We must fight to keep freedom of speech

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43344

Every day it gets legally harder and harder to be a Christian. In this country of freedom of speech one can see that the liberals would prefer if their views and ideas were the only ones that got free speech. They want to preach that the gay lifestyle is a safe choice to our school children. they only get away with it because they say they are teaching tolerance. When infact they are teaching that this is a safe optional choice, and they even tout that it is desirable. The funny thing is that the average gay male does not live past 55 and there is huge evidence that that lifestyle places a person at huge level of medical risk, not to mention a higher propensity to drugs and alcohol, or a higher mental disorder rate and suicide. The facts prove that it is not a safe choice.

It goes back to the definition of homophobia they teach in schools. Homophobia is fear to engage in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. What a twisted definition. Actually homophobia is fear of other people who participate in sexual relationships with someone of the same gender. I read an article where a mother called her school to complain that her son had been invited into the gay club room and during lunch break on school grounds the gay club watched an x rated movie about a boy and his "love affair" with a grown man, this woman's son started hanging out with a gay guy and stopped communicating with the mother. When she called to complain the principal told her she was a homophobe, and so did the school board. So basically the mother did not want herself or her son to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender and she was a homophobe. Or maybe even this mother did not want to have a sexual relationship except for with the person she was married to and also wanted he son to wait to have a sexual relationship until he married someone of the opposite gender. Anyways, apparently such values makes a person a homophobe.

Here in this article by Gary Bauer you will see exactly what the liberals feel is freedom of speech.

Intolerance At Harvard

Last night the 700-member faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University passed a "no-confidence" vote against President Larry Summers. Summers, by any definition, is a liberal. He served as President Bill Clinton's treasury secretary. But Summers is in trouble because he has committed the unpardonable offense in American higher education: he actually raised questions about a key tenet of the liberal faith - that there is no difference between men and women.

Summers suggested that the underrepresentation of women at the higher levels of science could be due to intrinsic differences between men and women. He (gasp) even called for a discussion of that possibility. The poor man was apparently unaware that academic freedom of thought has been replaced on most campuses with a left-wing orthodoxy that can get you "burned at the stake."

On America's finest university campuses you can call President Bush a Nazi, advocate Israel's destruction, call people who believe in traditional marriage "bigots" and compare Christians to the Taliban and your defenders will be legion. But if you dare to question any of the Left's sacred creeds, the "tar and feathers" won't be far behind. American "higher education" may now be the most intolerant institution in the country!

If you are interested in receiving Mr. Bauer's daily report by e-mail, please call, visit SIGN UP FOR GARY BAUER'S "END OF DAY REPORT"

The Homosexual Agenda Is Infiltrating Our Schools

When Silence Would Have Been Golden
Acts of Homosexual Promotion to Youth that We Wish Had Never Happened
by Peter J. LaBarbera
April 10, 2002

I found this article posted on
The National Coalition For The Protection Of Children And Families
http://www.nationalcoalition.org/culture/articles/art020410.html

One of my favorite topics to read about right now is how the homosexual agenda is infiltrating our schools under the flag of tolerance... I was reading another article which gave a sample of Glesens curriculum in which this horrid definition existed.

In common usage, homophobia is the fear of intimate relationships with persons of the same sex

Inortherwords I am intolerant if I do not desire a relationship with someone of the same sex. What the heck!

Anyways I have been compiling a list of ways the gay movement is infiltrating in schools but the list provided at the end of this article included some of my best examples and then some more. This article is the most concise list I have seen. And if you read this article you don't have to get into the real gritty details of "fistgate". Unfortunately reading the play by play of what happened in fistgate gives one more information about the Gay lifestyle then one would want to know. I wanted to know exactly what these "Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education" actually told the children in their classroom and the whole meeting was truly pornographic and definitely encouraging the children to experiment and giving the kids to much knowledge under the guise of tolerance education.

Take particular notice of two parts in this article about kindergartner's, real scary stuff. These guys really know that if you train up a child starting young he will not depart from that way when older, they start as young as they can.

Also in that article about fistgate which is too gritty for most people to read the children role-played. They role-played being a lesbian girl talking to a lesbian counselor about what it meant to be gay. Inotherwords these children were asked to act as if, imagine as if, and respond as if, they were gay!!! Not me my children will not be publicly educated so that special interest groups can overtake my seed.

Infiltration - Attempts To Gain Power

http://www.missionamerica.com
At Missionamerica.com the article "How Homosexuals are Changing the Church" By Linda P. Harvey. Exposes the sinister attempt to gain power that propionates of the godless philosophies pursue.

In this article Linda P. Harvey describes her freshman year at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. As a freshman she sees more and more how politically correctness is rewriting the bible and how it is read. Linda suspects as the year goes on that several of her teachers are gay and lesbian who have infiltrated the campus and are teaching newfangled ideas instead out of the bible as it is now. The next excerpt shows the loss of truth in the school.

In my introductory theology course, one class period early in the quarter convened in the cafeteria. As all the students stood, the professor read statements about current moral problems, and we were to "respond" by moving to the right wall if we agreed, or to the left if we disagreed. "Health care is a basic right," was one issue, and "Capital punishment is never justified" was another. Then came the zinger.

""Homosexuality is a sin," she read. Out of the forty students in class, I and three others moved to the right wall, indicating that we agreed. The rest of the class moved quickly to the left, some flattening themselves against the wall for emphasis!"

And again

In October, the Old Testament course covered Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorra. As she lectured about the events, our professor made it clear that "this passage is not an indictment of homosexuality, but of rape." The problem here could be compared to the incident in Judges 19 and 20, she claimed, and was related to the poor treatment of strangers, which was a great sin in early cultures. Even though there are obvious differences in the two tales, I did not have the courage, I am ashamed to say, to contradict her. No one else in my class did either, of the few who may have disagreed.

The epitome of changing meaning of words is explained here.

Required reading in both my theology and Old Testament courses was the book Inclusive Language in the Church by Nancy A.Hardesty. An inclusive language policy had been enacted several years before at Trinity, which I read upon entering, but didn't grasp until I saw it in action. Evidently, reading this book was supposed to sufficiently indoctrinate students into what turned out to be a radical departure from orthodoxy.

The inclusive language policy stated, among other things, that references to God should not use only the masculine, as this "limits our understanding of God." Instead, "there are many opportunities in worship, classroom, and conversation where feminine and gender-free language can broaden our understanding of God." (Emphasis added)?

The inclusive language policy does not stop at oration it continues to the point that the bible is being rewritten to include it.

No one's trying to change Scripture, I was told. Yet that's not true. The biblical translation used in most classes at the seminary was the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) or one similar, altered substantially for inclusive language.

"And, as I pointed out in class, the practical result of the inclusive language policy is that it causes some passages to be avoided because of their unalterable language. What does one do, for example, with the Lord's prayer-- the words of Christ Himself? "Our Father" are the opening words--how can this be revised by any Christian teacher of conscience? Or what happens to the recurring image of Christ as the bridegroom, and the Church as His bride? One can't get much more "sex-role stereotyped" than this. Yet it is one of the most beautiful, spiritually revealing, and prophetic concepts in the Christian faith."

"The other students, and my professor, looked at me as if I just didn't understand--I was so obviously "unenlightened." Yet they either have not thought through the ultimate consequences of the road they are on, or, as is more probable, they don't care-- the agenda is just too important. After this encounter, I feel sure of where this trend is leading. Eventually certain portions of the canon of Scripture will either be altered so as to be unrecognizable, or will be discarded as being too"exclusive.

Amy in the end concludes

I came to the end of the first quarter and had some big decisions to make. My grades were fine--in fact, the course work was not as difficult as I expected. But would I try to stick it out just to get the degree, knowing that along the way, I might pick up some dangerous untruths? Should I try to change things? Would I ever have a chance of being heard? I prayed and sought God's counsel. I even registered for the second quarter, trying to put a positive face on matters. But just days before the beginning of the next quarter, I felt the answer clearly from the Lord. He has given each of us a precious resource--time--and he does not want us to spend it learning how to construct our own religion, including new gods."

"So, in spite of the few faculty who remain there, trying to swim upstream, who will I believe be blessed for their brave efforts-- I withdrew from the seminary. I have since encountered others who did the same. All of us who care about the future of the Church must pray fervently for these institutions, which are training future leaders in doctrines that may lead our faith--and individuals as well--into great spiritual darkness.

Godless philosophies, and intellectual superiors are not rewrite the meaning of words inorder to promote more "diversity" which again in another word they have rewritten. The agenda of the politically correct is to remove a public knowledge of right and wrong.

Do Words Have Meaning?

The only way the unreligious or intellectual superiors can eliminate God is by twisting the meaning of words or changing the meaning of words all together. As you can see in the article below.

"You Don’t Honestly Believe That!" by "Amy Orr-Ewing" posted on www.rzim.org.
http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=102

First, the idea that there is no ultimate meaning in any text has become extremely powerful in our current postmodern context, and it has enormous implications for any communication about the Gospel.

This idea is explained further by the following story the author provides.

The reason I am not a Christian is that I am studying English Literature, and I don’t believe that there is a ‘transcendental signified’, and so I could make the Bible mean whatever I wanted it to mean.” My husband asked her to clarify and she explained that she believed that words have no actual meaning—a word on a page or a word being heard only has the meaning that a reader or a hearer gives it. It does not itself carry any ultimate meaning because there is no God (or “transcendental signified”) to give ultimate meaning to words.

My husband looked at her and said, “If that is the case—words have no meaning except the meaning of the listener or reader—is it okay with you if I take what you have just said to mean ‘I believe in Jesus and I am a Christian’?” At that moment she looked a little worried. She realized that her argument failed its own test. The standards by which she was judging the Bible were not standards her own thinking could stand up under.

I have heard it said that one of the first signs of a nations decline is its decline in vocabulary. What would really happen to learning and knowledge if nothing could be accurately communicated in words. Infact it is the intellectual superiors whom have caused this changing of words and the confusion that comes afterwards. Who owns an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary? In the cover of my new dictionary was a informative flyer that was compiled by "The Foundation for American Christian Education" the title of the cover is "Why Every American Christian Home Should Have The Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary." In this enlightening document it states

There is one dictionary available today that defines every word both in the original language and from its biblical usage--The original 1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language. Every modern dictionary reflects the current cultural corruption's and erosion of vocabulary by godless philosophies. The 1828 Dictionary is the gold standard of language for the American Christian.

Quoting again form the above link to "You Don’t Honestly Believe That!" Amy Orr-Ewing quotes Friedrich Nietzsche:

We cannot get rid of God until we get rid of grammar.

It is through the manipulation of words and grammar that causes the degeneration of communication. Manipulation of words and grammar in the bible is caused by uninspired people whom wish to change others foundational beliefs. They manipulate the truth in these ways, then point out that there is an inconsistency in the understanding derived from the manipulated text and the pure text. So it is not so far of a stretch for them to hold to

the idea that there is no ultimate meaning in any text (which) has become extremely powerful in our current postmodern context, and it has enormous implications for any communication about the Gospel.

What is the ultimate conclusion of such philosophies?

In this way discourse and the pursuit of knowledge are written off as the pursuit of power, and this power is embodied and expressed in institutionalized languages."

"According to this view, when we read the Bible, we must be suspicious of the writers who are exercising power over us and even more suspicious of anyone who might try to help us interpret the Bible. Furthermore, any attempt at preaching from or explaining the Bible is purely a sinister attempt to gain power over another.

With this explanation how else could we see the changing of words meaning by "godless philosophies" except for their attempt to gain power over truth. And their explaining of this philosophy as a "sinister attempt to gain power over another." It is interesting how humans tend to reflect their own world view onto others and assume that ours is the same. Propionates of "godless philosophies" claim "the Bible is purely a sinister attempt to gain power over" others, because that is how they use their intellectual superiority. Read this my next blog and see if you can see who is trying to gain power over others.

Truth vs. Lies

It seems like a great place to start my blog is on the subject of Truth Vs. Lies. This subject could easily establish a foundation for my conservative blog by a full time, stay-at-home, homeschooling L.D.S. mother. Why else do we mother, why else do we homeschool, but to establish truth...

My reading today started with what truth is not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42906

In this article "TESTING THE FAITH" by Bill Maher posted on WorldNetDaily.com he exposes he lack of knowledge of our great countries founding when he states.

When people say to me, 'You hate America,' I don't hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion.

This definitely sounds like a take over, but he has it backwards. If one only reads the writings of our founding fathers one comes to a profound knowledge that this country was created for religious freedom. A change in that status would indeed be a take over, but it would be a take over of intellectual superiors who believe that they know better then the common man what is right and best for them, Dictator anyone. What Bill Maher is concerned about is "the vast right wing conspiracy", basically he is afraid of the "vast religious constituency". Intellectuals have been quietly trying to take over our great country founded on religious principals, their real concern is that the religious constituency is becoming informed, taking a stand, and blockading the takeover of the intellectual superiors.

Not only does Bill Maher believe Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking." His general view can be summarized in his statement

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking.

Lets further look into his extreme claims.

When you were a kid and they were telling you whatever you believe in religion, do you think if they had switched the fairy tales that they read to you in bed with the Bible, you would know the difference?

"Do you think if it was the fairy tale about a man who lived inside of a whale and it was religion that Jack built a beanstalk today, you would know the difference? Why do you believe in one fairy tale and not the other? Just because adults told you it was true and they scared you into believing it, at pain of death, at pain of burning in hell.

Apparently Bill Maher believes we do not have the ability to tell truth from fiction. Has he deadened his conscious, he does not know the distinct burning in the bosom when one hears truth and the emptiness when one hears lies.

Apparently Bill Maher holds an advanced intellectual advantage over any of us whom are religious. The great indisputable amazingly superior logic this philosophy is founded on (false principals) can be read in my next blog.