What Would the Learning Objective Be in this Cross-Dressing Day?

Last Friday (24 May), 7-year old Deidri Hernandez didn’t go to school), after officials at Tippecanoe School for the Arts and Humanities (Milwaukee, WI) confirmed they’re still holding “Switch It Up Day” – a time for students to come dressed as members of the opposite sex.

Deidri’s mother told EAGnews the day was originally billed as “Gender Bender Day,” but Tippecanoe officials made the name change after she called Principal Jeffrey Krupar to complain.  Ms. Hernandez said, “I didn’t have a problem with the title.  I had a problem with the activity taking place.”  She says it’s “ridiculous” and “creepy” to ask elementary boys to come to school dressed as girls, and vice versa, and predicts that having students dress as “transvestites” will distract from the learning process.  One other parent shared her concerns and held her child out of class, too.

 

But it’s the motivation behind “Switch It Up Day” that has Hernandez most concerned.  She wonders if it is being done to promote the acceptance of homosexuality to students in school, which runs from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.  Hernandez thinks it’s inappropriate to expose young children to these issues, even in a light-hearted manner.  “They might as well call it ‘Transgender Day,’” she says.

 

According to Hernandez, when she called Krupar with her concerns, she was told the day was chosen by the school’s student council and is only meant to be fun.  Hernandez also complained to the superintendent’s office, but was told “by someone in the office” that the school wasn’t breaking any rules.

 

Hernandez says she’s “never stepped out like this” to challenge school policy, but decided somebody had to.  “Every time something’s bothering a liberal or an atheist, they come forward to complain.  And somebody always has a problem with Easter or Christmas,” she explains.  Hernandez says her son won’t mind the day off from school, but she regrets that he’s going to miss a day of learning because of the controversy.

 

Tony Tagliavia, a spokesman for Milwaukee Public Schools, told EAGnews that “this is an idea created by students as one in a series of school spirit days” and participation is not mandatory.

 

While I can believe the school meant no harm in approving the cross-dressing day and the children didn’t come up with the idea to promote alternative lifestyles, it undoubtedly caused children at the school the distress of having to make a choice that day – either dress up as the opposite sex … which might make them feel uncomfortable, or dress normally and be out of place with the rest of the school … which might also make them feel uncomfortable.  The third alternative – skipping a day of school – meant missing a day of learning.  Given these options, perhaps schools officials should have given greater thought to the learning objective!

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Can a Christian Serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?

Perhaps you’ve seen the video clip.  Coast Guard Rear Admiral William Lee recently told a National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill that religious liberty in the U.S. military is being threatened and that service members are being told to hide their faith in Christ.  “As one general so aptly put it – they expect us to check our religion in at the door – don’t bring that here.”  Lee said, “Leaders like myself are feeling the constraints of rules and regulations and guidance issued by lawyers that put us in a tighter and tighter box regarding our constitutional right to express our religious faith.”

 

The crowd of religious leaders and lawmakers cheered for nearly a minute when Rear Admiral Lee vowed to defy any attempt to curtail religious liberty within the Armed Forces.  “I am coming out today to tell you I am not going to run from my religious beliefs, from my right under the Constitution to tell a young man there is hope,” he declared.

 

Rear Admiral Lee told the audience he had set aside his prepared remarks and instead chose to speak from the heart about the challenges facing Christian service members.  “The problem that men and women like me face in uniform who are in senior leadership positions is that the higher you are – the more vulnerable you are to being taken down,” he said.  “You get in the crosshairs of those people who lay in wait outside the gate – waiting to take us to task for expressing our faith.”

 

In recent days, the Pentagon has been accused of infringing on the religious liberty of Christian service members.  LCDR Nate Christensen said in a statement the Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution.  “Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” the statement read.

 

But there have been dozens of complaints about the military targeting Christians.  Recently, an Army briefing labeled Evangelical Christians and Catholics as examples of religious extremismists … in the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas.  In another incident, an Army officer warned subordinates that the Family Research Council and American Family Association were domestic hate groups.

 

Rear Admiral Lee illustrated his argument that faith is being threatened by telling the story of a young service member who tried to commit suicide – but survived.  “When I looked at that young man and heard his story – the rules say – ‘send him to the chaplain,’” Lee told the audience, “My heart said, give this man a Bible.”  Lee said such an act would be a violation of policy.  He marveled that he could be reprimanded for “as much as whispering to a young man who is on his last hope – that there is hope.  That I can just simply whisper, ‘here is the answer – take it home – I’ll talk about it if you want to.’”  “The lawyers tell me that if I do that – I’m crossing the line,” he said.  “I’m so glad I’ve crossed that line so many times.”

 

Rear Admiral Lee said they’ve been told to “leave that to the chaplains.  I’m here to tell you there’s not enough chaplains to go around.”  He warned the audience that a religious storm was fast approaching the armed forces.  “Your armed forces, the sons and daughters of the men and women like you,” he said, “are being told to hide that light under a basket.”  He urged the gathering to pray for those who seek to follow Christ in the military.  “Pray that we will be able to weather the storm that I am almost certain will come – that we will not be required to put aside our Constitutional rights,” he said.

 

In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, He commanded (not suggested or recommends) His followers saying  – “You are the salt of the earth.  But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?  It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.  You are the light of the world.  A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16) 

If you are a Christian, clearly your Lord expects you to be both salt and light wherever you are in the world.  The Armed Forces is just such a world!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Bible Ruled as Criminal Hate Speech

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002. 

 

One flyer that was found to be in violation of Canada’s Hate Crime Law cited 1 Corinthians 6:9.  The flyer read (in part) – “The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination.”  It went on to say – “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

 

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum.  The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.”  The justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against a specific group of people.

 

Two other flyers that expressed outrage at the male solicitation of sex with boys in a local publication were not found to be in violation of the statute, in part because Whatcott’s citation of Luke 17:2 was not clear on whether it only referred to homosexuals.  The verse, which he had handwritten on the handouts, quotes from Jesus Christ – “If you cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone was tied around your neck and you were cast into the sea.”  The court insinuated that the Scripture could have been an issue like the other references if used in a way to pertain solely to homosexual persons.

 

Whatcott had distributed the flyers over a decade ago to raise awareness of his concerns about both the homosexual parades in Canada, as well as the vulnerability of children in a culture that promotes homosexuality.  However, when Canada’s Human Rights Commission found out about the matter, they took him to court, citing him with a hate crime.

 

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.  “[Whatcott's] expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” says the Court.

 

It pointed back to the lower court ruling, which asserted, “While the courts cannot be drawn into the business of attempting to authoritatively interpret sacred texts such as the Bible, those texts will typically have characteristics which cannot be ignored if they are to be properly assessed in relation to … the [Hate Crimes] Code.”

 

The judges did note, however, that “it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.”

 

Commentator Andrew Coyne noted that the wording of Canada’s Hate Crime Law is problematic because it leaves much discretion in the hands of law enforcement.  “The code itself outlaws material that ‘exposes or tends to expose to hatred’ any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds.  It is not necessary, that is, to show the material in question actually exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might,” he advised.  “The Court then upholds the ban on the grounds that the hatred to which individuals might or might not be exposed might in turn lead others to believe things that might cause them to act in certain unspecified but clearly prejudicial ways: it ‘has the potential to incite or inspire discriminatory treatment,’ or ‘risks’ doing so, or is ‘likely’ to, or at any rate ‘can.’”

 

Whatcott has now been ordered to pay $7,500 to two homosexuals who took offense at his flyers, as well as to pay the legal fees of the Human Rights Commission — which could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.  “The ruling and the reasoning [of the Court] is terrible,” he told reporters.  “They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”  “It’s worse than I expected,” Whatcott added.  “What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”

 

A much different ruling came out of the Alberta Court of Appeals last October, as Pastor Stephen Boissoin was likewise facing hate crimes charges for submitting an op-ed to a local newspaper that outlined his beliefs about homosexual behavior.  In releasing its opinion, the court said that Boissoin had a right to express his beliefs on matters such as homosexuality as long as they were focused on a behavior and not a specific person.  “Matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum.  Frequently, expression on these topics arises from deep seated religious conviction, and is not always temperate,” the panel advised.  “Boissoin and others have the freedom to think, whether stemming from their religious convictions or not, that homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong. In my view, it follows that they have the right to express that thought to others.”

