John R. Houk
© December 1, 2009
If you are a Believer in Biblical Morality as opposed to the moral relativism touted as the moral compass of Secular Humanism in America then you are in for a treat of knowledge.
A group of 140 signatories ranging across evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Churches in America have become fed up with Leftists of the Democratic Party, RINO’s, MSM, the Hollywood pattern (which includes television), the homosexual agenda and anyone I missed encompassing the Secular Humanist agenda.
These 140 signatories have produced a document which could be deemed a manifesto for American Christians. It is called the Manhattan Declaration.
The essence of the Manhattan Declaration can be found in these words on its home page:
A Call of Christian Conscience
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Friend there is a war on Christianity. Because the Leftists have successfully enticed the Supreme Court over the years to provide an incorrect interpretation of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution, the Left has made America’s Christian foundation for the rule of law a bull’s eye for target practice. America’s reluctance to mix any kind of faith within government has led the government to the ability of extracting Christian Moral principles from our public thought processes.
Let’s face it. When State ordained prayer was forcefully removed from schools most of stalwart Christians in the back of their American mind-set were not repulsed. The First Amendment was designed not to institutionalize a particular Church as the established Church of the Land on the Federal, State or local level. Unfortunately that toe in the door of Pandora’s Box was the beginning of forbidding of anything Christian in public and NOT just our schools.
God have mercy if a graduating public High School Valedictorian wishes to share how her faith in Jesus Christ made a successful person with the best GPA in her class.
God forbid a football coach praying with his team before a game. My GOD! Even if that prayer was forced to be a moment of silence.
God forbid that Christians become upset that public funds go to support overtly religious Muslim public schools even though a Christian or two may wish to embellish in a Christian play or school supported campus Christian club.
God forbid that the Ten Commandments have been forcefully removed from many States or County Court Houses because that might be endorsing a religion when it is actually the symbol of awesome moral principles.
God forbid that cities across America may remove nativity scenes because they don’t have the monetary resources to take on the taxpayer supported ACLU in its agenda of stamping out all things Christian.
God forbid that a Christian or Christian Minister in America is on the cusp of being treated like Canadian and European Christians taking a public stand against ungodly homosexuality.
God have mercy on a Christian, Jew or knowledgeable non-religious person who publicizes how contradictory the principles of Mohammedanism with Judeo-Christian principles as well as America’s Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness embodied in our founding documents which includes the U. S. Constitution.
God forbid a Christian abhors the practice of baby murdering (aka infanticide and abortion) as the primary means of birth control in America. Does “You shall not Murder” sound familiar?
When a Christian gets to the anti-abortion issue, the typical Leftist makes the attempt to obfuscate reality. The Leftist loves to tell of the baby that is confirmed will born as a special needs child. Or perhaps the baby is the product of a horrible gruesome rape. Or perhaps a baby will come into the world of a young pregnant teen that has her future ruined if she takes responsibility for consensual sex or worse was brainwashed and molested into sex at barely emerging teen years. There is also the Leftist accusation of hypocrisy when a rabid pro-lifer becomes as evil as an abortionist by taking the life of the baby killer. Frankly it is a rare time a Leftist and I agree. Rendering evil for evil is NOT a Christian principle.
But let us face reality. When the Leftist tries to blur an acceptance of abortion with other moral issues that is the height of hypocrisy. A whopping majority of women get abortions for the mere purpose of birth control. The Left has so propagandized our society that a woman’s right to manage their body is greater than a separate life growing within a womb which more often than not is there because female hormones for a sex drive was just as strong as a male’s.
Here is Bill O’Reilly taking notice of the Manhattan Declaration.
With polls showing that more than 80 percent of Americans believe in G0d, the question now becomes: Will they rally behind The Manhattan Declaration? So far, the secular media have given it little attention, and that might well continue. But even if the manifesto gets a full airing, are people of faith as upset as some of their leadership with the secularism of America?
At this point, I simply don't know.
My fellow Christians Let us bring certainty to Bill O’Reilly: SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
JRH 12/1/09
****************************
MANHATTAN DECLARATION
A Summary
http://manhattandeclaration.org/images/content/ManhattanDeclarationSummary.pdf
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Human Life
The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.
Marriage
The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.
Religious Liberty
Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in antidiscrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.
Unjust Laws
As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.
Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.
Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.
Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.
We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009
To all the Leftists who attempt to revise history and change the true meaning of the First Amendment I give you President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1889.
(Hat Tip: Don Moore of Blind Conservative E-List)
*********************************
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
____________________________
Here is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis is mine)
The God of Christianity is not part of any “Established” Church in America for no Christian Church or religion may be designated the State religion. On the other hand Constitutionally the intent was NOT to prevent Christian morality or tenets from being a foundation for the rule of law and State institutions in America.
Another way to put it: No government or State management in the Christian religion, but a whole lot of influence by the Christian religion in government or the State.
JRH 11/27/09
John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009
I received this email from Burr Deming of Fair and Unbalanced (FU to their fans):
At FairAndUnbalanced.com, we devote a day to linking to interesting sites around the web. Yours usually makes the list, although often with a dissenting note.
Tomorrow, Sunday, a more critical than usual piece will appear. I notice that you often offer an analysis of opposing opinions with a direct link to encourage readers to compare for themselves. I hope you will see this as an attempt to follow your own good example.
Best wishes,
Burr
I am actually grateful that I am the subject of someone’s disapproval. It is an indication that fans and foes alike are reading my content.
In either case I will post Deming’s essay followed by my response.
Here is Mr. Deming’s criticism:
_____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
By Burr Deming
11/22/09 12:00:56 am
Fair and Unbalanced
As John Houk at SlantRight explains Islam to Muslims and those who hate them, the message is that Muslims are given instructions to show to all non-Muslims the face of violent intolerance.
Houk's logic is this: there are fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who have turned to violence as an expression of faith. And there are, to be found by diligent search, passages in the Qur’an which can be used to reinforce those actions. Most Muslims are peaceful, according to Houk and those he quotes, but they are merely deluded about the nature of their faith. Radical violent sects know the real faith, as does Houk.
Protests against such conclusions from Christian experts who bring up similar passages from the Christian Bible do not sway him. One example is the 108th Psalm, which offers a prayer for the death of an enemy of the faith and the discarding of his widow and children. That and other such scriptures, to Houk, merely represent occasional anomalies from the main thrust of love and peace. Passages in the Qur’an are to be taken seriously.
So the killing of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion activist is an exception to a peaceful rule, while the killer of military personnel at Fort Hood represents the future of Islam, even if most adherents disagree.
I can dismiss, as a lunatic fringe, death advocates such as Reverend Wiley Drake, who celebrates the killing of Dr. George Tiller. I am a little more concerned about his prayers for the violent death of the President.
Although I do not think they represent most Christians, I am concerned about the growing popularity among conservative radical Christians of Psalms 108, the prayer for violent death of the enemy. Tee-shirts and slogans link the violent passage to the President: "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama".
"I would like to be a Christian," a friend once remarked, "but I can't think of anyone I would like assassinated." The spread of violent fantasies directed toward the President and others is not itself shocking. That those violent wishes are accepted, endorsed, and advanced in Fellowship Hall each Sunday is shocking to those seeking to practice a religion of peace.
One concern is the effect of such violent sentiments on a few of the less inhibited among the unhinged. "There is no place for such prayers in any of our faiths," says Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on belief.net "and until we all stand up and say so, at least a little blood will be on all of our hands."
Another friend is sympathetic but remains outside any religious faith. "If there is a God, you have to think she'd support the separation of Church and Hate." As in all things, I'd like to stand with the Lord.
I'm for Separation of Church and Hate. Mr. Houk goes his own way.
- Deming of FU blog
________________________
So once again I have received the accusation of “Hate.”
Thus when Mr. Deming says he is for “Separation of Church and Hate” it is an obvious reference to my Christian and pro-life advocacy. It is also a back-handed (although it be polite) common Leftist accusation of Christian hypocrisy. The typical hypocrisy accusation runs something like this: If Christians are all about peace, love and tolerance why do they ignore violent references in the Bible as well as condemn alternate lifestyles (e.g. homosexuality and transgenderism) and the violence of Islam?
Before I begin a response let me shock (or in the critic’s mind confirm the hypocrisy accusation) the Left and Muslims. I also I am for “Separation of Church and Hate.”
Violence in the Bible when associated with the direction of God is prescribed against unrighteousness, i.e. people full of sin. It is in function with the purpose of securing land for the descendants of the child of promise. The descendants of the child of promise (today known as Jews) were to be an example to teach the world the way of God.
The violence of the Quran by contrast when associated with the direction of Allah is prescribed too violently and humiliatingly to conquer, subjugate, convert or kill all those in the entire world who do not submit to the will of Allah as voiced by Islam’s prophet Mohammed.
The descendants of the child of promise were not exempt from upholding the righteousness of God in the Old Testament version of the Bible. Indeed the non-Jewish/non-Hebrew Assyrians and later the Babylonians were used as an instrument of God to remove the Jews from their land due to forsaking the way of God for the way of the very people the Jews ejected for sin.
Christians have no business rendering evil for evil. If an abortionist murders unborn children, it definitely is NOT a righteous act to murder the abortionist. This is why the New Testament enjoins Christians to pray for those in authority. The implication of praying for those in authority is that punishment in the earthly realm is the province of earthly authorities which exists by the will of God. God judges a human being that will culminate in The Last Judgment when a human spirit’s life is read like a book hopefully through the filter of the Grace and Mercy inherent in the sacrificial Blood of Jesus Christ. Without the Blood of Christ a human is definitely in eternal trouble. Through the filter of Christ a human is under the measure of the Almighty God’s absolute understanding of the actual thoughts behind one’s actions – good or bad. There is no fooling the insight of God with persuasive arguments.
On the other hand it is a Christian’s duty to vocally share the Mind of Christ with others. The Mind of Christ is best discerned in the Word of God. Hence the moniker of Bible believing Christians as opposed to Progressive Christians. Progressive Christians (i.e. Leftist in nature) cherry pick the Scriptures adopting verses that validate humanistic thinking.
Bible believing Christians definitely are not perfect in interpreting Scripture; however there is more agreement than disagreement.
I always find it amazing when a Leftist or Progressive Christian calls one who asserts his Christian Bible faith a hater in criticizing homosexuality or Islam. It is also fascinating that followers of Mohammed’s Islam play the victim and cry hater toward those who know Islam’s history and are aware that Islam’s theo-political dogma has not officially changed since the day of Mohammed. Certainly there are Muslims who have become Westernized to the extent there is an enjoyment of Western Liberty and Freedom. Nonetheless it is doubtful that most of the Muslims who deem themselves moderate would renounce the words that Mohammed expressed as the word of Allah in the Quran or the authoritative traditions of the Hadith or Sira.
In the case of the Leftist and homosexuality: the Leftist uses the term “hater” against the Biblical Christian yet have no problem whatsoever in either maligning Biblical faith as irrelevant. Often times the Left vocally expresses anger against Biblical Christians wishing to express their faith in their community at public functions with the hyperbole of Separation of Church and State. The Separation of Church and State idiocy is merely a Leftist legal maneuver to prevent Christians the free exercise of the religion in public. This makes Christianity the Leftist’s favorite religion to hate. The Leftist propaganda is this: it is ok to promote Progressive (err … Leftist) propaganda in public (e.g. schools, City Councils, et al) but is offensive to Leftists for Christians to do the same. The Leftist cares little if Leftist ideology is offensive to Biblical Christians let alone if it stifles both Christian Free Speech and the free exercise of religion simultaneously. Now that is hypocrisy.
Then there is the odd co-habitation between Leftists and Muslims (also Muslim apologists) who seek the public acceptance of the free practice of Islamic theo-political religion even though the dogma of Islam if it ever becomes the legal standard would require the death of Leftists for insulting Mohammed, Allah and Islam. If you think that is stretch then look at the intolerance that exists in Muslim dominated nations.
In this perspective I am not a hater. Rather I am an advocate of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. In respect to Islam I am an exposer of a theo-political doctrine (one might even say a cult) that wishes the destruction of American Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.
JRH 11/23/09_____________________
Response to Alluded Accusation of ‘Hater’
John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009
____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
© 2008 (sic) FairAndUnbalanced.com
John R. Houk
© November 13, 2009
The United Nations General Assembly has passed numerous non-binding (i.e. so far) resolutions pertaining to the UN vie and the OIC view of Defamation of Religions. This if adopted by any nation including the USA, will terminate freedom of speech. The deception behind the UN General Assembly resolutions ostensibly is to promote freedom of religion. The irony is that the primary supporters of the resolutions are despotic and/or Muslim nations in which neither freedom of religion or freedom of speech are hallmarks of their legal imperative.
It is time to consider to depart from the UN. At first this may seem politically disastrous for it would empower the anti-American nations politically and militarily. So steps would need to take place to fend off geopolitical power moves against the National Interests of America.
One such bold move by a real leader in America would be to take the coalition of the willing concept and form a competing organization to the UN that would require more than merely being a sovereign nation to join. Such a geopolitical organization would profit its international members by promoting Free Speech, Freedom of Religion and various unalienable rights as well as economic and military security that has made America synonymous as the paradigm for Western freedom.
JRH 11/13/09
**************************
Legal Project Part of Chorus of Opposition to UN Resolutions Banning Defamation of Religion
Middle East Forum
November 12, 2009
PHILADELPHIA – The Legal Project has joined the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom and over 100 other non-governmental organizations from around the world, in a joint statement decrying the danger to free speech rights posed by a series of pending UN resolutions prohibiting defamation of religions.
On October 29, 2009, Syria, along with Venezuela and Belarus, proposed a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Among other things, the resolution condemns any organization "perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions." In particular, it avers that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with … terrorism" and proceeds to "reaffirm the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of … incitement to discrimination" which would include, for example, suggesting the "profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." While non-binding, the resolution is just the latest in an ongoing effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to criminalize criticism of Islam globally and, if adopted, would lay the groundwork for a binding version proposed by Pakistan as a treaty amendment earlier this year.
As the joint statement notes, "[u]nlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the 'defamation of religions' punish the peaceful criticism of ideas."
Legal Project Director Daniel Huff called the resolution a "brazen attempt to curb criticism of radical Islam, cynically disguised as a pious affirmation of fundamental freedoms. In tenor and purpose it runs contrary to the bedrock principle of American First Amendment jurisprudence that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'"
The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum is dedicated to protecting authors and researchers from predatory lawsuits designed to stifle dissemination of information related to terrorism and its sources of funding. It assists targets of such suits with litigation costs, arranges for pro bono counsel, works with policy makers to publicize and address this growing threat._____________________
Free Speech Threatened by UN General Assembly
John R. Houk
© November 13, 2009
_________________
Legal Project Part of Chorus of Opposition to UN Resolutions Banning Defamation of Religion
For further information contact: Daniel Huff at huff@meforum.org.
This text may be reposted so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
©1994-2009 The Middle East Forum.
