The Declaration of Independence gives us a thought about the same-sex marriage issue.
Transcript
[Darris McNeely] It’s the Fourth of July. Every year on the
Fourth of July I like to read the Declaration of Independence -
originally penned by Thomas Jefferson with a few edits by some of his
friends. One of the key phrases in the Declaration of Independence -
Jefferson wrote from a political point of view he said, “We hold these
truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” Now when
Jefferson wrote that, he was thinking from a purely political point of
view - in terms of the situation with the beginnings of the American
Revolution and desire for the colonies to separate from Great Britain.
Self-evident he said. He was writing from a political point of view - a
great document that has lived in American history. As I said, I like to
read it every year on the Fourth of July. And, this year I think I will
read it with a little bit different meaning; because, the Supreme Court
of the United States just a few days ago made a ruling in regard to
same-sex marriage - as we all know. And in that ruling they basically
said that the United States Constitution does provide for and guarantee
the right of same-sex marriage for Americans across all fifty states.
Now that’s going to be debated and discussed in many, many different
ways. But this thought struck me as I was thinking about the Fourth of
July and that Declaration of Independence and what has happened here.
There are certain truths that we have that are found in the Bible, God’s
word, that are self-evident.
You know Pilot asked Christ when He was standing before him at the point of His trial, he said “What is truth?” (John 18:38).
And that question continues to echo down to our day. “What is truth”?
Men look for truth. Well the truth is anchored firmly in the revealed
word of God the Holy Bible. And there is one truth there that is very,
very clear. That is God created man and woman - male and female -
created He them. And He brought them together to form one flesh, in what
is the biblical definition of marriage. And He said be fruitful and
multiply (Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:21-25).
That is the beginning, that is the origin, that is the teaching about
marriage at the human level between a man and a woman. That is the
biblical definition of marriage. That is a self-evident truth - that the
Bible, that nature and that biology teach us.
Now the Supreme Court has entered into this realm, this political
body of judges and lawyers, and have made a ruling based on a political
document - the document of the United States Constitution and to rule in
this area of larger spiritual truths and to impose its idea and its
will. It’s a very dangerous step for many different reasons far beyond
what I can talk about here today.
But on this Fourth of July in America, the United States of America,
as we think about what the day pictures and means in the political
beginnings that surround this day and that document called the
Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be
self-evident”. I think about that as we kind of get our minds wrapped
around what has happened in our culture in recent days. What’s taking
place in these cultural wars and battles that are ranging around us -
with the same-sex marriage in particular and the Supreme Court ruling.
They have stepped into an area that has very interesting consequences.
It is a very important matter to think about. What is most important is
that we hold ourselves fast to the truth of God as revealed in His word.
That’s BT Daily , join us next time.
The sin of murder through abortion twists the lives of those affected and the twits the moral fiber of a people.
Why should abortion—and the merchandising of the body parts of murdered babies—fill us with godly, righteous anger?
Every day I read at least some news, so I spend my fair share of
time feeling sad or shocked or simply perplexed at the things seemingly
regular people do to other seemingly regular people. Thankfully,
information saturation hasn’t numbed me to human suffering, and I can
still get shocked and upset by what I see. I really wish there was
enough good news to offset the bad, and I really wish I could walk away
from a news report feeling happy and hopeful for everyone whose stories I
read and hear about. It doesn’t happen very often.\
Godly, righteous anger is about justice , not revenge.
Every now and again I read a story that goes beyond the everyday
shock and awe at the darker sides of human nature. You probably had the
same reaction when you read about it or watched the videos that were
shared around. I’m talking about the revelation that representatives of
Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion provider, were
caught on video bartering over body parts from aborted children.
Sure, I was shocked. I felt stunned and sad. But I felt another
emotion as well—something deeper and rawer than sadness or shock. I was angry.
Was it right for me to be angry? Should you be angry about abortion?
Is it possible to be angry in a godly way? I’ll come back to America’s
abortion crisis, but first let’s lay some groundwork on the complex
concept of righteous, godly anger.
God’s anger is righteous
We don’t often think of anger as a Christian emotion—and for the
most part, that’s probably a good thing. Christians are to be defined by
their relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are
measured by the character of Jesus Himself. And He perfectly modeled
self-control, patience and mercy. But He was also capable of anger when
the situation called for it.