 

However, the Supreme Court of Canada in Whatcott’s case declared, that oftentimes, it is impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates the sin.  The Court asserted that the hatred of the act was inseparable from hating the person or person group.  “… that sexual orientation and sexual behavior can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court outlined.  “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behavior in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

 

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada … as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

 

A number of incidents have made headlines in recent years where American businesses have been punished for their refusal to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of a photographer in New Mexico that was forces to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment service; or the Vermont bed and breakfast owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an employee that they could not hold their commitment service on the property; or a Kentucky t-shirt screening company who was recently punished for declining to complete a work order involving t-shirts that were to be worn at a local homosexual pride parade.

 

Imagine an America where preachers who faithfully proclaim the truth of God’s Word are being charged with the crime of hate speech; where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to speak freely with religious conviction is denied; where witnesses in a court of law have to fear telling the truth and nothing but the truth … so help them God.  Though we share the same continent with Canada, we must not share their laws that rule against biblical truth.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Godless Wage War with Our War Dead

What do you get when you reverse the historically famous quote of Patrick Henry who said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”?  You get today’s Henry Patrick who says, “Give me your death and I’ll deny your religious liberty.”

 

For far too many years, atheist groups and other ‘Henry Patrick’s’ have fought to remove religious symbols from public lands and war memorials.  One of the most recent uproars have come in Coos Bay, Oregon, where the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint to remove a cross from the local Vietnam Memorial.  The group says that memorial violates the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ provisions.

 

Two congressional Republicans want to end, once and for all, the attempts of atheist groups and others to remove religious symbols from war memorials.  Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina have introduced the “War Memorial Protection Act of 2013,” which they say will create a “foundation in federal law” for public veteran and war memorials that include crosses or similar religious items.

 

“It is our duty to honor our veterans and their families; and American military memorials around the world stand as testaments to their sacrifice,” Mr. Burr said in a statement.  “Many of our men and women in uniform have strong religious convictions, often finding that their faith has played a role in their service.  This bill would recognize their beliefs by ensuring that religious symbols, regardless of affiliation, are allowed to be part of military memorials.”

 

As we approach Memorial Day and decorate our nation’s military headstones … most of which bear a Latin cross … remember the God-fearing 1% who have served to protect the other 99% from all enemies – both foreign and domestic. 

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Enough is Enough!

In the movie Network, who could forget the famous line uttered by the character Howard Beale – “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”  Well, this Beale is tired of those who look for something to be offended about … and I can’t take it anymore!

 

The world of ‘political correctness’ … started under the George H.W. Bush administration, and  placed on steroids by the Bill Clinton presidency … has become so out of control that harmless and previously inoffensive terms now offend.  What happened to the playground phrase I grew-up with – “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?”  How did my generation survive before PC?  Have we become such ‘pansies’ that people can no longer freely express themselves for fear of being offensive?

 

Here’s some ‘tough love’ for the politically correct: If you cannot laugh at yourself and the world, then you’ve got deeper issues than someone calling you a name.

 

We can’t even express simple facts.  Take the case of Ms. Fluke.  People were not allowed to be upset and voice their opinion about her promiscuity.  Instead, we manufacture an emotional crisis; feelings are hurt; and lawsuits follow.  In the case of Fluke, why is her bad decision to have unprotected sex become our (taxpayer’s) fault?

 

Or ponder this: We have gone to the brink of crazy by allowing people who are in this country illegally to be offended that persons who refer to them as ‘illegal aliens’ … because the term has negative connotations.  News Flash: doing something illegal should have negative connotations!

 

Or consider the miniscule minority of people who are offended by Christian symbols and holidays, and freely vocalize their distaste; yet refuse to speak the truth about militant Islam. They’ll use inflammatory language about Christians, but quickly correct anyone’s use of the phrase “militant Islamist” … as it might offend the folks who hate us.

 

The most offended people today are Atheists.  While they claim there is no God and are anti-religious, they persist in their quest to force their own ‘non-belief’ religion on everyone.  They are quick to attack any Christian display as offensive.  They exhibit absolutely no tolerance for Christians … while somewhat abounding in tolerance for all other religious belief systems.  They want atheist chaplains in the military and atheist meeting areas for ‘church services’ … because not having any is unfair.  They complain about all Christian holidays, but no one complains about theirs on April 1st.  As Psalm 14:1 states – “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”

 

Dr. Ben Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast clearly identified our problem when he said – “…it’s very difficult to speak to a large group of people these days and not offend someone … The PC police are out in force at all times … We’ve reached the point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended … We’ve got to get over this sensitivity … It keeps people from saying what they really believe … What we need to do in this PC world is forget about unanimity of speech and unanimity of thought, and we need to concentrate on being respectful to those people with whom we disagree … PC is dangerous, because … one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression … [PC] it muffles people.  It puts a muzzle on them.  And at the same time, keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed.”

