interesting that Obama chose the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reverse what had become known as the "Mexico City Policy". Was that a deliberate slap in the face to pro-lifers?

With all the issues facing our government — global terrorism, border security, the imminent collapse of Social Security, the specter of ever-increasing taxes to pay for the government's on-going spending spree, the necessity of procuring our own petroleum — how did Obama decide that U.S. funding of unrestricted worldwide abortion was a priority, something that must be done during his first week in office?

What goes on in the mind of such a man? What passes for rational thought? More to the point, is there a rational thought process in such a man?

With our economy in a shambles and the Congress packing the government's "economic stimulus" bill with more pork every day, with daily announcements of layoffs and plant closings, with record mortgage foreclosures, how can Obama possibly justify using American tax money to pay for the global slaughter of innocent children?

Some have speculated that rescinding the "Mexico City Policy" was a sop to Obama's radical left-wing supporters. If so, how many innocent lives does Obama think that support was worth? How many millions of innocent children will die so that Obama could attain the presidency?

We already know Obama's views on the sanctity of life. He considers infants, both unborn and newborn, as disposable people. While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against a bill that would have provided medical assistance to babies who survived abortion attempts. His rationale for his position was that providing medical assistance to infants would abridge the rights granted under Roe v. Wade.

Huh? Roe v. Wade granted a woman the right to murder her unborn child — but it cannot be construed to guarantee her a dead baby! Even if the baby survives the attempted abortion, the woman has rid herself of the inconvenient life, and so her "rights" have been served. What kind of convoluted thinking would it take to arrive at the conclusion that Roe v. Wade gives a woman the "right" to a corpse?!

The answer to that one is easy: It would take the same kind of convoluted thought process that caused Obama to make the slaughter of innocents a priority.

And now we have Nancy Pelosi defending the inclusion of funding for "family planning" (a liberal euphemism for "abortion") in the "economic stimulus" bill by saying that our state budgets are overburdened with children and that fewer children will ease the burden on the government.

First of all, Ms. Pelosi, if Democrats didn't try so hard to populate the welfare roles, states would NOT be overburdened. Secondly, if Democrats didn't try so hard to destroy family values, we would not have so many unwed mothers with fatherless children to populate those welfare roles. So you see, it isn't a matter of fewer children but of greater parental responsibility.

Pelosi even claims to be a Catholic. I suspect Pelosi is as much a Catholic as Obama is a Christian. Apparently, neither of these devout people understands that the wholesale slaughter of children is an abomination in God's eyes and that He will not withhold His judgment from this nation forever.

God help us when that judgment falls.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE INAUGURATION OF HOPE?

01/17/09

There has been an almost indefinable change in American politics during the last decade.

Our elections have gone from being debates on the issues to nothing more than character assassinations. Facts are blithely ignored in favor of rhetoric. Congress routinely flouts the Constitution whenever it suits them and regularly threatens to impeach the President when he has not. Some segments of our population have become so blinded by hatred that they choose to move through life ignorant of facts and incapable of reason.

On Tuesday, we will witness the culmination of these changes.

The inauguration of a black man as President of the United States should be a momentous occasion, an historic milestone — and would be under other circumstances. Were Obama a man of the same caliber as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose name he bandies about freely, his inauguration would be an occasion for celebration. But he is not, and it is not.

Obama campaigned on promises of "hope" and "change", yet he rose to power from the corrupt Chicago political machine. He has betrayed his promise of "change" by selecting Washington hacks, nearly all from the Clinton administration, to populate his cabinet. His vaunted "team of rivals" was only a nicely turned phrase, after all.

Yet something more disturbs me about the impending presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. Rather than becoming successful on the hope and promise that is America, Obama chose, instead, to ally himself with bitter men such as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres and to scrabble to power on the backs of those who were fed a steady diet of hatred.

And so this man comes to the presidency not with love and appreciation for this great nation and with a desire to see her succeed, but with bitterness and hatred and a determination to destroy all that has made us great: liberty, independence, self-sufficiency and self-determination.

Yes, this is the end of eight years of the Bush presidency. But of what is it the beginning?

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

DEAR ANONYMOUS

01/03/09

"Do you think [a]theists should just 'shut up and go away' during the holiday season, that they have no rights whatsoever? They should just put up with having religious displays forced down their throats on public property?"

Why not? That's what Christians must do on Halloween, isn't it?

My children attended public schools, because I could afford nothing better. Every year, the public schools celebrated Halloween and forced their small charges to participate in various anti-Christian activities. And every year, I found it necessary to remove my children from school on the day of the Halloween parade and party, rather than allow them to participate.