All four Gospels record Jesus’ anger at the moneychangers in the
temple for profaning God’s holy house. Maybe when you think about our
Savior shouting, flipping over tables and using a makeshift whip to drive
animals out of the temple it makes you uncomfortable. Maybe you have a
difficult time reconciling this very real image of Jesus with other very
real images of Jesus defending the weak, healing the sick and taking up
the cause of the poor.
If we honestly and humbly read the Bible, though, we’ll see that
this instance of Jesus’ life is 100 percent, entirely consistent with
His righteous character as it’s displayed throughout the Bible. The
author of Hebrews gives us an essential truth about Jesus: He is “the
same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
That means the same godly character that produced anger at the temple
moneychangers also produces great mercy every day. The same godly
character that commands care for widows and orphans commands justice and
judgment on those who reject God’s way. Psalms 7:12
tells us, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” It should come as no
surprise then that God is very angry at the senseless killing of
helpless children. We shouldn’t be shocked that God is angry that people
are profiting from the killing of His precious children. We also
shouldn’t be afraid to feel some of that anger ourselves and to “sigh
and cry” over the evil actions we see (Ezekiel 9:4).
When we read about callous violence and injustice, it’s right to be
angry. We need to tread carefully however. Anger is a powerful and
potentially very destructive emotion that, in the wrong context, wrong
frame of mind and wrong spirit, can wreck our spiritual lives and cause
us to hurt others.
Is your anger righteous?
Christianity is all about becoming more and more like God as Jesus
modeled His righteous character for us to follow. It’s important that we
keep close tabs on our thoughts and actions to make sure that we’re
following His lead and not the pulls of the flesh and allowing human
nature to dictate our responses. That’s why we need to constantly
examine ourselves to make sure we’re staying on the “straight and
narrow.” How do we know if we’re right or wrong in being angry
at something?
Many scriptures show us there’s a vast gulf separating righteous and
unrighteous anger. In the very beginning of mankind’s history, Cain’s
anger drove him to murder his own brother (Genesis 4:8).
Unfettered anger—or misdirected anger—can lead us to great sin. God
Himself tells us that it is good to be angry as long as we don’t sin
through misdirected, unrestrained anger (Ephesians 4:26).
So what is godly anger? One condition of righteous anger is that it should be directed toward sin.
Just as Jesus was furious at the profaning of His Father’s house, we
should hate sin and the negative consequences it brings on
people—especially the innocent or helpless.
Proverbs 6 lists seven things that God actively hates. The common
denominator is sin and its effects on people: “These six things the Lord
hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying
tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked
plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who
speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
A second aspect of godly anger is that it isn’t quickly or easily kindled. God’s anger at sin isn’t explosive. He’s not a “walking time bomb” like some people are.
No one likes to be around other people who have a reputation for
their quick tempers. Sometimes people with explosive anger can be very
dangerous. God Himself testifies to His slow temper: “The Lord, the Lord
God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
lovingkindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6).
If we want to cultivate only righteous anger, we need to follow His lead, being “slow to wrath” (James 1:19).
In fact, this quality of God is one of the fruits of His Holy Spirit
that develops in us as we grow close to God and He begins producing His
character within us. Paul wrote that “the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23, emphasis added). Notice here self-control —another essential trait of those who don’t sin in anger.
A third factor in godly, righteous anger is that it’s about justice, not revenge. Do we get angry at people
and hope for the time when they “get theirs”? If I’m being honest, I
have to admit that sometimes my anger over horrific events like the mass
slaughter of infants gets me going down this path.
But that human desire for punishment isn’t even remotely related to God’s promise of true justice
for the innocent and the guilty. Paul tells us that we should “give
place to wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’
says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Wait for God’s time of judgment and justice.
God will ultimately deal with evildoers. And it helps to always keep
in mind what God is well aware of—that people are misled in their
thinking and actions by a powerful malevolent spirit—Satan the devil
(see 1 John 5:19 and “An Evil Spirit World: Where Did It Come From? ”).
Why be angry about abortion?
Back to the Planned Parenthood controversy: Why should abortion—and
the merchandising of the body parts of murdered babies—fill us with
godly, righteous anger?