 

The real issues of our day must be addresses … without concern for being muzzled.  It’s time to deal with the important issues at hand.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

God Help America’s Ignorance Endanging Our Existence

Think about it:  The ignorance of others threatens your well-being.  The growing mass of ill-informed voters has become an invisible majority that elects officials that keep them (and you) dependent upon the government for your happiness.  Perhaps they don’t know any better; but by default, they are useful idiots who pose an imminent danger for us all.

 

How do you fight ignorance?  How do you win over a person who has no knowledge of a particular issue, but is willing to endanger you over it?  This is a very common occurrence when talking of politics or religion.  Emotion rules; and logic is banned from the discussion!

 

In America today, ignorance abounds.  It’s so pervasive it overwhelms those who actually know what is going on.  Many times, armed with facts and reasoning, I’ve engaged someone over an issue, only to result in being rebuffed and attacked with hostile emotion … backed by total ignorance.  And these people are now the majority of voters.  Beyond this being sad, it is incredibly dangerous to America’s future.  What would our Founding Fathers think? 

 

Now there is a difference between stupid and ignorance.  Those who are stupid lack intelligence; they are impervious to and unable to absorb ideas.  You can’t fix stupid.  But it is possible to fix ignorance … though difficult!  Therefore, it’s not a good use of time or effort trying to capture the stupid vote.  Rather, we have to use our resources to convert the ignorant.

 

The conversion of the ignorant is an uphill battle … given the current state of public education, media propaganda, and false and misleading politicians. How do we overcome such massive obstacles?

 

Benjamin Franklin said, “The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance.”  He’s right and we are currently paying a big price for what now is the norm among too many voters.  They don’t know the issues.  They are uninformed, but ready to vote for their man or woman for all the wrong reasons.  I honestly don’t care whether President Obama is black or not, but millions do and they voted for him for no other reason.  

 

Here are a few examples of ignorance in America:

 

Recently Jimmy Kimmel did a street interview segment on his television show called – “The confusing question of the day.”  His objective was to see what the average American knew about the sequester issue.  The result of the interviews was that no one knew what sequester was, but had definite opinions on it.  The question was phrased: “What do you think about Obama pardoning the sequester and sending it to Portugal?”  

 

A National Geographic survey of high school students conducted in 2005 revealed even greater ignorance, when they were asked to find ten U.S. states on the map; only 89% could find Texas and California, and only 51% could locate New York.  When asked to locate sixteen countries on a world map, they could only find seven of the sixteen.  29% couldn’t find the Pacific Ocean; and 11% couldn’t even find their own country – the U.S. on the world map! These kids presumably voted in the last two presidential elections.  

 

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five freedoms of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  (How many can you name? … and be honest!)

 

On August 26, 2010, the Examiner.com reported that the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the willful unapologetic ignorance of the average American citizen.  The average American tends to not care about those things that don’t directly affect them.  It is a worldwide recognizable trait that other people of the world seem to or seek to be knowledgeable … except Americans.

 

There is another segment of our population that displays another form of ignorance that adds to the problem.  The Church has its share of believers from many denominations who are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.  These sanctimonious Christians give elections to the bad guys, and contribute to the demise of our country.  

 

Finally, when you discover what Americans don’t know about the U.S. Constitution, to include members of Congress, it’s depressing.  Constitutional studies are rarely taught in schools anymore; and in some cases, teachers spend more time teaching about Sharia Law!

 

So, what’s the answer to America’s ignorance?  Again, it is education.  If people understood the issues it would take to task the public school’s progressive agenda, the mass media’s bias in reporting, and the liberal politician’s threat to our national security.    

 

The truth contained in Holy Scripture is abundantly clear: 

“My people perish for a lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

“But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered.” (Proverbs 9:11)

 

I believe that God is in control; and because He is a just and righteous God, we will reap what we sow.  Only the Savior can save us; the state won’t and can’t.  If you are not ignorant and understand where I’m going, perhaps this popular phrase will take on a new meaning of prayerful appeal for God’s mercy and grace – “God bless America!” 

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Americans Increase Fear of Government over Terrorism

For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist attack, recent polls indicate that Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.  Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

 

A Fox News survey … polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing … found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.  For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”  Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45% answered “no” to the question, compared to 43% answering “yes.”  In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40% answering “no” to 33% answering “yes.”

 

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers changed dramatically, to 71% agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.  Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security.  Yet the numbers were declining from 71% following 9/11 to only 54% by May 2006.

 

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

 

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.  “Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”  The poll found 48% of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41% who worry it won’t go far enough.  And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44% worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27% worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

 

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation: Bucking the trend, 51% of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36% opposed.  47% of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43% in favor.  Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29% willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58% stood opposed.

 

These poll results make you wonder who or what is America’s greatest threat to freedom.  Is it terrorism or the U.S. government that prohibits our personal freedom?  Interestingly, either way it centers on ideology … whether Islamic jihad or party politics.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

America’s Choice: Christianity’s Benevolence or Islam’s Brutality

There is no denying that Christianity is under attack all over the world. Countries that are predominately Muslim are murdering, torturing and incarcerating people solely for their Christian faith.  Here in America our government sits on its collective hands and conveniently ignores the acts of violent Islamists that are planning to take more lives. Moreover, the very people entrusted with our nation’s security are protecting those of this global attack on Christianity.

 

I can’t help but believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has the ear of President Obama.  Why would Obama spend the beginnings of his second term working to infringe on the constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms … because of a mentally ill man murdering 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut? And yet, the many more lives taken (here and abroad) during his first term by acts of Muslim terror remain unaddressed. 

 

The Obama administration immigration policies and token border enforcement are providing a gateway for jihadists who no longer have to hide from federal authorities.  Instead, they are welcomed, fed, housed and protected … until they are able to execute more innocents.

 

At least two Muslim jihadists using bombs designed with Saudi financed al Qaeda internet support killed and injured some 180 Americans at the Boston Marathon; and our President recommends that we (once again) exercise restraint.

 

Twenty-first century liberalism is getting its butt kicked by stealth seventh-century anti-Christian Islamic principles; and this administration’s appeasement of Muslims is killing Christians all over the world.  Left-wing ideologues are shamelessly ignoring the distant and growing Islamic movement to exterminate “the infidel” from Muslim dominated territories.

 

President Obama has shown the world that he intends to provide aid and shelter to Muslims regardless of the costs in American lives.  We can no longer remain silent about the President’s clear and present threat to freedom and decency.  We can no longer allow future generations of Americans to be brainwashed to accept the violent ideology that is Islam as a protected religion. The world has fought this battle before; and if we fail to push back against the surge of tolerance that is protecting these monsters … America’s churches will burn one day.

 

Liberals may want to believe that we can Americanize yet another anti-American ideology. That is folly!  For decades, America tolerated communists and socialists, and now we have them running our country into the ground … leading national movements aimed at destroying our Constitution and grooming future generations of government dependents and purchased political patronage.  Our government is selling the dignity of government dependency.  After all, they say, everybody needs a little help from time to time.  It has been widely reported that one out of every five American families receives and is now dependent on food stamps.  Proud and thrifty American seniors devastated by the government corruption that caused our nation’s financial meltdown are reluctantly agreeing to living out the balance of their lives as government dependents.  History shows us that poverty is a serious weapon and frequently destabilizes a country’s moral foundation.  A nation dependent on a government for basics like food and medical care is easily influenced to abandon their belief systems and turn on others that refuse.

 

The Christian faith and our churches have been the poor’s greatest benefactor over the years.  These American institutions are currently under attack in America.  Everyday more Americans find themselves dependent on our Islamic-friendly government.  Make no mistake about it: If today’s administration supports America’s Islamification, then it will require the destruction of Christianity … one believer’s soul at a time.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Religious Liberty & LGBT Equality

Rather recently, Jay Michaelson wrote a piece for The Daily Beast entitled, “The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality.”  In it, he suggests that those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons are the same as the racists who opposed desegregation laws.  He calls those who protect religious liberty, and who therefore are willing to stick up for the rights of religious people who oppose same-sex marriage, insincere and “racist,” as well.  “Today is a different age— but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same,” he states.  Later on, he says that defenders of religious liberty are “simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same social battles as always.”