Often, my children were taught fallacies and outright lies in public schools that, by the way, are funded with my real estate taxes!!

In one class, one of my sons was required to take to class an astrology column from the local newspaper. In lieu of that column, I sent a polite note advising the teacher that the study of astrology was in opposition to the religious beliefs of my family and asked her to give my son another assignment. She kindly agreed.

Note that I did not insist that the astrology assignment be removed from the curriculum, nor did I insist that a Bible study be instituted at the school. I simply requested an alternate assignment for my son. Are you able to understand the difference between standing up for one's own rights and trampling the rights of others?

And, or course, both my sons were taught the fairy tale of the theory of evolution, even though there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that theory. Certainly, there is microevolution within species, but not one example of macroevolution exists in any of the fossil record. Yet my children were taught that nonsensical theory as fact — in public schools that were funded with my money!!

But back to Christmas.

What "rights" concern you, Anonymous? You already have the right to worship whatever deity you choose, or to worship none at all. You already have the right to hold whatever beliefs your conscience dictates, do you not? You already have the right to celebrate any holiday you choose, or to celebrate none at all. We all have these rights. I don't trample on your rights or try to ruin your holidays; I simply observe my own. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

So when you clamor for your "rights", I must assume you want the "right" not to be exposed to the 3-month commercial extravaganza that occurs in our nation each year. Frankly, I'd like nothing better myself, but that's not going to happen, is it? The only way to avoid the commercialism is to refuse to participate. I did. Why don't you?

You say you find the public displays at Christmas disturbing? Why? Most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. The most popular public display is a brightly lit Christmas tree. There is certainly no basis for equating a decorated tree with Christianity. What, then, do you find offensive about it? Decorated trees should offend me, rather than you, springing as they do from Druid tradition.

We used to have a fine tradition of religious tolerance in this country. What has happened to it? Why do you hate Christianity? Why does it disturb you so much?

And you're right, Anonymous. Though I thoroughly enjoy reading your comments, I will not publish them. The reason is simple: This is MY Two Cents, not a dialogue.

I'm sorry this reply is late. You see, I was busy celebrating Thanksgiving, several birthdays, Christmas and New Year's Day according to the multi-cultural traditions of my family and I was paying not a whit of attention to the din around me. I hope you had the pleasure of doing the same.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

12/19/08

The Grace Community Church in Jacksonville, Florida, has been threatened with a lawsuit for its plan to discipline a member for engaging in an immoral sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

The church members followed all the guidelines laid out in scripture. The member in question, Rebecca Hancock, a 49-year-old divorcee, was counseled by her "mentor" to discontinue the immoral relationship. When she persisted in immorality, several other female members of the church met with her, pointed out the appropriate scripture passages, and encouraged her to end her sexual sin and restore her relationship with God.

Still, she refused, and so the elders of the church sent her a thoughtfully-worded letter in which they cited scriptural admonitions against sexual sin and pointed out that we are called to live godly lives. The letter reviews the disciplinary steps that had been taken and warns:

"Your refusal to repent and be restored in your relationship to God and His church leave us with no other alternative than to carry out the third step of the discipline process. In accordance with Matthew 18:17, we intend to 'tell it to the church'. Unless you repent of this sin and agree to meet with the elders regarding this issue, this third step will be carried out publicly on Sunday, January 4th, 2008 [sic].'"

The letter concludes:

"Our prayer is that you would repent of your sin, return to God soon, and permit Him to help you in this area."

It is no surprise that community members and the media are appalled that a congregation should confront a member about a relationship that the world considers "normal". What is surprising is the outcry from so-called Christians.

Condemnation of the church's stance is based largely on the opinion that since the woman is a consenting adult, it's no one's business that she sleeps with her boyfriend — or anyone else, for that matter.

Ms. Hancock said she knew the relationship was "against church rules" but she apparently doesn't know or care that her immorality is a sin against God. When confronted by some of the women of the church, she complained that she was being "persecuted" because the woman told her that what she was doing was wrong.

While we might expect that attitude from the world, I'm amazed that professed Christians are so ignorant of the Bible and of the instructions it contains regarding discipline in the church.

Rather than submit to the church's discipline, she insisted that her sexual activity is none of the church's business and that it's her right as an adult to engage in sexual activity whenever she wants. Perhaps. But is it her right as a Christian?

Let's take a look at what the Scripture has to say. What guidelines were the first Christians expected to follow?

In the letter to the church at Rome, in Romans 13.13-14, we read, "Let us behave decently… not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealously. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul not only addresses sexual immorality but discusses discipline of one who indulges in sexual sin. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…. I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral…. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral…. With such a man do not even eat." In other words, the church should not associate with a Christian believer who engages in sexual immorality.

Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you…? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6.18-20)

In his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 5, verse 3), Paul writes, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality or of any kind of impurity…because these are improper for God's holy people."

Finally, in his letter (1 Timothy 5.20), Paul discusses church discipline with Timothy. "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."

Outraged church attendees quote Jesus when He was presented with the woman caught in adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." They conveniently forget Jesus' instruction to the adulterous woman after He had forgiven her: "Go now, and leave your life of sin."

That is precisely what Grace Community Church is telling Ms. Hancock.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

RIGHTS - OR SIMPLY REBELLION?

12/04/08

Lately, various groups have been making much of demanding their "rights" — "gays" and atheists, to name the two most prominent.

I find it curious that in their effort to obtain what they term "rights", these people find it necessary to attempt to destroy and denigrate the beliefs of others.

When my ancestors left Europe, they came to the New World and settled in Penn's Woods for the purpose of religious freedom. They wanted the right to worship God as their consciences demanded. They did not attempt to redefine the words "God" or "worship", nor did they attempt to foist their ideas of a humble, godly life on others; they simply wanted to avoid persecution for their beliefs.

Today's advocates have quite a different idea of "rights".

"Gay rights" involves revising the ages-old definition of marriage and teaching your children and mine that perversion is normal and acceptable, merely an "alternate lifestyle" — in public schools that are funded by our tax dollars.

As clearly demonstrated in California, they do not acknowledge the democratic process of election in this country, but resort to terrorism, vandalism and persecution in their effort to undermine the will of the majority and overturn the results of a constitutional amendment referendum.

Last night, I watched a curious program called "Sex Change Hospital". This documentary-type program followed two men through sex change surgery. Each of these men insisted he was born to be a woman, that he was a woman "inside", and that hormonal therapy and surgical alteration of his anatomy to make him appear feminine would enable him to be his "true self". Interestingly, both these men-turned-women had GIRLFRIENDS.

Yes, you heard me correctly. They were men who were attracted to women — but who wanted to be surgically altered so that they could engage in lesbian relationships. Talk about mental and spiritual confusion!

And then there are the atheists pretending to be "free thinkers" who want to spoil everyone else's Christmas and Hanukkah celebrations because they feel left out during the big American shop-till-you-drop marathon in December.

They insist on erecting Christmas trees, all the while loudly denying belief in a supreme being and ridiculing those who recognize God.

They insist they're only fighting for their "rights". Dare I ask what "rights"??

In all my life, none of my employers has asked me about my religious beliefs. None of my teachers ever asked me about my religious beliefs. None of my landlords ever asked me about my religious beliefs. I have never been discriminated against because of my religious beliefs or lack of them — and I daresay, neither have they.

In my experience, there was no religious discrimination in this country before "gays" and atheists took to bashing Christians and those they perceive to be Christians.

Each of us has the right to believe as our conscience demands. However, atheists want the "right" to push their beliefs on others. They want the "right" to ridicule believers — more specifically, Christian believers — publicly. They held a "Blaspheme Challenge" to entice gullible teens to deliberately blaspheme God and offered as an incentive a free atheist "documentary" DVD, loudly proclaiming that the only price is "one soul". This isn't an expression of their right to believe in a Supreme Being or not; it's a deliberate attempt to ridicule and undermine Christianity and Judaism.

They want to intrude into what they think is Christianity's major religious holiday, Christmas. Their "enlightened" minds are too dull to realize that this secular holiday has evolved from a minor religious holiday into nothing more than an excuse for excess. They know so little about the Christian religion they're bashing that they aren't even aware that the focus of Christianity is not Christmas, but Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, which occurred during Passover.

These people aren't "free thinkers". Their pathetic arguments against the Gospel contain misquotes, outright lies and deliberate deception. They possess no discernment and are unable to discriminate between religious myth and true Christian faith. They are nothing more than intellectually-challenged contrarians.

I was once an atheist. I had been raised in the "church" and had seen nothing of God's power there. All I saw was hypocrisy, and I wanted no part of that. Since I found no evidence of God's existence in organized religion, I decided He did not exist. However, I did NOT demand that others adopt my belief or even accept it. I did not engage in a vendetta against Christians or churches. I did not push my belief on others. It was not necessary. I felt no need to justify myself or my beliefs by defaming others.

A few years later, I found myself face to face with the very real power of the One True God, and I became a believer. My belief in God and my acceptance of Jesus as my Savior and Lord has not required me to put my brain in neutral or to shelve my intellect.

Only atheism demands a closed mind and a stunted intellect.

And only a fool would demand fictitious "rights" by seeking to deny the rights of others.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.