Consider that our society—our culture—is murdering, wholesale, the
most precious and helpless among us. Psalm 127 tells us that children
are a gift from God. They are precious to Him and should be to us.
They’re not a burden, not a negative consequence, and certainly not a
“parasite” in the womb as some characterize the unborn.
To say that we can choose to, at any point in a nine-month window of
time, kill the next generation of the human family—all potential
members of the divine family of God—is a great evil and a curse. We
should be furious at the very notion.
Let’s be honest: Almost all abortions, by some estimates more than
99 percent, are performed for the reason of convenience. The baby was
conceived at an “inconvenient time” for the parents. No one has yet
explained why a child can be given the death penalty because of the
circumstances of their conception.
A fairly conservative estimate—based on numbers collected by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—puts the number of legal
abortions performed in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 at approximately 51 million.
That’s 51 million lives cut short, 51 million untold stories,
immeasurable potential thrown away and sacrificed to the false god of
convenience and personal choice. Does that make you angry? It should.
Godly anger should lead to repentance
It should make you angry because, as Ezekiel warned Israel, sin twists people’s lives (Ezekiel 7:13, New Living Translation). The sin of murder through abortion twists the lives of those affected. And on a bigger scale, the widespread acceptance and support of abortion and organizations like Planned Parenthood twists the moral fiber
of a people. If America’s national conscience can tolerate the
dismembering of a child and the merchandising of its body parts, what can’t it tolerate?
There’s one last element to godly, righteous anger, and it’s the
most important element. The anger that comes from God should convict us to change and become more like Him. It should motivate us to fix our problems and turn toward the mercy and love God desperately wants to extend to us.
God doesn’t want people to suffer the bad consequences that sin
produces, and He doesn’t want any nation to suffer these consequences
either. God is patient and “not willing that any should perish but that
all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8).
It’s not too late for those whose lives have been twisted by the sin
of abortion to repent and live by God’s high standard of respect for
the sanctity of life. And, while it would require a great miracle, it’s
also not too late for America and other countries where abortion is
legal to experience a nationwide repentance and to turn away from
this sin.
God is waiting with arms wide open to accept those who turn away from sin to seek Him. Will America respond? Will you?
Saint
Patrick's Day is not a biblical holiday or Holy Day. And, as it is
currently celebrated, St. Patrick's Day actually has nothing to do with
the historical man Patrick. Many "Christian" holidays are a mixture of
truth and error.
Let’s start with what most people think they know. We have been
told that Patrick was a Catholic monk who brought the Trinity doctrine
to the people of Ireland. And along the way he drove all the snakes from
the Emerald Isle. He became so renowned that the Catholic Church made
him a “saint.” None of that is true!
Patrick was Scottish!
Patrick’s given name was actually Maewyn Succat (or Sucat). He took
the name Patrick most likely because of the area he was from in
Scotland. That’s right, Patrick was Scottish, not Irish! Here’s what
Patrick said himself of his background: “ I, Patrick…had Calpornius
for my father, a deacon, a son of the late Potitus, the presbyter, who
dwelt in the village of Banavan…I was captured. I was almost sixteen
years of age…and taken to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men” (William Cathcart, D. D., The Ancient British and Irish Churches , p.127).
Patrick labored for six years as a slave until he managed to escape back to his native Scotland around A.D.
376. He believed he had a calling from God, however, to go back to
Ireland to teach God’s Word to the people there. The Catholic Church,
while having had an impact in England and later Scotland, did not have a
significant foothold in Ireland until the 12th century. They didn’t
even acknowledge Patrick for about 200 years after his death. Patrick
was connected to what is known as the Celtic Church. It was very much
opposed to what was taught in the Roman Catholic Church.
Patrick did not follow Roman Catholic doctrine
While we have little of Patrick’s history and teaching written by
himself, what’s taught about Patrick now didn’t surface until about 500
years after his death. It was the Catholic priest Jocelyn, writing
around A.D. 1130 who wrote most extensively
about Patrick. He ignored much of what was known then about Patrick and
inserted a Catholic background into Patrick’s story. Patrick never wrote
about a connection to Rome or popes or that his authority came from
there. So if Patrick wasn’t Roman Catholic, what did he teach?
In A.D. 596 Pope Gregory sent a group of
monks to England to try and bring the Celtic Church under the authority
of Rome. However, the Celts refused to acknowledge Gregory’s authority
and rejected the teachings of the Roman Church. In Ireland the monks
found that the Celtic Church permitted their priests to marry. They also
practiced baptism by full immersion in water. The Celtic Church also
rejected the doctrine of (papal) infallibility and veneration,
transubstantiation, the confessional, the Mass, relic worship, image
adoration and the primacy of Peter ( Truth Triumphant , by B.G.
Wilkinson, pg. 108). The latter list is of specific Roman Catholic
doctrines that the Celtic Church knew were not taught in the Scriptures.
Patrick observed the Saturday Sabbath, Passover and rejected the Trinity doctrine
Patrick also rejected the merging of church and state (a main
teaching of Catholicism). He believed and taught the same as Jesus in John 18:36 that God’s Kingdom is not of this world. The Celtic Church had local ecclesiastical councils and kept Saturday as a day of rest , (A.C. Flick, The Rise of Medieval Church,
pp. 236-327). In this matter of a Saturday (Sabbath) rest, Dr. James
C. Moffatt wrote that, “They [the Celtic churches] obeyed the fourth
commandment [the Sabbath commandment] literally upon the seventh day of
the week” ( The Church in Scotland , pg. 140).
Patrick (and the Celtic Church) observed the other “festivals of the
Eternal” (Leviticus 23), believed human beings were mortal (that is
rejected the teaching of an immortal soul and the doctrine of going to
heaven or hell), rejected the Trinity doctrine, followed the food laws
of Leviticus 11, refused veneration of “saints” or worship of Mary, and
believed that only Jesus Christ is our mediator (Leslie Hardinge, The Celtic Church in Britain ; B.G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant ).
The Celtic Church had a long history before the Catholic Church
pushed deeper into England, Scotland and Ireland. Celtic writings speak
of individuals coming from Asia Minor who brought with them the
doctrines they received from John, Paul, Philip and other apostles of
Jesus. A Catholic “father,” Bede, (who lived in the mid 700s A.D.) who
wrote about the Celtic Church: “They ignorantly refuse to observe our
Easter [Pascha, or Passover] on which Christ was sacrificed, arguing
that it should be observed with the Hebrew Passover on the fourteenth of
the moon” (Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica ).
Is Saint Patrick’s Day in the Bible?
Saint Patrick’s Day is not a biblical holiday or Holy Day. And, as
it is currently celebrated, St. Patrick’s Day actually has nothing to do
with the historical man Patrick. Many “Christian” holidays are a
mixture of truth and error. Because of this, most people don’t really
know the history or purpose of the day. We encourage you to read what
God said in the Bible to know which Holy Days He made and who He said are saints.
The United Church of God traces its origins to the Church that Jesus
founded in the early first century. We follow the same teachings,
doctrines and practices established then, and believe our commission is
to proclaim the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God to all the world as a
witness and teach all nations to observe what Christ commanded.
It appears that Patrick believed these same teachings. We encourage you to read the online Bible study aids, Fundamental Beliefs of the United Church of God and The Church Jesus Built
to learn more about what individuals like Patrick taught and what we
teach from Scripture. From our best historical understanding, the
Patrick you didn’t know lived a life according to the Bible, rather than
human traditions. You can too.
Theologian and historian James Moffatt said, “So much legend
and fiction has been written about him that one is almost led to believe
that there were two individuals—the real Patrick and the fictitious
Patrick” ( The Church in Scotland , 1882, p. 140).
There are few hard facts about Patrick's life, but we can draw some reasonable conclusions from what we do know.
Patrick is credited with establishing the Roman Catholic Church
throughout Ireland. But does history match tradition? Moffatt commented,
“He should not be placed where certain historians seem determined to
assign him … He was in no way connected with the type of Christianity
which developed in Italy” (ibid).
As it turns out, Patrick probably wasn't even Catholic! His belief
system was evidently quite different than that of continental Europe.
It's probable that Patrick even honored God's seventh day Sabbath!
“It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times,
in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as
a day of rest from labor” (ibid).
Other historical records and Patrick's own writings reveal him to
have been closer to biblical instruction than to traditional
Christianity. Part of the Bible's teaching includes rejecting the use of
pagan practices in the worship of the true God (Deuteronomy 12:29-32).
The real Patrick likely wouldn't even have approved of observing his
own namesake holiday! This holiday on March 17 was supposedly to
commemorate his death, but that date was in fact the time of the Roman
Bacchanalia—celebrating the god of wine and partying. It seems the pagan
party goes on in another guise. Bear that in mind when March 17 comes
around. Forget the leprechauns, and put God first!
Read the related article “Do You Feel Lucky Today? “
Immigration: How a Foreign Invasion Is Reshaping the West
Suddenly, immigration is becoming a bigger issue throughout the Western
world. Governments around the globe are very concerned about potential
problems that massive immigration may bring.
The American state of Arizona, which borders Mexico, recently passed a
law authorizing police to inquire of people they've stopped for other
legitimate reasons if they are in the United States legally, should
there be sufficient reason to suspect otherwise, and to ask for proof of
their legal status in such case. Illegal immigrants have contributed to
mounting crime, increasing health and educational costs and other
problems in the state.
Most of Arizona's citizens support the law, though some organizations
outside the state have announced boycotts, which could cost it a great
deal. Even the federal government is considering filing lawsuits to
prevent the law from being implemented.
Immigration reshaping Western countries
A car bomb placed in New York City's Times Square on May 1, 2010, was
the 11th attempted terrorist act in the city of New York since the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The bomb—which, thankfully, failed to go off
as planned—raised some deeply troubling questions about even
legal immigration.
How could a young Pakistani immigrant who lived the American dream
possibly want to kill hundreds of his fellow citizens? The United States
and other Western democracies, still coming to terms with radical
Islam, are finding it hard to fathom. It just doesn't fit into the
multicultural ideal!
France, Belgium, Italy and other European countries are passing laws to
block Islamic women from wearing full veils in public. Germany's
Chancellor Angela Merkel is insisting the country's large Turkish
population should assimilate, while the Turkish prime minister insists
they should have their own separate schools to protect their
Islamic identity.
Meanwhile, a Danish cartoonist whose cartoon depicting the prophet
Muhammad led to riots in a number of countries was threatened by an
ax-wielding intruder, and a Swedish cartoonist was physically attacked
by protesters shouting “Allah is great!” as he gave a lecture on free
speech. Muslims insist that freedom of speech, long cherished in the
West, has its limits.
In Britain, the issue of immigration may have cost Prime Minister
Gordon Brown the recent election. When a 65-year-old supporter of his
own party approached him during the campaign and expressed concern about
all the immigrants from Eastern Europe flowing into her neighborhood,
Mr. Brown was overheard in his car describing her as a “bigoted woman.”
Leaders clearly don't like the sensitive issue of immigration being
brought up.
But it's not going to go away.
Majorities becoming minorities in their own land
People are feeling increasingly threatened by the changing demographics
in their own nations. The ethnic composition of Western countries is
rapidly altering due to massive immigration in the last few decades. The
United States alone took in 10 million more immigrants in the seven
years following Sept. 11, 2001—many of them from countries rife with
radical Islamists. To many citizens, this just doesn't make sense.
An increasing number of Americans are aware that these demographic
changes will lead to a majority nonwhite population in their own
lifetimes. How they handle this will determine the country's future. As Time
magazine put it: “How the current majority reacts to its incipient
minority status is the most crucial socio-demographic issue facing the
country” (Gregory Rodriguez, “The White Anxiety Crisis,” March 22, 2010,
international edition).
In an amazing break from tradition, many Western nations changed their immigration policies after World War II
and welcomed millions of people from the Third World. Even the United
States, often deemed a cultural “melting pot,” had an immigration policy
prior to 1965 that favored maintaining the racial status quo.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill deliberately
changed earlier policy, welcoming a big influx of immigrants from the
world's poorer nations. At the time, Americans were assured it would not
alter the ethnic mix and social fabric of their nation.
Now it's evident this assurance was false. One could easily make the
argument that the election of America's first African-American president
would not have happened without the reality of changing demographics.
Immigration leading to unrest
The issue of immigration was briefly discussed on NBC's Chris Matthews Show on May 9, 2010.