 

Ken Blackwell of Townhall.com makes three points:

 

1. There can be no comparison between the fight for racial equality and the movement for same-sex marriage.

2. Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not the same (or even akin) to supporting institutionalized racism.

3. Concerns about religious liberty are both sincere and valid, especially regarding the social trends Michaelson discusses in both his article and a related report he recently released.

 

Ken Blackwell (a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union) goes on to explain –

 

The matter of race occupies a singular place in our country’s history and laws.  Our country fought a bloody Civil War and passed three separate Constitutional Amendments to rid our society of the injustice that was slavery.  The segregation laws that followed were ugly remnants of a culture of racial slavery, and they were immoral and unjust.  They defied the American promise – “… 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.”  Black Americans were enslaved, literally deprived of their liberty, often robbed of life, and denied the opportunity to pursue happiness.  Segregation laws were a legal statement of inequality.  No other law in American history spells indignity and injustice like they did, and no other law so explicitly rings false to our country’s founding principles.  Applying the racism of segregation-era America to today’s “social battles” does not make for a compelling comparison.  To state what should be obvious – Not all racists oppose same-sex marriage, and not all who oppose same-sex marriage are racists.  To say otherwise is disrespectful and frankly ludicrous.  No reasonable person is advocating “segregation” between the opposite-sex attracted population and the same-sex attracted population.  I don’t need to go into detail on this point.  It should be enough for readers to simply think of their own family, friends, and acquaintances— some of whom, no doubt, are uncertain about or against same-sex marriage— and realize that pairing “racist” with “opposed to same-sex marriage” means labeling many reasonable people as outright bigots.  That kind of accusation has heavy consequences and is dangerous to healthy discourse.

 

Marriage, as it stands and has stood for centuries, is not an institution that was driven into existence by bigotry, or constructed to deny some right to same-sex partners.  People who oppose same-sex marriage do so for a variety of reasons.  There are many who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and others for reasons grounded in history, philosophy, and our country’s Constitution.  What traditional marriage supporters generally want is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  It is a fixed definition.  They see marriage as unique and unchanging, valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and meaningless without it.

 

The idea that those who are concerned about religious liberty rights in and around same-sex marriage are covertly advancing some right-wing agenda is misleading, false, and insulting. Religious liberty is a real, fundamental right, first in our Constitutional Amendments.  It’s what allows a man to be a conscientious objector, or a church to choose its own minister.  In general, it’s what protects religious people who hold views that are out of political favor. Michaelson admits that intellectuals and politicians on both ends of the political spectrum support religious liberty.  He simply thinks that religious liberty is much more limited than it is or ever has been.

 

As the recent cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate demonstrates, America has a diverse and principled religious population of citizens willing to fight for the right to express their faith in all aspects of life.  That some, like Michaelson, don’t agree that buying contraception for others violates a person’s faith, does not suddenly appease the troubled consciences.  Those who advocate strong conscience protections— whether from a contraceptive mandate or from federal recognition of same-sex marriage— do so sincerely.

 

Ken Blackwell concludes: We can all agree that the topic of same-sex marriage draws intense emotions from both sides.  But those emotions do not justify branding people who disagree with us as liars or bigots.  That’s a cheap way to silence dissenters, when there is real and substantive debate to be had. It’s also a grave insult to honest, truth-seeking individuals, and a violation of the principles of American society.  All people should be free to explore and define their beliefs.  And all should be free to speak, act, vote and advocate according to their beliefs.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Gosnell is By No Means the Exception

It is of no surprise to me that we initially heard little-to-nothing from the national liberal media about the trial of abortions performed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  (The left-leaning media would never want the public to really know the gruesomeness of the abortion industry in American that has now killed over 52-million babies since the Row vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision in 1973 … because it would result in bring an end to this American holocaust.)  But the USA Today columnist, Kirsten Powers, brought light to this dark cesspool in Philadelphia (my birthplace) … posturing as an abortion clinic (operating without inspection for 17 years). Gosnell has been formally charged in the murder of one woman and seven infants.  However, the grand jury report and testimony of family and staff at the trial indicate that if there were records in this dump, where life was snuffed out daily, Gosnell would be indicted for the death of hundreds of live-birth children.  The national press got dragged unwillingly to report it because of Ms. Powers’ courageous column.

