Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Time to draw a line in the sand. No Fascism! No Hypocrisy!

Cartoon hat tip to Angel

At least he isn't bowing to them this time...unless you mean figuratively, that is.

  • It is time for the "Flyover" people to make a stand, draw a line in the sand and say, "This is where I stop. My back is against the wall!"
  • Socialist Fascism threatens to destroy our nation from the top down.
  • We need to take the country back from the bottom up.
  • Recycle Congress and make your voices heard!!!
  • Join a Tea Party group of some kind, go to meetings, identify worthwhile candidates, quit giving to party organizations but support individuals of worth instead.
  • Support the Constitution not the politicians. Tell the Elephant and the Donkey to go back to the zoo because from now on we are electing Patriots!!!

My friend Loboinok pointed this out to me:

No further! Christians draw battle line in culture war

Declaration warns of civil disobedience over life, marriage, religious liberty


"Over 150 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders have signed the Manhattan Declaration, a pledge in defense of life, religious liberty and traditional marriage, a line in the sand of the culture war warning that Christians will resort to civil disobedience if necessary rather than retreat from these three moral principles.

"The Manhattan Declaration is a wake-up call

– a call to conscience – for the church," writes Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and co-author of the declaration. "It is also crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault."

According to, over 47,000 others in the last few days have added their signatures to the list of 152 Christian leaders who have committed to the pledge.

The website states that the declaration calls upon all fellow citizens to join in defending "fundamental truths about justice and the common good," namely:

  • The sanctity of human life

  • The dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife

  • The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

"Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the wellbeing of society, they are inviolable and nonnegotiable," the website states. "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."

Why not go read the whole thing and then join me in signing?

Then go look for like-minded people in your area and get to work!


radar said...

The signature count is over 96,000 as of right now!

The Bohemian Philosopher said...

My question for anyone who is willing to answer is this: if we are to accept this view of marriage as enshrined in Christianity, then to what extent do you believe you are entitled to impose this religious view onto others that may not share that view and would this not only be a violation of freedom of religion but a violation of 'church and state'?

Hawkeye® said...

OK Radar. I signed the Declaration. Thanks for the lead.

Bohemian Philosopher,
to what extent do you believe you are entitled to impose this religious view onto others.

Well, I can't speak for Radar, but I would say that no Christian has a right to "impose" his or her views on another, and neither does an ungodly government have a right to "impose" its views upon us.

The whole "church and state" issue has been mis-characterized by the enemies of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The word "respecting" here means "regarding". It does not mean "showing respect for" as some have interpreted it. In other words, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a state religion."

On the other hand, it says: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, Congress cannot pass ANY law which prevents ANYBODY from freely exercising their religion ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

And further, the Supreme Court cannot make ANY ruling which prohibits the free exercise of religion because they can only rule on cases by interpreting existing laws passed by the Congress. And if ANY such law prohibits the free exercise of religion in ANY manner, then by definition, it is unconstitutional.

highboy said...

"if we are to accept this view of marriage as enshrined in Christianity, then to what extent do you believe you are entitled to impose this religious view onto others that may not share that view and would this not only be a violation of freedom of religion but a violation of 'church and state'?"

Its not about imposing a religious view. Marriage is simply between a man and a woman. People keep trying to make this about a belief system, as if what makes marriage a marriage is a matter of religion only. Its simply a matter of established fact in history. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No gays are being discriminated against, they are allowed to marry: women. Why? Because that is what marriage is. Its not a right, and never has been. Its a privilege, a privilege that we pay for, and are required to have a license for, just like hunting, fishing, or driving.

WomanHonorThyself said...

thanks for the link!..BLESSED THANKSGIVING MY FRIEND!!..I am tryin not to think of all the madness for the next few days!..hugs!

radar said...

See, the homosexual community co-oped the word "gay", which used to mean happy. Oddly enough, suicides among homosexuals are higher per capita than they are among heterosexuals so "gay" is certainly a misnomer.

Then they try to change the meaning of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, always has been, always will be. You can pass laws and make signs all you want, but a dog is a dog and if everyone in San Francisco calls a dog a frog, he is still a dog.

Two men or two women living together have the right to form a civil union. Personal liberty in this country allows us to do all sorts of things. But you cannot transform marriage any more than you can transform a dog into a frog.

radar said...

Oh, and you will not find separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution. Try it.

highboy said...

Radar: separation of church and state are not in the Constitution, correct, but the establishment clause is, and the word "establishment" to them, means the government won't recognize an establishment.(noun) When one looks carefully at the history of this country and some of the actions of the very Framers of this clause, we see its really an action. The government will not recognize the establishment, or establishing, of a religion. I pointed this out to radar years ago and he laughed at the notion of "establishment" being an action. Jokes on him.

"1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
4. (often initial capital letter) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually prec. by the): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5. (often initial capital letter) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually prec. by the): the literary Establishment.
6. a household; place of residence including its furnishings, grounds, etc.
7. a place of business together with its employees, merchandise, equipment, etc.
8. a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9. an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11. the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England.
12. Archaic. a fixed or settled income."

Right there at the very top. So no, the government will not recognize an establishment of religion in that sense. They will never establish a public religion for all citizens to follow. But they certainly have recognized religion and have done so throughout history.

radar said...

Tim, I do not remember having a conversation with you about the establishment clause. But it means that the government will not establish a religion. It does not mean that the government will attack religion. Right?

Almost 130,000 signatures now!

highboy said...

Sorry radar, I meant creeper laughed at me about the word definition. He'll remember. But yes, you're 100% correct.

Anonymous said...

The point of signing this declaration is to stand up to governmental interference into our personal right of conscience by civil disobedience if necessary. We refuse to accept sexual perversity as something to be upheld in society the same as marriage. We believe innocent human life should not be destroyed for convenience. And we will fight any court or law that imposes these perverse views on us.

Anonymous said...

ZOMG. Where did all the cool commenters go? This blog is so depressing right now.
The same crap you are all spouting now about gay marriage was said about mixed race marriage in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. The individuals you are referring to are consenting adults, and their actions have no affect on you whatsoever. In Canada (and in many other progressive nations) the "definition" of marriage includes same sex couples. It's a fact (and the law). You have no control over the definition of a word (and it's laughable that you think that you do - and it's particularly funny coming from a blogger that has recently attempted to redefine what it means to be "religious").
It's also humorous how you all don't want government making decisions for you on health care because you don't want/trust the government meddling in personal matters, yet it's A-OK, in your view, that they have a say regarding intimate personal relationships between two consenting adults.
The bible outlaws a lot of stuff (divorce, adultery, masturbation, tattoos, female hair cuts?), why are you so hung up on this particular issue? I recommend you just get over it, and yourselves, as, you are CLEARLY on the WRONG side of this issue and history will show it.
Oh and hb, per an earlier request, the Merriam-Webster site defines a bigot as,
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Reading that must be a little like looking in the mirror, hey TIM?

- Canucklehead

P.S. - Radar, I found a definitive answer to your "information question" and will post a link in your next ridiculous evolution post. It looks like you're going to have to come up with a different "stumper" because your current line of argument ("no info added by evolution") looks to be a dead end.

Anonymous said...


Which sexual perversity?

Anonymous said...

Radar, you said:

"Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, always has been, always will be."

Well, where did we hear that before? Oh yes, now I remember:

"Slavery is perfectly OK. Always has been, always will be."
"Voting is for white males only. Always has been, always will be."
"Segregation is ordained by God. Always has been, always will be."

Feel free do stick to your favourite definition of a certain word in your church as much as you like. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on...

Or, in other words:

Peeing on it doesn't make it yours

Chaos Engineer said...

OK, I looked through the petition and it's not too controversial. Basically they're just puffing their chests up and saying that they're prepared to violate laws that will never be passed.

People can disagree about abortion and assisted suicide, but certainly the government's never going to pass laws forcing someone to get directly involved against their will. Nobody on either side of the issue wants that to happen.

And people can disagree about gay marriage, but the government's not going to pass laws forcing churches to perform marriages against their will. That would be a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.

And people can disagree about hate speech, but, again, the First Amendment comes into play. If the government can't silence the KKK or the American Nazi Party, how can it silence plain old garden-variety bigots?

If we want to fight a corrupt moral system, then wouldn't it be better to look at the abuses that are actually happening today?

The Sanctity of Life thing is a good place to start. Right now, people are dying from preventable causes because hospitals and insurance companies have "death panels" set up just to say, "Sorry, we can't help you because we can't figure out how to make money off the deal."

That's a problem that's crying out for civil disobedience. I think a good place to start would be by tracking down the heads of insurance companies, and breaking into their offices in hopes of gathering information that can be used for blackmail purposes.

I'd do it myself, but I'm a little nervous about civil disobedience and I think I can better contribute to the movement by posting inflammatory messages on blogs.

Maybe Mr. Colson could help organize the break-ins? I've heard that he's got some talents in that direction.