During the program, John Heilemann of New York magazine
observed: “We're going through one of these once-in-a-century
transformations that cuts across a lot of different things—cultural
change, there's big demographic change, there's big economic change, and
technological change, and it makes people really nervous. It's been
going on for about 15 years in America—the sense of anxiety, the sense
we've lost control of our lives.”
Also on the show was Cynthia Tucker, a columnist with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
who offered this perspective: “I've always thought that this great
melting pot or salad, however you want to describe this diverse nation,
works as long as the economy is good, as long as the pie is growing and
every American believes he or she has an opportunity to get a piece of
that pie, we're all pretty happy.”
However, now that the economy is not doing so well, the United States
could be in for a more stressful time when it comes to assimilating the
various ethnic groups that now live in the country.
The same applies elsewhere, of course. Some of the eurozone countries
are on the brink of financial collapse due to decades of overspending.
Severe government spending cuts are inevitable. The nations have already
seen unemployment rise. Without jobs, many are already blaming
immigrants for their situation.
In the latest election in Britain, the anti-immigrant British National
Party almost tripled the share of the vote it received in the 2005
election. In fact, anti-immigrant parties are seeing growing support in a
number of European countries.
The perceived threat applies on several different levels.
Security a growing concern
Besides feeling that their way of life is threatened, both culturally
and economically, people are also becoming more concerned about security
as radical terror movements increasingly recruit homegrown terrorists.
Commenting on the recent attempted bombing in Times Square, Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor Fouad Ajami
wrote the following in the May 10, 2010, Wall Street Journal:
“'A Muslim has no nationality except his belief,' the intellectual
godfather of the Islamists, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, wrote decades ago.
Qutb's 'children' are everywhere now; they carry the nationalities of
foreign lands and plot against them. The Pakistani-born Faisal Shahzad
[who set up the car bomb] is a devotee of Sayyid Qutb's doctrine, and
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was another.
“Qutb was executed by the secular dictatorship of [Egyptian President]
Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966. But his thoughts and legacy endure.
Globalization, the shaking up of continents, the ease of travel, and the doors for immigration flung wide open by Western liberal societies
have given Qutb's worldview greater power and relevance. What can we
make of a young man like Shahzad working for [the cosmetics company]
Elizabeth Arden, receiving that all-American degree, the MBA, jogging in the evening in Bridgeport, then plotting mass mayhem in Times Square? “The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires
and the failures of the Islamic world but brought the ruin with them.
They mock national borders and identities. A parliamentary report issued
by Britain's House of Commons on the London Underground bombings of
July 7, 2005, lays bare this menace and the challenge it poses to a
system of open borders and modern citizenship.
“The four men who pulled off those brutal attacks, the report noted,
'were apparently well integrated into British society.' Three of them
were second-generation Britons born in West Yorkshire. The oldest, a
30-year-old father of a 14-month-old infant, 'appeared to others as a
role model to young people.' One of the four, 22 years of age, was a boy
of some privilege; he owned a red Mercedes given to him by his father
and was given to fashionable hairstyles and designer clothing…Two of the
four, rather like Faisal Shahzad, had spent time in Pakistan before
they pulled off their deed.
“A year after the London terror, hitherto tranquil Canada had its own
encounter with the new Islamism. A ring of radical Islamists were
charged with plotting to attack targets in southern Ontario with
fertilizer bombs. A school-bus driver was one of the leaders of these
would-be jihadists.
“A report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service unintentionally
echoed the British House of Commons findings. 'These individuals are
part of Western society, and their “Canadianness” makes detection more
difficult. Increasingly, we are learning of more and more extremists
that are homegrown. The implications of this shift are profound'”
(“Islam's Nowhere Men: Millions Like Faisal Shahzad Are Unsettled by a
Modern World They Can Neither Master nor Reject,” emphasis added).
Prophecy warned of consequences for national sins
The modern descendants of the ancient Israelites include many of the
nations that make up today's Western world. In Leviticus 26 and
Deuteronomy 28, God promised tremendous physical blessings if they would
obey Him, but He also warned them of the dire consequences of
disobedience. The promised blessings for obedience are awe-inspiring;
the assurances of punishment for sins are deeply troubling.
These chapters make for sobering reading when we consider trends in
recent years. In Deuteronomy 32, verse 25 warns of “terror within”—a
prophecy clearly being fulfilled now, with an even greater increase in
the problem likely still to come.
The apostle Paul spoke of how God created “from one blood every nation
of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings” (Acts 17:26).
Of course, this passage does not mean that correctly
controlled immigration is inherently wrong, seeing that when the
Israelites left Egypt the door was opened for a certain number of
non-Israelites to dwell among them. However, they had to leave their
culture behind and abide by the same laws God gave the Israelites. We
are now learning the negative consequences of the multicultural society
that has been propagated for the last 50 years.
Mixing cultures, and especially religions, can be volatile! We should
have known that before the change in immigration laws just by looking at
history and at other societies where mixing religions has led to
serious tension and conflict.
The people of Europe feel particularly threatened. With higher
population densities than the United States and closer proximity to the
volatile Middle East, many West European nations have significantly high
Muslim populations. Add to this Europe's low birthrate in contrast to
the high Islamic birthrate, and the potential for violent conflict
only increases.
And as we've seen, it's not just security that is threatened. Economics
also play a major role. God Himself warned of serious consequences for
the native peoples as a result of immigration: “The alien who is among
you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down
lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he
shall be the head, and you shall be the tail” (Deuteronomy 28:43-44).
In other words, the strangers—those of foreign cultures and
religions—will end up on top, in control and in time possibly dictating a
way of life foreign to the indigenous population.
This is, of course, exactly what happened when European settlers
started arriving in North America, Australia and elsewhere—they ended up
on top and in control, displacing the native populations. Now, two or
three centuries later, they are the ones losing control to
newer arrivals.
Immigration trends and birthrates show that sometime in this century
the peoples who currently dominate most of the Western nations will be
minorities in their own lands. Whatever you may think of the ethnic mix,
the reality is that significant change is underway, and it's
threatening no less than the future of Western civilization. GN
The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events
objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting
their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices,
especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS
reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg
expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at
presidential candidate and Forbes -magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
“Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good
for everything that ails us,”Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to
interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes'
proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax
code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as “wacky” and a “giant,
untested idea” that should be “test[ed] out someplace-like Albania”
(2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported
Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning
economists and various conservative university economics professors were
on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: “From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS
put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little
secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks
out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything
the reporter wants - anything! Just keep calling until one of
the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right
down with your camera crew to interview him.
“If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just
might work and here's why …' you thank him, hang up, and find another
expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories
in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can
always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that
Washington think tank did!'” (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists
live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources
of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S.
presidential election. “How can that be?” she exclaimed. “Nobody I know
voted for Nixon.”Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a
landslide election victory.
Slanted news reporting
William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News
that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity-
has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights,
feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate
and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit
Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper
Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media
coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
“The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and
breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating
force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that
1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and
nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody
who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it”
(2001, pp. 9-10).
From media darling to pariah
Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was
written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a
Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los
Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization
for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian
and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative
author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds.
In it she explains that “what began so many years ago as a noble
cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far
different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's
people … who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive'
point of view …
“There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the
supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing
severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion
that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group” (2001, p. 4).
The result is that “the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the
media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and
factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired
[or] sued … Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are
routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support
the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be
edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On
college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are
collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down” (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.
Bias affects reporting
How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example
involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national
election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the
mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The
leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically
portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of
speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds
of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one
from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the “smart” one
went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and
column in The Boston Globe “he received F's in five of the
eight classes he took over the course of three semesters” before
dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law
School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A.
from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in
the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming
office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person
occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still
occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack
of intelligence.
Mass-media alienation
Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal
biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume
their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree
with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have
been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet
the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting.
Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
“For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can
be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent
of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
“Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15
percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive
changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces
as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers
and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is
shallow and biased” (“Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy,” Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard
Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist
who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering
views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a
wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have
conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill
O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any
vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: “We
report; you decide.”
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II
through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to
engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of
objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority
of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment
personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in
related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a
result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that
harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This
approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most
disturbing consequence. GN
MP4 Video - 1080p (175.47 MB) 
MP3 Audio (1.83 MB) 
MP3 Audio (12.27 MB)