 

Despite the sense that no one was paying attention to the Gosnell story before Kirsten Powers wrote about it, you need to know that Dr. Gardner (founder and president of the National Black Pro-life Union), Dr. Alveda King (niece of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), and other pro-life activists were demonstrating outside Gosnell’s clinic as early as February 2011.  They held a press conference about the trial on April 4, a week before Powers’ column appeared.  Alveda King wrote in her blog the day before, “… Rev. Clenard Childress and Dr. Day Gardner … are in Philadelphia reporting on the Kermit Gosnell trial that the mainstream media is virtually ignoring.”

 

Just the other week, The Washington Times had reported that Gosnell-like conditions have existed at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Vice President Biden’s own backyard in Delaware.  The Times reports – “Abortions have been suspended at a Delaware Planned Parenthood, after several 911 calls made from within the clinic prompted a new investigation by Health and Human Services.”  Two nurses quit to protect their licenses, one saying, “I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.”  According to the story – “Since January 4, five patients have been rushed to the emergency room.”

 

Last year pro-life activists worked assiduously to get press attention on the story of the death of 24-year old Tonya Reaves, who died after a botched abortion procedure at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic.

 

Why is it that this gets so little attention by mainstream media?  There are at least two reasons:

1. As a nation we still are willing to tolerate abortion.  We say that Dr. Gosnell should be convicted of murder because he botched an abortion.  Never mind that he destroyed (by brutal murder) a live child.  We somehow think it is okay if that same child dies while still in the womb. 

2. The filthy conditions allowing this butchery to take place all over the nation persist for the same reason that the Gosnell trial almost went uncovered.  The press does not want to report about the gruesome truths of abortion.  And, because it occurs disproportionately among low income, minority women, they are even less interested.

 

The sad reality is that while Gosnell's crimes may be an extreme case, he is by no means alone in his contempt for life.  The pro-life group Live Action just recently released two new undercover videos from abortion mills in the Bronx, NYC and Washington, D.C., revealing that both facilities might allow a baby born during a botched abortion to die.  At the Bronx “clinic,” a staffer discussing a late-term abortion said she would essentially drown the baby in a jar of solution to stop it from “twitching.”  When an investigator asked what she should do if the two-day long procedure caused her to go into labor at home and delivered a live baby, the staffer says, “Flush it!”  The D.C. abortionist was more artful with his choice of words.  When asked what he would do if a baby were born alive, he said: “Technically -- you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. … It's all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.  Let's say you went into labor … and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?  Then we would do things -- we would -- we would not help it.”

 

The practice of “after-birth abortions” is likely more widespread than most of us realized.  One of the left's biggest lies is that it stands for compassion.  Where does after-birth abortion fit into anyone's idea of compassion?  While most Americans rightly recoil in horror, too few realize that this is a legacy of Roe vs. Wade.  Some elites complain that the conservative movement is perceived as “uncaring.”  Yet they are the very same people who suggest we stop talking about issues like the sanctity of life.

 

So what can we do?  At minimum, we can demand that our tax dollars cease to fund our nation’s largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.  According to Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), who has submitted a bill to stop funding Planned Parenthood, “Every 94 seconds Planned Parenthood performs an abortion and in that amount of time they take in over $1600 in federal taxpayer money.”

 

And to think that in the midst of this Gosnell trial, President Obama became the first sitting president to address the Planned Parenthood national conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the nation's largest destroyer of innocent human life.  His speech was full of distortions.  As is so typical of the left, Obama accused the pro-life movement of wanting to “turn back the clock to … the 1950s.”  He added that there is an “orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health.”  Isn't it amazing that in Obama's world, 1.2 million abortions a year is seen as progress?  It is obscene when Obama equates the killing of innocent unborn children with healthcare.  Pregnancy is not a disease!  Even accepting that there are occasions when a woman's life or health may be in danger, such circumstances are among the rarest of reasons why abortions are performed today.  Obama concluded with pledging his allegiance to Planned Parenthood, saying – “… I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way.  Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

 

Let me translate that for you: While we are cutting back on education, our military and benefits to our seniors, Obama will be there to make sure that your hard-earned tax money keeps flowing to Planned Parenthood to subsidize abortions and to make sure that no legislation preventing any abortion of any kind ever becomes law.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel