Is ISIS in Sweden a Fore-Warning or False-Alarm for the U.S.?

Many conservative pundits believe a recent incident in Sweden … in which some citizens were threatened by ISIS … could be a precursor to what could happen in the United States.

The Swedish government was recently thrown into a state of panic after dozens of its citizens received threatening letters signed by ISIS, offering them three choices: (1) conversion to Islam, (2) payment of a religious tax (jizya), or (3) decapitation.

Following is the translation of one of those letters:

“In the name of Allah, the merciful, full of grace.  You who are not believers will be decapitated in three days in your own house; we will bomb your rotten corpses afterwards.  You must choose between these three choices: 1. Convert to Islam. 2. Pay the jizya [religious tax] for protection. 3. Or else, you will be decapitated.  The police will not prevent or save you from you being murdered.  (Death comes to all of you).”

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, says the threats-by-letter from Islamic jihadists is forcing Europeans to realize that they’re at risk.  “They all of a sudden have large groups of hostile neighbors dropped in right next to them – [and] it’s really a terrifying situation,” says Pratt.  “So hopefully they can actually stop the influx of Muslims [and] send back Muslims who have already been deposited in their country.”

Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs at the American Family Association, offers a dire warning to her fellow Americans.  “... This is what people in Europe are facing because they have allowed an unrestricted, uncontrolled – I would argue – invasion from Muslim countries into their sovereign territory.  And this is what America faces,” she adds. “I think this a precursor of what’s to come.”  Rios says it’s the political class that “always tells us that we should be more like Europe – and it looks like, ironically, we very well may be.”

Some [of us] critics are concerned the same or similar situation could come to America’s shores if President Obama is allowed to move forward with his plan to bring thousands of Muslim refugees into the U.S.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Comparing the Sacred Texts of Christianity and Islam

Inevitably, any discuss with a novice surveyor of religion, will claim there is no difference in terms of violence between the Christian Bible and the Islamic Quran.  Really?

Dr. Michael Brown, President of FIRE School of Ministry, recently wrote an article for Townhall.com entitled – “Comparing the Bible and the Quran.”  In this blog posting, I’ll be reiterating his comparison.

When persons point to the violent verses in the Quran, Muslims often reply, “But what about the violent verses in the Bible?”

Here is Dr. Brown’s response to this fair challenge from Muslims:

1. The violent verses in the Bible were for a specific time and place; while the violent verses in the Quran are spoken in general terms.

In the Bible, God commanded Joshua to annihilate the Canaanites – meaning to kill men, women, and children – since the Canaanites were considered guilty sinners.  Centuries later, during the time of King Saul, the prophet Samuel said that it was God’s will to annihilate the Amalekites because of the sins they had committed.  While these commands seem monstrous to many readers today, they cannot possibly be applied to contemporary situations and they have never been considered normative for all times in either Judaism or Christianity.

In contrast, the Quranic injunctions to smite at the necks of unbelievers and to kill and punish them in various ways have been applied to contemporary situations since the days of Muhammad, right up until today.

2. For Christians, the Old Testament is the foundation on which the New Testament is built and so the New Testament contains the final revelation.

Significantly, there are no verses in the New Testament in which believers are called on to kill their enemies.  For Muslims, the Quran is the final revelation.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were commanded to drive out the Canaanites; in the New Testament, Christians are commanded to drive out demons (evil spiritual beings), not people.  In the Old Testament, sins like adultery and idolatry were punishable with the death penalty under Israelite law; in the New Testament, professing Christians who practice those sins are to be excommunicated (meaning, put out of the fellowship of believers), not executed.

For Jews, the Old Testament is read in the light of Jewish tradition, which also removed the death penalties for certain sins over a period of time.  Jewish tradition also claims that some Old Testament laws were never meant to be taken literally (such as eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or the law calling for a woman’s hand to be chopped off for grabbing a man’s genitals when he was fighting her husband).  Instead, Jewish tradition tells us that these laws always referred to monetary payment.

In contrast, the Quran is the final authority for Muslims – there is nothing that supersedes it or can contradict it.  So, to repeat again, throughout Islamic history, the violent verses have often been applied literally by Muslims in their treatment of unbelievers and enemies.

3. The ultimate example for Christians is Jesus.  For Muslims, Muhammad is the perfect man and the model to be followed.

Jesus was crucified and ordered His followers not to defend Him from His fate. Muhammad, who began his mission as a preacher rather than a soldier, led pillaging raids (to get money for his followers), fought aggressive, offensive wars to subdue his enemies, and on one famous occasion, beheaded his Jewish captives.

In stark contrast, the most “violent” thing Jesus did was overthrow the tables of the money changers in the Temple and drive out the animals.

How can anyone compare the two?

Jesus is called the Lamb of God in numerous texts, speaking of His sacrificial death on the cross, and He is worshiped by Christians as the Lamb who was slain.  Do Muslims commonly think of Muhammad in those terms?

The issue here is not whether it’s appropriate for Christians to defend themselves against terrorist attacks or whether Christians should serve in the military.  The issue is that the early Christians were killed for their faith rather than killing others for their faith.  The early Muslims did, in fact, kill others for their faith, and many have continued to do so through the centuries.

So, when a Christian is killed by a radical Muslim for refusing to deny his faith, both the Christian and the Muslim can point to their leaders – Jesus and Muhammad – and say, “I am following the example of my leader” – one by being killed for his faith, the other by killing for his faith.

Dr. Brown was quick to add that he is quite aware of ugly aspects of Church history, including the violence of the Crusades (in particular, against European Jews who were not part of the military conflict between Christians and Muslims); but examples like this prove the larger point – They are horrific exceptions to the rule and they are without New Testament support.  In contrast, wars fought in the name of Allah have a rich Islamic history, tracing back directly to Muhammad and the Quran.

“I [Dr. Brown] do appreciate the fact that millions of Muslims, including many respected leaders, believe that the violent verses of the Quran were for also for a specific time and season, and I applaud them for repudiating the theology, ideology, and actions of radical Muslims worldwide.  At the same time, the close association between Muhammad, the Quranic verses of violence and violent Islamic history cannot be denied.  This similar pattern cannot be found from New Testament times until today in practicing Christian circles.  And where it can be found, it is aberrant.  Not surprisingly, while Muslims celebrate Muhammad’s bloody victory at Khaybar, Christians celebrate Jesus’ bloody death on the cross, followed by His glorious resurrection.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

God Showed Up in an Unexpected Way

On the first Christmas long ago, God showed up in an unexpected way. 

• ·         He didn't show up in a mansion, but in a manger. 
• ·         He didn't show up to high society, but to lowly shepherds. 
• ·         He didn't show up to Jewish religious leaders, but to foreign wise men. 

It was an unexpected birth.  And in the despair and uncertain conditions of our lives, in God's hands it leads to the unexpected love of God – unexpected from the God of possibilities.

That's what Christmas is all about – It is all about God showing-up in the midst of the unexpected.

I don't know how your Christmas has been or what the circumstances of your life are right now, but don’t ever forget that “Nevertheless … God will show up.”

May God bless you as He shows up in unexpected ways today, through the holiday, and in the coming New Year of 2016.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

New Gun Laws Would Not Have Prevented This Year’s Mass Shootings

At a White House press briefing last week, the Obama Administration proved what 2nd Amendment supporters already know: No new gun control laws, especially those proposed by the president, would have prevented any new mass shootings.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked by The Wall Street Journal’s Byron Tau if there was any shooting that could have been stopped if an assault weapons ban or stricter backgrounds checks, both supported by this Administration, were enacted.  Earnest deflected and pivoted to the Obama Administration’s latest proposal that those suspected of being terrorists [of which almost 300,000 on the “no fly list” have no ties to terrorism] shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms.  It sounds like common sense, until you figure out that these lists are secretive, violate due process of law, and are nothing more than a constitutional mess.  There’s a difference between being suspected and convicted of having terrorist ties.  The problem is: There is no real way to redress if you’ve been placed on the list erroneously.  Names can be mismatched, and the fact that children as young as 18-months land on the list is a testament to its horrifically flawed structure.  The reason Earnest deployed countermeasures could be grounded in the fact that the answer doesn’t fit the president’s narrative.

Here are the facts regarding mass shootings this year –

December 2, 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14-people in San Bernardino, CA, using a Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 type rifle, a DPMS Panther Arms AR-15 type rifle, a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol and a Llama semiautomatic pistol.  The guns were purchased legally and the rifles were purchased legally by a former neighbor. Four high-capacity magazines were found, perhaps holding as many as 30-rounds.  Analysis: California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, dating from 1989, and specific types of AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles are banned.  Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10-bullets are also outlawed, though older, larger magazines are grandfathered.  A proposals to pass a federal version of California’s law was defeated in the Democrat majority Senate in 2013.  There are indications that the suspects illegally modified their California-compliant weapons.  In any case, the laws did not thwart them. (Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, in 2013 vetoed a bill that would have toughened the law, but the guns used in the attack were purchased before the law would have taken effect.)

October 1, 2015: Christopher Harper-Mercer killed 9-people at Umpqua Community College in OR.  He owned 14-firearms and conducted the attack with 6 of them, including a Glock pistol, a Smith & Wesson pistol, a Taurus pistol and a Del-Ton AR-15 rifle.  All were purchased legally.  Analysis: No proposed laws would have prevented these purchases.

July 16, 2015: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed 5-people and wounded 2-others at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN.  He used an AK-74-style rifle and 9mm handgun, and a shotgun was in his car.  He had multiple 30-round magazines, news reports said.  Officials said the gun was obtained legally, but other weapons were obtained through Armslist.com – an online forum through which individuals can buy and sell firearms through private transactions.  Analysis: The Senate bill to extend background checks would have included online sales.  But because Abdulazeez purchased his other weapons legally, thus passing a background check, a crack-down on online sales likely would not have made a difference in this case.

June 17, 2015: Dylann Roof killed 9-people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol that held 13-rounds at a historic black church in Charleston, SC.  Roof legally purchased his gun from a store, but the FBI said he should have failed the background check because he had been charged with possessing Suboxone without a prescription.  However, because of clerical mistakes, the FBI said the examiner did not get hold of the report before the 3-day waiting period ended, and so the store went through with the purchase.  Analysis: This appears to be an example of an existing law that apparently failed, though some analysts believe Roof actually would have passed the background check if it had been done correctly.  The FBI statement incorrectly referred to a felony drug charge, but it was actually a misdemeanor for possession; he did not admit to being an addict.  There are also reports that his parents took the gun away from him at some point, but then he took it back.

This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy.  But the facts remain that Obama’s anti-gun measures wouldn’t have prevented any of these mass shootings.  Even members of his own party admit it.  In the end, it’s about redundant legislation that only infringes on the constitutional right to own firearms.  It’s not about safety, or preventing deaths - it’s about the expansion of federal power.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

3 Things That Turn the Tide Against Planned Parenthood

Just last week, a polling firm announced that it had discovered the three things that turn the average American “negative” on Planned Parenthood (PP).  The firm also found that one-in-five Americans would like to see the undercover PP videos released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) but have not.

CMP hired the polling company, a Republican polling firm led by Kellyanne Conway, to survey 1,009 adults from December 3-6.

The best strategy to discredit PP could be summed up in one step: Tell the truth. 

“When we communicate three basic truths about Planned Parenthood,” Conway reported in a memo furnished to LifeSiteNews, “support for the organization and their taxpayer funding tumbles.”  Conway went on to say, “After answering a series of questions on the baby body parts expose and hearing that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, receives a half billion dollars from the government each year, spends millions of dollars in partisan political activities and was recently exposed on video as bartering the cost of baby body parts and fetal tissue, a 54 percent-majority say they are ‘mostly negative’ toward Planned Parenthood.”

The undercover footage of PP officials discussing fetal organ trafficking opened a public relations nightmare for PP … forcing Hillary Clinton to call the topic “disturbing,” and spurred multiple Congressional investigations – something strongly supported by respondents across the political spectrum.

More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans supported continuing to investigate the videos’ allegations: 76% self-identified Republicans; 72% independents; and a surprisingly high 64% of Democrats.  “This marks rare tri-partisan agreement in Washington,” Conway wrote.

Conway expects the issue to continue to dominate headlines, as the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives holds public hearings delving into the grisly allegations. The six Democrats, appointed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are expected to push back against CMP itself – mindful they have received more than $305,000 in campaign donations from PP.

Despite the gravity of the allegations, just over one-in-four Americans (28%) say they have seen CMP’s covert PP video footage.  A plurality of those who have not viewed the CMP series say they are not interested in abortion, and one-third of women say they are “afraid” to watch.  Only 10% dismiss the footage as inauthentic.

After Americans heard the three targeted messages about PP, 56% support eliminating (19%), or reducing (19%) federal taxpayer funding of PP, or suspending all funding until the investigations are over (27%).

The finding complements a second poll released on December 2 by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute, which found that a majority of Americans support the Republican Congressional proposal to defund Planned Parenthood.

In all, 53.3% said taxpayer money should be redirected to community health centers that do not perform abortions, while only 31.5% object.  Democrats split almost evenly, with 42.7% supporting the idea.

Both conflict with a new USA Today/Suffold University poll that asked simply, “Should federal funding for Planned Parenthood be eliminated?”

Conway said if Republicans hope to win the battle over providing the nation’s largest abortion provider with more than $500-million a year, they must repeat the targeted, three-part message that resonated with those who took her poll.  “Attempts to expose more Americans to these horrific practices should be redoubled,” she wrote, “while preparing to defend the predictable and specious attacks and deflections by this well-funded industry suffering its worst PR crisis in years.”

To the chagrin of today’s pro-abortion liberals, today’s generation is leaning pro-life.  New technology has given us glimpses of the womb that prove life is sacred from conception. Testimonies from post-abortive women prove that the life ending procedure harms both mother and child.  As for those who have rejected abortion, their messages often end in the belief that every life is a gift from God and every child has a purpose.

If all polls were accurate and unbiased, I wonder what the nation as a whole would look like in regards to the pro-life movement.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

47 Pro-Life Bills Enacted in 2015

Nationwide, this year there were nearly 400 pro-life bills introduced in state legislatures in which 47 passed, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).  The CRR noted in its “2015 State of the States” report, subtitled “Fighting Back by Pushing Forward” that this year, “extremist state lawmakers continued their assault on reproductive freedom, introducing almost 400 bills and enacting 47 new restrictions on access to reproductive health care.”  These included laws ranging from a ban on abortions for children capable of feeling pain, to defunding Planned Parenthood, to mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws.

That assessment is similar to that offered by CRR’s pro-life opponents.  According to Americans United for Life (AUL), “In 2015, 48 states considered approximately 315 measures related to abortion.”  [This is a 17% increase from the previous year.] 

The discrepancy between the two sets of numbers stems from the fact that AUL exclusively tracks legislation related to abortion, while CRR includes bills related to such issues as birth control and sex education in public schools.

One state stood out above all others in the CRR report.  “The Arkansas legislature unleashed an all-out assault on access to safe, legal abortion care in 2015, enacting the highest number of new anti-abortion laws by a state this year,” including a parental consent bill, which the report describes as imposing “more onerous requirements for teens who cannot involve their parents in their decision to have an abortion.”  HB 1424, enacted in April, requires the notarized consent of one minor’s parent, except in medical emergencies.  It contains a judicial bypass, as well.

Not all of the 47 measures approved by state representatives became law.  For instance, Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed three bills, including SB 349, a bill that would require insurance companies to offer plans that do not underwrite abortion-on-demand.

CRR noted that “2015 was a watershed year for proactive reproductive health and rights policy, with nearly 300 measures introduced in state legislatures across the country intended to protect or advance reproductive health and rights,” including “some great successes.”  One of these was the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act (AB 775), signed by California’s Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in October, which requires women’s pregnancy centers to tell mothers where they can obtain abortions.  The group praised Illinois pro-choice Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner for signing a bill allowing “advanced practice nurses (APNs) to provide prescriptions for certain medications, including oral contraception and emergency contraception,” which can act as an abortifacient.

The New York-based CRR also reported the wide vista of court cases it has filed to overturn popular pro-life laws after they were democratically enacted.  CRR has been a party to nearly every significant lawsuit seeking to repeal pro-life legislation in the United States, with some notable successes.

Overall, the number of pro-life regulations is down from a peak earlier in the Obama Administration.  States passed 70 pro-life laws in 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Denise Burke, AUL’s head of legal affairs, told LifeSiteNews, “The states remain a key battleground in the defense of life.”  He went on to say, “State legislatures across the country continue to break new ground protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion and ensuring that the abortion industry is subject to medically appropriate regulation and oversight.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Latest Atheist Battle is Banning Bibles in Hotels

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the Bible is so dangerous it may actually “endanger your health and life.”  Really?  That’s right … according to this radical anti-Christian organization.  FFRF thinks the Bible should even have a skull and crossbones warning label as appears on hazardous materials.

The controversy began when FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor came to the Northern Illinois University to give a speech.  While staying at the University’s Holmes Student Center Hotel, she and her husband, FFRF co-president Dan Barker, were shocked to find a copy of the Bible in their room.  They found its presence “obnoxious, inappropriate and unconstitutional” … given it was in state-run lodging.  Even more absurd was their claim that they were “proselytized in the privacy of their own bed-rooms.”  So, now they’re trying to ban Bibles in public hotel rooms.  They consider their cause to be an “important consumer complain, much like asking for smoke-free rooms.”

More absurd, however, is that the university actually caved-in, even though it was not the one to officially place them there to begin with; they merely allowed a Christian group, the Gideons, to leave it in their rooms.  Moreover, no one is ever forced to pull the Bible out of the nightstand drawer and open it, much less read it.

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), which is urging public hotels not to ban the Bible in rooms, also points out the group is dead wrong on the law.  FFRF claims the Bible should be banned because they find it “obnoxious.”  Yet, in reality, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has stated just the opposite.  SCOTUS has held that adults should be able to withstand “speech they find disagreeable,” without imagining that the ‘establishment clause’ is violated every time they “experience a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views.”  By extension, requiring the elimination of Bibles in hotel rooms owned by public universities would, as the SCOTUS has found in other contexts, “lead the law to exhibit a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.”

There is no coercion; no proselytizing happening here.  Instead, it’s once again clear that those holding themselves out to be freethinkers are threatening smaller institutions with constitutional claims that would fall flat in court.  FFRF is in the business of making threats … even though every time they go to court, they always lose.  The U.S. Constitution is not on their side.  And with these latest shenanigans, neither is common sense.

Given their nonsensical reasoning, perhaps the phone book ought to be removed from hotel rooms as well.  That represents thousands of people sharing your bedroom!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christians Leading the Charge Against PC

There are two highly visible Christian clergy who are making proclamations appealing to religious authority and ignoring political correctness – Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Franklin Graham.

Some news media have said that Falwell’s remarks for college students to bear arms – made at the Liberty University Convocation – lacked biblical reflection; and Graham has been chided for advising that we refuse Syrian refugees entry into the United States, warning that doing so could lead to a Paris-style attack in America.

Christian antagonists often use scriptural misinterpretations to lambast self-defense in general and gun ownership in particular.  When unbelievers tried to ensnare Jesus with His own teachings, Jesus replied, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

Unbelievers and others lacking knowledge about the true character of God sometimes make reference to Christ Jesus being the Prince of Peace … concluding that Christianity must be a passive, wimpy, defenseless teaching.  Of course, this is not the only title for Jesus; He is also known as the Lion of Judah.  While Jesus was exceptionally meek and mild at His first coming, we are assured by Scripture that He will not be so at His second coming.  He is described in Revelation 19 as the King of kings who leads the armies of heaven on a white horse and utterly destroys His enemies with the word of His mouth.

In a world littered with violence, the Prince of Peace knows that real tranquility is only obtained through strength. 

Jesus’ words within the Sermon on the Mount are also misinterpreted by some.  Jesus urged His followers to be peacemakers and to love (not kill) their enemies.  [Does this not mark a pivotal distinction between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Mohammed.]  But some fail to recognize that war and weapons can be used for evil or for good; for offense or for defense.  Jesus urged the latter.

The ignorant also like to claim that Jesus never told His followers to arm themselves; but that is patently untrue.  In Luke 22:36, Jesus told His disciples to buy themselves swords even if they had to sell their cloaks to afford them.  Of course, the sword was the ‘arms’ of their day, as the gun is for us today.  The disciples possessed two swords and Peter used one of them to cut-off the ear of a temple guard when Jesus was being arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Now here is where the ill-informed are quick to point out Jesus’ rebuke of Peter … suggesting this is proof that Christians should not use weapons (despite the fact that Jesus just told them to acquire them).  However, Peter was not rebuked for using a sword in self-defense, but for interfering with God’s plan of redemption. We know this because Jesus said it plainly: “Put your sword away!  Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?” (John 18:11)  Note: Jesus didn’t tell Peter to get rid of his sword, but to put it away.

Perhaps most commonly, the “turn the other cheek” admonition is used to advance Christian pacifism, but those advancing that argument are again missing the point Jesus was making.  God is not urging His followers to put themselves or others in harm’s way or to be bullied or mistreated at the hands of evil men.  He is telling His followers to put away retaliation, to take insult without retribution, to leave vengeance to God. (Romans 12:19)

Finally, it must be said that Graham does not propose abandoning refugees, but rather finding a solution that is best for them and us.  One proposal is relocating refugees to safe places within the Middle East where the victimized can retain their customs and culture, and Americans can be safe from the terrorists among them.  The costs can be covered by such ministries as Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse and federal aid.  Graham’s position is fully consistent with the Gospel.

Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham are pro-life, and leading the charge against deadly political correctness.  I consider myself to also be such a Christian leader.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

IRS Power Grab

Question: Why does the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) need the social security numbers of those who donate to nonprofits and ministries?

Answer: They don't.

Under a new proposed regulation, the IRS would give nonprofits the “option” to collect Social Security numbers of donors who contribute $250 or more to an organization or ministry.  [Only a fool would believe that this “option” would not eventually become a “required” regulation.]  And I trust you know that the IRS is no fan of conservative organizations or Christian ministries.  This proposed regulation (and its inevitable expansion if adopted) would give them access to more information about the individuals who selflessly help fund ministries and other nonprofits.

Furthermore, donors are less likely to donate to ministries and other nonprofits doing good works if they feel like their information could be compromised or even used to punish them in some way.  This proposed regulation would almost certainly decrease the support of donors to ministries and other charitable organizations doing good works across this nation.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in an interview with The Daily Signal, cited a lawsuit the National Organization for Marriage filed against the IRS alleging that an official with the tax agency leaked a copy of confidential tax information listing the group’s donors.  The IRS paid the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 to settle the suit.  “Just think if they had leaked not only the names of the donors, but Social Security numbers,” said von Spakovsky.  “I don’t trust the government to have that information, and there’s no reason for them to have that information.”

Right now, this is a proposed regulation by the IRS.  This means it hasn't become official yet, and the regulation is open for public comment.  So, what are you going to do?  Doing nothing is not an option!  You must render comment to your elected officials.

Feel free to use your own words, but here are some ideas to get you started:

• Ministries, charitable organizations, and other nonprofits are valued by their communities for providing charitable and other services to benefit the common good, and the law recognizes this.  Why would the government create a regulation that has a chilling effect on donors’ willingness to donate to these nonprofits?  Donors’ willingness to donate will be inhibited if they feel they have to provide sensitive information like their social security number with an accompanying donation.  I strongly oppose this proposed regulation.
• Large corporations and even the federal government have proven that hackers can obtain sensitive information, even using secured technologies.  How much more likely would it be for hackers to target nonprofits for identity theft?  The additional administrative and fiscal costs to nonprofits to maintain extra security for social security numbers would take time and money away from their valuable charitable works.  I strongly oppose this proposed regulation.
• There is absolutely no reason that a nonprofit needs to receive a donor’s social security number with a donation, and there is no reason for the IRS to obtain this sensitive information through a nonprofit.  I strongly oppose this proposed regulation.

This cannot go unchallenged.  The government has no good reason or need for requiring non-profits to collect Social Security numbers of donors.  This is a true case of separation of church and state.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

A Court Rules the Christian Cross Out of the Cross-Hairs

Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that a 40-foot cross-shaped World War 1 (WW1) memorial IS constitutional and CAN remain in its place in Bladensburg, Maryland.

According to a Blaze.com report, the American Humanist Association (an atheist group) had brought lawsuit intent on bringing down the cross, and claiming that it was unconstitutional and excluded veterans who are not Christian.  The memorial, constructed 90-years ago by the American Legion, is located in Veterans Memorial Park, and commemorates the lives of 49-men from Prince George, Colorado, who were killed during WW1, said the report.

Defending the American Legion against the atheist group was the Liberty Institute and Jones Day Law Firm.  Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford noted, “This victory sets an important precedent.  It not only affirms the Bladensburg Memorial will remain in its place of honor, but helps ensure that all the nation’s veterans memorials and the veterans they honor, will be protected.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Abortion: America’s Scourge on the Decline

According to newly-released statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the numbers of abortions in 2012 were at “historic lows” – with approximately 13-abortions per every 1,000 women.  This is a continuation of past trends, and the abortion rate has been effectively reduced by one-half since 1974 – the first year after the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized the procedure throughout the United States. 

According to U.S. News & World Report the number of abortions dropped 4% in 2012.  The CDC reported about 699,000 abortions was reported to the federal government that year.  That’s about 31,000 fewer than the year before.  (2012 is the most recent year statistics are available.)

Experts offer various reasons for the recent drop: Better use of birth control and the lingering effects of the economic recession.  Others argue there’s been a cultural shift and more women opt to continue their pregnancy.

Let’s hope and pray this trend continues.  This does not even (yet) reflect the outrage of Planned ‘Murderhood’ selling baby body parts.  

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

At Last There Is a College President Who Stands Up to Student Rebellion

In the event that you missed it, Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, posted a scathing open letter to ‘self-absorbed and narcissistic’ students on his school website.  It’s a refreshing read … given the rebellion occurring on many college campuses.

Dr. Piper said this to Breaking Christian News –

“This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt ‘victimized’ by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13.  It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love!  In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I'm not making this up.  Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic!  Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims! Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them ‘feel bad’ about themselves, is a ‘hater,’ a ‘bigot,’ an ‘oppressor,’ and a ‘victimizer.’

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen.  That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience! An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad!  It is supposed to make you feel guilty!  The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins — not coddle you in your selfishness.  The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization!

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for.  If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the ‘hater’ card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want – but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered.  We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge.  We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict.  We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue ‘trigger warnings’ before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a ‘safe place,’ but rather, a place to learn; to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them.  This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up!  This is not a day care.  This is a university!”

Wow!  Would that more of today’s academic settings instruct students with such life lessons!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

All Women’s Pregnancy Centers are Not Equal

A Christian attorney in California is hoping court precedent will help halt a new law he believes unfairly regulates pro-life pregnancy centers.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) president Brad Dacus has filed suit in federal court to block implementation of the law, which is set to go into effect January 1, 2016.  That law, he explains, in a very real sense forces pregnancy centers to promote abortion.

“[AB 775] mandates them to have a large sign or a handout stating clearly where women can get an abortion at low cost or for free,” Dacus laments. “This is clear government-compelled speech on a private religious institution – and if they get away with this, it will open up a hornets’ nest with regards to violations of other free speech.”

The attorney argues that the law is blatantly unfair.  “This law has no mandates at all requiring abortion clinics to say where women can save their baby and have adoptions,” Dacus states.  “No – this is a one-way, unilateral effort by a very radical state government to force pro-life clinics to become the advertising agent for pro-abortion institutions like Planned Parenthood.”

On behalf of three California pregnancy centers, PJI is asking for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the law.  Dacus’ hopeful federal court decisions in San Antonio, Baltimore, and New York City … that ruled those laws unconstitutional … will sway the California courts.

Warning: If private, non-government funded, religious pro-life pregnancy centers can be mandated by state government to advertise (low cost or free) abortion clinics at their pro-life sites; then what is to stop the government from compelling churches to give equal bulletin board space or print space or pulpit time to stances contrary to the values of the congregation? 

NOW is the time to stop this threat to free speech before we travel any further down this slippery PC slope.      

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel