|
|
Major Threats against Christian Freedom in the U.S.
|
Shalom in Christ Jesus,
This Special Report contains
four articles exhibiting the perils the church now faces in America and the
entire West. I am currently putting together an alert covering recent
persecution related news items from across the globe however, this information is
too important to wait.
In addition, we have an
urgent prayer request from Marg and our Moriel Australia Team:
PLEASE PRAY FOR US AND THE
PEOPLE OF VICTORIA AS WE ARE UNDER SIEGE FROM THE WORST BUSHFIRES IN HISTORY.
48C (118F) degrees with 100 km (62mph) winds. ...
The fires are very close,
surrounding some and closing in on others, between 18-25 km (11-15.5 miles) as
of Saturday 2/7. North Queensland is also having the worse floods in history.
Please keep Marg and our
Australian Moriel Team in prayer and that these tragedies would bring some to
call on the name of the LORD and turn to Him for salvation (You can find the names of all our team members here).
Articles regarding the fires and flooding can be found here, here and here and also this Islam group urges forest fire jihad
May the Lord bless you and
keep you,
BE/\LERT!
Scott Brisk
|
|
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. - Psalms 119:105
|
John 15:18-25
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. "Remember the word that I said to you, `A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. "But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. "He who hates Me hates My Father also. "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. "But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, `THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.'
Matthew 10:16-22
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
John 14:23-27
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me. "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
Ephesians 6:12
For
our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers,
against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against
the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stimulus to ban religious worship
|
'This isn't like a convenient oversight, this is intentional'
WORLDNETDAILY - By Bob Unruh - February 6, 2009
President Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate - and unconstitutional - attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all.
"This isn't like a convenient oversight. This is intentional. This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold religious beliefs," Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today.
His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.
The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: "PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."
The wording that specifically targets religious speech already has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House - all GOP members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep the provision targeting religious instruction and activities.
Critics argued schools would accept any money offered, then impose a ban on religious events.
DeMint warned organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious groups would face new bans on access to public facilities that would not apply to other organizations.
"This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," DeMint said. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith."
DeMint's comments have been posted online here
"These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill," said DeMint.
The senator said the stimulus bill now becomes an "ACLU stimulus" that has the goal of triggering lawsuits "designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation."
"This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America," he said.
DeMint cited Obama's statement at the National Prayer Breakfast this week that faith "can promote a greater good for all of us."
"This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable," DeMint said.
The ban on religious organizations is linked to the $3.5 billion intended for "renovation of public or private college and university facilities."
The ACLJ, which focuses on constitutional law, said the provision "has nothing to do with economic stimulus and everything to do with religious discrimination."
"The thing is I litigated these cases on these exact issues 20 years ago," Sekulow told WND. "Not only did we win, two of the decisions were unanimous and the other was 8-1.
"We're seeing a rollback to the 1970s regarding church-state relations," he said. "That's what is troubling. It is a complete rollback that now institutionalizes discrimination through targeting religion."
Sekulow said he already is drafting a complaint that will challenge the constitutionality of the provision, to be used if it isn't removed.
He said under current court precedents, it will be a open-and-shut victory.
However, he also warned that the problem is the damage that can be done within the probable four years it would take to get the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and what that court would look like at that point.
Under Obama, he said, "there will be an ideology shift." New appointments to the bench by Obama, he said, would be "much more left of where Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Stephen) Breyer are." ...
Read Full Report
* Emphasis Added
|
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
|
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
WORLDNETDAILY - By Chelsea Schilling - February 5, 2009
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."
The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
- A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.
"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."
He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."
He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.
Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.
Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.
In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.
Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.
While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.
"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."
Original Report
|
|
New 'Fairness Doctrine' seen as threat to Christian radio
|
Would Gospel need to be 'balanced' with Islamic, atheist programming?
WORLDNETDAILY - February 7, 2009
WASHINGTON - As the National Religious Broadcasters convened today in Nashville, an ominous shroud cast by political chatter about the reimposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in the nation's capital hung over the gathering.
NRB President Frank Wright said he sees the move as a credible threat under a Democrat-dominated Congress and with President Obama in the White House.
"And we have a personal concern," Wright told Broadcasting & Cable. "The only radio station that ever lost its license under the fairness doctrine regime was a Christian radio station in Red Lion, Pa. We are only responding now to the statements the Democrats themselves are making."
Representing 1,400 organizations, including large ministries and TV and radio stations, NRB said it is "girding itself for a major battle over broadcasting freedoms," and was prepared to go to court, lobby Congress, or take its message to the public.
"We have talked before about many of these issues, but now, with the shift in the political landscape, I think these same things have a much higher probability of being enacted or at least having legislation and hearings and debates, and on the regulation side at the FCC," said Wright.
He said the new political climate doesn't just threaten broadcasters, but even churches that have no broadcast outlet.
"The fairness doctrine has a tremendous potential for constraining free speech, but hate crimes (legislation) has the potential of criminalizing it," he said. "In the short run, the fairness doctrine has the immediate threat of being applied to Christian broadcasters and to the church in a very deleterious way. Hate crimes legislation, if that is enacted, will evolve over time and bleed over into speech and have a negative effect, but not right away. The fairness doctrine will have a negative impact the day it is implemented."
He said he expects religious broadcasters, largely Christian, to be particularly hard hit because of the doctrine's requirement for so-called "balance." If an opposing view must be found for every matter of controversy, Christian broadcasters could find themselves in the unenviable and untenable position of seeking out other religious viewpoints - Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist - to counter what ministers of the Gospel say on the air.
"I have had a number of conversations with NRB members who operated under the old 'Fairness Doctrine' regime," he said. "What happens is there is a chilling of free speech because the license-holder tends to take off the air the programmer whose content is deemed to be controversial."
This weekend's meeting will offer up ideas about fighting back the prospects of government-controlled speech on the airwaves.
"I don't want to tip our hands on strategy except to say that if the approach taken by the administration is an FCC approach, we believe we can bring enough pressure to bear on the commission at the point of enactment to bring enough heat to get them to see the light, so to speak," he said. "I don't think we can stop it in the House or Senate."
Just last week another Democratic U.S. senator went on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen."
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."
Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.
Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year "to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."
Meanwhile, as WND has previously reported, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders.
But other Democrats in the Senate and House - and even a few Republicans - have made no secret of their support for such legislation.
"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."
In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."
"Yes," Pelosi answered.
And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. - who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back.
"It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged.
Meanwhile, President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told Broadcasting & Cable during the presidential election campaign, "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."
But the debate heated up again recently when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
As WND reported, the Democratic National Congressional Committee also launched a petition to reprimand Limbaugh directly for his criticism of Obama.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.
In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.
"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."
Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.
McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.
In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.
"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."
The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."
To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.
And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."
In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."
Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.
Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."
The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word.
Original Report
* Emphasis Added
See Also:
War on Evangelical Christians Has Begun
|
United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights
|
LIFESITENEWS.com - By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman - February 3, 2009
MEXICO CITY - A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a "crisis," is actually a triumph for human rights.
Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of "human rights" against "patriarchy."
"In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."
"Day after day, Mexico experiences a process of this diversity and there are those who understand it as a crisis, because they only recognize one type of family," one of the speakers on the panel also told the audience.
The comments followed close on the heels of the World Meeting of Families, which was held in Mexico City in January, and which strongly reaffirmed the importance of the traditional family and its indispensible role in transmitting values to the next generation. It was opened by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who observed that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births were contributing to the rise of violence and crime in Mexico. ...
Read Full Report
Related Reports:
Be Alert! Kingdom of the forgotten
Be Alert! "How long, O Lord, holy and true...?"
Be Alert! Not one stone will be left upon another
Be Alert! Sun into darkness & Moon into blood
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE
This Email newsletter
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
Important Disclaimer
Moriel Ministries does not
necessarily endorse everything that is transmitted to our email groups, as being
completely trustworthy or godly as some items are drawn from secular sources.
Nor does it suggest in any way that any individual or organization mentioned
should be followed or given any special credence. Be Alert! is for the
dissemination of information only and godly discretion must be applied
by recipients to every transmission received by them, from us.
Regarding "Conspiracy Theories"
Be Alert! and Moriel do not
necessarily endorse the views expressed by those deemed as "conspiracy
theorists" (nor do we necessarily always agree with the use of this terminology
used as a label by the establishment) when such an article reprinted or topic
covered. We present this in the interests of research - for the relevant
information, we believe it contains. We encourage the reader to prayerfully use
this information within the framework of reasoned and scriptural consideration
for the purposes of investigative journalism, research and sound bible study,
towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions, concerning
intrigue and deception which have engulfed both the church as well as the
world.
|
Live Teaching Engagements
|
|
|
|
Contact Us
|
|
P. O. Box 100223
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
