Away "with" the Manger! & My Two Cents

This post is a companion to ("ACLU "legendary birth of Jesus") "Yes Virginia, There is no God" with a picture of Santa Claus and mistletoe is all over Seattle, Washington this holiday season creating controversy. They want Christmas with "Christ" removed from it. The message the ACLU and the foundations like "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is sending is alarming, no matter what you believe the day to represent, that Americans and believer and non-believers should no longer observe a (holiday) holy day that has been practiced for nearly 200 years. I'm not taking this to far either. Imagine if an American moved to Jerusalem, and started complaining of his rights being infringed upon by Hanukkah solely based on the fact that he is a Christian. Imagine him trying to get it dissolved. It makes no sense. Imagine trying to remove a article of religious relevance from a mosque belonging to any one of the Muslims 12 holy days because "the Christian religion is being excluded". Isn't that their own logic? Take your ACLU lawyer to the Gaza strip and try it! You will be killed for just being an American much less a Christian in certain parts of the world.

It is becoming increasingly more popular the hear these stories of attacks on a nationally recognized day in this nation. Reflecting on all of the above, do you know what I think the core of all of these trivial dispicable acts by lawyers, judges, and athiest are? They don't want to see a "baby Jesus", period! They don't want to be reminded of that name above all names. As a collective nation we receive and give gifts once a year on a chosen day, to celebrate “the baby in the manger” the birth of Jesus Christ. In their minds, they can remove the baby Jesus from their coinciousness and vision, and they don't have to deal with any authority. Jesus Christ is acceptable in December as long as he stays in the manger. If they can get rid of the baby in the manger, they don't have to deal with the fact that a man called Jesus physically walked the earth. Considering this is the ACLU who has spearheaded abortion advocacy for decades, it's no surprise they are going after the baby in the manger. They don't want the baby Jesus! He can't develop into a 33 year old man ripping through Jerusalem silencing any lawyer, judge, educator, philosopher, religious sect, and pharisee that he came in contact with. They don’t want to let him out of Nazareth to grow into a man that turned over the tables of the religious crowd of his day. They can't allow him to mature into the Christ who told the young rich ruler the he “lacked on thing” and was in love with his possessions. The world can't deal with that Christ, especially at Christmas time.They don’t want to look at that Christ. They don’t want to look upon the face of the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah”, the “judge of all the world”?

I'm not up in arms trying to put the Christ back in Christmas acting as if I am persecuted by the materialistic Santa Claus followers. I'm up in arms about American Christians having their "rights" trampled specifically because other religions don't recognize the day. Since my childhood, it's always been "Christ"mas in my family. He's always been the reason for our season as far back as I can remember to my great grandparents. I rather enjoy the classy lights and nice candles my wife has on the altar, oops I mean the mantle to celebrate this time of year. It's nice to sip some egg nog every now and then listening to Christmas hymns. I enjoy explaining to my children what Christmas means to me and mommy. It's wonderful to see my childrens eyes light up with joy, yes, in material things, but within the proper setting. I can thank God for these things. I am "fully persuaded in my own mind". I "regard the day to the Lord". I'm not violating the scriptures with these things, and neither is any other family who celebrates Christmas to the Lord. If you "regardeth not the day", do just that and "regard it not."

Christmas to most people, Christian or not, in this country is nothing more than a traditional time to get with family, and, eat drink and be merry! It's different customs have been passed down from family to family since the early 1800's. They aren't worshiping Baal, or sitting in their living rooms offering insence to the Christmas tree, and pagan god's. People need to find another hobby horse. It's only an idol if you worship it! Some worship Santa Claus, some worship Christ, some worship the parties, some worship material possessions. Why do YOU celebrate the day?

The ACLU doesn't care about intents or family traditions. It's now becoming offensive to all non-Christians and must be banished. Christ cannot be recognized. Why can every other nationality that migrates to America bring their holy days, language, cultures, and traditions to our nation, but we can't have ours that have been observed since the early 1800's in America. You can have a Koran and place it in the toilet and it's a hate crime and the offender can face charges of hate crimes of criminal mischief. Then you can take a bible and place it in a toilet and it is an artistic expression and must be protected under "freedom of expression"? Again, it's not about celebrating or not celebrating, but having the "right" to celebrate if you so chose!

This final section is written under the influence of seasonal shopping angst. "Merry Christmas to all who want to have a merry Christmas, and only those who desire to have a Christmas, whatever style of Christmas that may be, have a Merry one on that non-descriptive day in December, and a happy new year!" That, should be hanging outside of a store! Oh, and happy Festivus for the rest of us!

ACLU ~ the "legendary birth of Jesus Christ"

The ACLU is back at it this year in places all over America for Churches or businesses having commemorative Christmas displays or in the ACLU's words, the "apparent promotion and endorsement of Christianity". They have been at it for years with claims of churches and businesses "advancing religion", and delivering "an overtly relgious message" with the Nativity scene. Why the attacks on the most celebrated religious day in history? People of all races, and nations celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas more than any other religious holiday in the world. No other religious day is brought into question by the ACLU, even if they did, it would not even come close on the cases they thrive on protecting any who are not Christians. Whether you agree on the date of the birth of Jesus Christ is less important than the fact that there is in fact a day that people celebrate it. Yet every year, the ACLU, who boast in the fact that they protect all peoples, religions, and cultures' rights, they hypocritically exclude Christianity from their list of the protected, on purpose! By their owns admission even! It's always the same rhetoric every year from the ACLU. The controversy that a manger scene causes just shows their true colors.

Today you have the Christians who argue roots of paganism and Baal bushes. Christians who take a "don't know don't care" attitude when it comes to Christmas. You have Christians who use Christmas solely as a specific day to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ. You have unbelievers and Christians alike who love good old Saint Nick, Rudolph, and the elves from the North Pole. They actually teach their families such fables. You have Atheist who won't Christmas abolished like it is slavery, and you have Atheist that really care less about the word "Christmas" and actually understand what a "right" is. You have the ACLU watchdog keeping Churches and Corporations in check, changing the meaning of what Christmas used to be.

Everyone is so worried about what the "other" people are doing with Christmas. What ever happened to minding your own business? I'm not even getting into the "should we celebrate, or should we not celebrate" debates going around in circles of Christian faith today. I'm not even getting into the fact that Christmas has become more about business, revenue, and the bottom dollars, and commercializing a day lessoning the more important meaning. The founding fathers didn't celebrate Christmas. It wasn't even recognized in America until the 1800's. I won't go into the fact that Jesus Christ was more likely to have been born in September than December. I'm not offended at those who don't celebrate it. People who choose to celebrate a day that recognizes the birth of their Savior, their God, should not be penalized if they say, "Merry Christmas". I could care less if someone celebrates it or doesn't celebrate it, but the point needs to be that they have a "right" to celebrate a day they "regard unto the Lord"!

It's so nice to live in a country where people respect your right to worship and celebrate isn't it? That's just not the case. People in their places of employment are told not to say Merry "Christ"mas anymore. Happy Holidays is the correct thing. Then, they say we are putting a "Holy"day on them. So now what, Happy December 25th? Happy Jesus's Birthday? I mean what do we do now. Happy non-descriptive December day? Are you celebrating the 25th? "Merry Day in December to All" "Remember, remember the 25th of December!"

They can't just let the world freely choose their means of celebration for Christmas can they? They have to dictate and define it! We freely allow them to NOT worship, or celebrate. We are not creating claims of religious persecution when we see other religions celebrate their holy days in America. Some people teach their kids about Jolly old St Nick, that he knows whether your naught or nice, and he has a reindeer friend named Rudolph, and oh, he has a red nose. And they fly all over the world in different time-zones hoping every house has a chimney, filling all the houses with Christmas Cheer and material possessions. But still, I'm not offended. We don't care about Rudolph. I don't care about the stands in the mall with some jolly big red-suited impersonator that knows if kids are naughty or nice! If my son sees Rudolph in the store, I don't run to the manager and tell him that "infringes on my Constitutional rights, or my first amendment right". I don't sue a mall for having a 100 foot Santa setting next to the entrance with a 50 ft long sleigh with "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" blaring on loud speakers. Do you think you could even get a lawyer for that? Could I call the ACLU and explain to them how my religious rights are being trampled due to being subjected to a religious figure whom I do not believe in. Or how Santa Claus delivers an "overtly religious message." We don't rage about the fact that millions of parents teach their children about Santa Claus (Sinter Klaas 17th Century, patron Saint of Children). The ACLU doesn't fear a jolly fat man from the north pole. He isn't a threat to them. We give them their rights. We respect their worship. We aren't offended if someones sends my family a card with Santa Claus on it. It has no bearing on my beliefs, nor will it affect what I teach to my children about the day.

On December 3rd, President Obama and family joined the nation as the President turned on the National Christmas tree this year at the White House. I guess he is sending a "overtly religious message" to all non-Christians. President Barack Obama is not separating Church and State very well is he. Then our President Obama is said to be having a "non-religious Christmas" with his family. No Christmas tree, no nativity scene in the East Room, no Christmas decorations. Yet, President Barack Obama calls himself a Christian? So he isn't having a Christmas tree, big deal. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. He obviously isn't a Christian, even if he was, he isn't bound to celebrate Decemeber 25th over any other day. No one is. No Christian is bound to celebrate the day of Christmas. It's really a matter of preference.

Atheist and those of the ACLU stripe claim they don't want to go into the store and be told they are a "Christian" by the salvation army at the door, or the people over the loud speaker by hearing Christmas songs with biblical overtone, or "Merry Christmas Shoppers". What about the Christian who does not want to hear music with offensive, derogatory, lewd and impure lyrics every time they go a store or mall. Could a Christian get a lawyer for that? Of course not! No one ever brings that up do they? The ACLU doesn't see how that infringes on our first amendment rights. It's so ridiculous. A church sets up a Christmas display that has hay bales from the Nativity sticking 5 inches into the city owned road, and it's suddenly the church infringing on the state. That's how they use the law to get these things removed. It isn't relevant anymore if homeowners, or private business owners do things within guidelines of the law and county and state permits. If it's deemed offensive by the ACLU, lawyers and judges, they are usually forced to comply. Firefighters this year in Boston removed a Christmas sign from their firehouse that had been there for 50 years. Why can't a homemade sign that says Merry Christmas on it be deemed a artistic expression, or even a "Religious Expression"? Because it had the word "CHRIST" in it, and as you have seen, the world system clearly will not allow that if they can do anything about it.

This is there definition, their own words; they see anything with Christmas in it as this:

"When the county displays this manger scene, which depicts the legendary birth of Jesus Christ, it places in imprimatur of the Macomb County government behind the Christian religious doctrine. This excludes citizens who are not Christian - Jew, Native Americans, practitioners, animist, etc., as well as the significant and growing population that is not religious at all."

They don't want Christ. They cry and claim that we are shoving "Christ"mas down their throats, and stoically stand against the celebration of Christmas, but then they take off days of work for Christmas with family. They accept many "Christ"mas gifts. They accept "Christ"mas cards. Don't be a hypocrite!

If you don't believe in "Christ"mas, then don't celebrate it. In any way shape or form. Don't drive your children down the road in the neighborhood that has lights and trees decorated to commemorate "Christ"mas. Don't watch or buy any Christmas movies with your favorite Hollywood actors. Don't have a double standard about your beliefs. Don't go to any Christmas parties. Don't go to any Christmas events if you are an atheist. Don't watch the "Nutcracker". If you believe in Atheism, why would you care if millions and millions of simpleton, believers, non-believers, cultures, societies, and nations celebrate a day to mark the birth of Jesus Christ. Just dispatch us as ignorant people. You can be the elect educated who are smarter then the rest of us. If you go to a store that has "O Holy Night" playing over the loud speaker, stay true to your principles, and atheistic, agnostic standards and get out. If you are in a bar Christmas Eve feeling sorry for your self because everyone is with family and friends, and the jukebox plays "O Come all ye Faithful" be true to your beliefs and leave and go call the ACLU immediately.

They only deceitfully use the Constitution for their agendas, and when "their rights" are being tread upon. They don't help the Christian when their rights are being tread upon. They use the law ONLY for their kind, to remove what THEY don't want to see. It becomes an issue of "Christians" of all protestant faiths, are now guilty of promoting and endorsing the Christian faith with a Nativity Scene that has proven historical figures, and cultural and religious relevance to a large portion of the worlds population. By doing so, they are offensively, oppressing the homosexuals, the Muslims, the Atheist, the Buddhist, the Hinduist, or any other nationality, religon, or culture that may drive down "Christmas Lane" on a cold December night in any town in America. All the pretty lights, wreaths, trees, decorations, and that offensive little child.

Safe schools czar recommended reading?

They aren't even attempting to hide intentions anymore. Their tactics are blatant, aggressive, and visible to anyone. Even while I purposefully take time away from the 4th estate (media), I see this so often that it alarms me. In another attempt to show you a pattern, I have stated before that this is not a "Christian", "right wing" stance against these groups of people, but a more parental stance against this type of gross disregard for those who are different from them. Meaning, those who "CHOSE" to be straight are now the scoffers and dissenters.

Kevin Jennings, the safe school czar, and founder of GLSEN from 1990-2008 (gay, lesbian, and straight education network) recommends books that are far more explicit than the average run of the mill LGBT propaganda finding their way into our schools. (See: "The Dignity for all students?")

GLSEN says it "works to create a welcoming atmosphere for homosexual students in schools, and that effort includes recommending books for students of all ages." What about the awkward atmosphere that it creates with the majority of straight students across America? They didn't have a choice in the matter.

The blame is shifted in the article above by GLSEN saying it is the parents' responsibility to review these books. Do they not even notice the decline of parental authority in western civilization? Have any of these people been to a mall in America lately? Children today are a MTV generation that hold disdain and contempt for their parents if they do apply rules and values in the home, so they will automatically trust anyone but their parents, namely the educator, counsellor, or the politician. People will use anything to justify everything. The child thinks, "I mean, if these are allowed in schools, they are okay right?" You are influencing young minds who don't even yet understand the impact of their own decisions. They don't fully comprehend right and wrong yet. Who would influence children this way with these books?

"Parents should review these books for subject matter"!?! Hypocrites! What a irresponsible thing for GLSEN to say, as if to cast blame, when they are the ones selecting the "recommended" material! Essentially they are not to blame. And when they are to blame, they are just being "persecuted" by hate-mongering conservatives. This is the man that has "safe school" in his title! They decide on our childrens' approved reading material! These are books for children that they approve for education? Why would these be approved for children in the first place? These are on an "approved", "recommended reading list"! There is no innocent Penguin with Penguin implication here! (See Penguins and Perversion). The cards are down, and the chips have fallen. They have shown what they truly want all literature to be. "It's artful and expressive." This link of their list is truly explicit and graphic both in word and photo. There is no denying the intentions of the writers or those who support these pieces of literature!

Would any parent want their children subjected to subversive, lewd, pornographic material hours after they darken the doors steps of their schools? Not to mention the ages of the targeted audience with these books. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want same-sex unions, it's of no consequence anymore. Whether it's the 3rd graders or the high schoolers, they should have the freedom to choose, without opposition, the opposite sex the same way that gays and lesbians now have their freedom to choose the same sex. The old trends are dying out. Straight kids are now faced with fitting in with their peers or being a bigoted, hateful, religious outcast.

I'm so tired of the true dangers that grow everyday for youth in America. Their life truly "is among the unclean" They have targets on their backs. Their choices are already being made for them in several schools. The influx of homosexual acceptance is more rampant than ever before and only evolving more and more each year. As stated before on this blog, it is no longer the case of homosexuals having rights and being able to freely practice their chosen "lifestyle". They have had this for years now. They may not have the legal right to marry, but no one is being persecuted in the streets. These excuses are not viable reasons to flood our school systems with extremely graphic LGBT material in an attempt to bring "balance". No lesbian or gay student is being forcibly fed "Christian" rhetoric or ideologies. There is no "epidemic" of hate crimes against gays and lesbians. I read one article where the author said, "Gays and lesbians in America are victimized in hate crimes twice as often as blacks, and numerous studies show these attacks are much more brutal than most assaults." It is simply not the case, and is actually the other way around. In 2007, when gays and lesbians did not have nearly as much support for their movement as they do now, the FBI released these findings. When broken down, what you find out is this:

1,521 victims (Sexual orientation hate crimes)

335 - intimidation

448 - pushing, or shoving - no physical injury

242 - aggravated assault

242 out of 855,856 aggravated assault cases (0.028275785%)

Where is the epidemic?

Many of these cases are nothing more then slurs and over sensitivity about "their rights". They complain about America and its intolerance, but fail to realize that they can flaunt their homosexuality practically as much as they want without fear of arrest, slander or persecution. This fact is clearly seen in today's headlines. They have never had it so good in human history. They don't have to hide, they are out of the closets and obviously in our schools.

They have removed the Bible from libraries and prayer from the school system. They aren't required to say the Pledge of Allegiance, they aren't required to read Sunday school stories. They aren't required to pray with fellow classmates. Actual crimes against homosexuals are on a major decline unless you live in predominate Muslim countries or believe the biased, unfounded information from their own fear-inducing websites. Not to mention the lack of facts and findings on these sites. Freedom in America is actually working very well for the homosexuals. In fact, when you look at the world spectrum of abuses and crimes carried out against any person of the LGBT persuasion, America is a small blip. Are they even aware of what some countries have done in the past and present to homosexuals? They should be grateful to a nation that is even considering giving them a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. This same nation, not 200 years ago in no way shape or form accepted this rhetoric. The definitions have changed. The homosexual movement has made great advancement! This is all methodical in it's process; well thought out indoctrination to desensitize America to tear down the walls of distinction between men and women and to blur right and wrong.

Even when their cause is thriving, they will still find delusional oppression and the need to event bigotry where it doesn't exist. Disagreement or disapproval is not bigotry! I say give them their "rights", let them marry one another. Then, maybe they won't see a need to forcefully shove it in the faces of our children while being protected by their twisted definition of our "first amendment rights". But that won't make a difference will it? They will keep scratching, clawing, and pushing until anyone with values, or morals questions the "fruit of their works", then we are merely discarded as the dregs of society under their boot.

With fear of lawsuits and stiff fines, nearly every corporation in America, private and small businesses a like, say nothing anymore. We now live in a time where you WILL get terminated from a job if you speak out against any LGBT persons or peoples. The military doesn't care anymore. The colleges don't care anymore. Washington doesn't care anymore. And even some churches in America don't care anymore. If they did care, or if it did bother them for personal or religious reasons, they can't say anything. All the advancement, all of the battles they have won, the endless appeals of Prop 8, the repeated claims of persecution comparable to Nazi-Germany, the support from Hollywood and the Entertainment industries, and they still blatantly publish and promote their propaganda for all of America's children, and view such propaganda as non-optional.

They have fought against not having the right to choose their lifestyle, while now they are forcibly denying any right of others. They will appeal propositions until they have changed them in every state. We are now the freaks that don't accept them. We are now the fruits and the nuts. We are now the weird people who need to get with the program. "It's 2009", right? Isn't that what Adam Lambert said? One has to wonder what credentials impressed President Obama for him to put Kevin Jennings in the role of "savior" of our schools and our youth. Especially considering his previously reported oh history involving statutory rape allegations and drug abuse. What a fine pick for the future of American generations coming out of our schools. Drug Free and Safe School czar!?

In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I would actually prefer that at this point! Instead of fear of prison or fines, "live how you want!" If my next door neighbor wants to teach THEIR own children about the homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered ways, I guess that's ultimately their business... but it is not the schools! If I want to teach my child purity, values, morals, and righteousness, it's my right as well....not the schools! That has been clear since 1963. I'm not talking about conversation, questions, debate, or discussion among students and their peers, but curriculum and literature that is placed before their eyes!

Standing against the homosexual movement is now portrayed to be the same as how Nazi Germany stood against the Jew. No homosexual is being forced to enter an incinerator in America. Here in California, homosexuals are afforded practically every legal right except the title of "marriage". There is no widespread persecution. I for one don't much care if they want to live the way they live. Honestly! I disagree with it and do not condone it, but realize they have that right under our governments definition of our laws. I don't see a gay man in the grocery store and treat him with disdain or disrespect. I don't key their cars, or mock them openly. I have to carry on conversations with them like any other person. They are here! And the way the world is going, they are staying. These are simply the times in which we live. I will discuss "issues" with them and will answer truthfully and honestly while doing so as politely as possible. Debate is healthy, can encourage truth, and expose error.

What I do take offense at is how the double standard is now ignored. How the LGBT and all the other like-minded organizations are infringing on the "freedom of choice" of those who are different from them. That right is now threatened more and more with these movements and these high positions in government. Kevin Jennings, the "safe schools czar", who before his appointing to his current position under President Obama's administration, was the head honcho of the GLSEN for 18 years. Eighteen years is along time to come up with a recommended reading list, and boy, did he ever!

It just kills them that they don't have the right to marry. They jump to "equal rights" and our documents to justify their immorality. Our documents are not there to protect you from what you deem to be a right. They were brought to fruition for a law abiding people. Your rights are only within the law. Why would you give a law breaker rights? That's why law-breakers are in prison. They are a danger to society, and many of their "rights" are taken away. They think it should be legal to introduce this material to children. They should be locked up. If your child was at a bus stop, and some man came to him with this kind of literature, what would you do? This is their not-so-hidden intent. They want to define what marriage is, they define bigotry, they define our documents, they define our nation. We have the "right" to be married, because we are male and female. That's why marriage was instituted for goodness sakes. For a man and a woman. Why do they want something that was established in every civilized culture on Earth for a man and woman?

If it truly is a "rainbow revolution" that you are bringing, get your own titles. Leave "marriage" to us simple minded people because we are just living in the past and don't know any better. Let us keep our old societal customs and traditions that you mock, but want at the same time. If you want to have your unions, by all means, go ahead. You can even name them something snazzy! I wish you the best of luck. But don't push your manner of life down my throat, or anyone else, especially while claiming the "education card". Don't apply your way of thinking to what has been established for thousands of years because you feel you "deserve" it, or the definition of a word has changed. In 1806, the first definition of the word "marriage" simply stated, "the joining of a man and a woman". By 2009, this last year, all dictionaries now have secondary definitions to include gender neutral language and same sex unions. What will it be 10 years from now?

American Idol Adam Lambert "It's a shame"

"It's a shame..." That was Adam Lambert's response to the backlash he has received from the conservative movements and the religious right. In this years' AMA, the same boy who once sang along side Val Kilmer in the Ten Commandments Musical as Joshua, was walking a grown male dancer on his knees like a dog on a leash. He was also clad in black leathers with bondage flair prating about kissing his male keyboard player, fondling a female dancer while mimicking a sexual act, and singing lyrics that can make the aged blush. He thinks it's a shame "because I think there is a double standard going on in the entertainment community right now." So apparently, if the likewise morally challenged Britney Spears and Madonna can do these things, why can't he?

To hear him explain this stuff like he is a victim, or that he is somehow taken back by this response is revealing of the man's nature. "It's a shame..." he said. What is a shame? The fact that people thought his performance was lewd, unacceptable, and contemptible? Let's not forget what the word "shame" means.

Shame - A painful sensation excited by a consciousness of guilt, or of having done something which injures reputation; or by of that which nature nature or modesty prompts us to conceal. Shame is particularly excited by the disclosure of actions which, in the view of men, are mean and degrading. Hence it it is often or always manifested by a downcast look or by blushes, called confusion of face.

Shamefully - With indignity or indecency; in a manner that may cause shame.

Shameless - Destitute of shame; wanting modesty; impudent; brazen-faced; immodest; audacious; insensible to disgrace. (this is more of what I was thinking)

"Female performers have been doing this for years -- pushing the envelope about sexuality -- and the minute a man does it, everybody freaks out. We're in 2009; it's time to take risks, be a little more brave, time to open people's eyes, and if it offends them, then maybe I'm not for them."

"It's a shame" because we are blind, and we need to have our eyes opened. Opened to what? "Pushing the envelope about a man's sexuality". I can remember being shocked that Adam Lambert was in the running for America's favorite singer/American Idol several months ago. I was not shocked at him so much...he is a dime a dozen, and just the newest one (Marylin Manson, Howard Stern, Ozzy, Judas Priest, etc). I was more so shocked at how much of a following he had.

After his lewd "performance" at the AMA's, he is catching expected backlash from the "religous right". I didn't watch it of course, and never would waste 3 hours of my time on an awards show that presents these modern day "freedom of expression artists" (see link for explanation) with awards for best song, video, album, etc.

My wife heard about this performance last night showed me the video (she likes helping me find inspiration I guess) to see if I was going to write about this guy. I knew who he was, and was already familar with what he had promised to bring to America. So I cautiously watched the video (thanks to the wonderful world of youtube). I have to say I wasn't as shocked as I thought I would be because I steeled myself. During the rehearsal, he did none of the shocking acts that were actually in the "performance". It was a total premeditated "shock attack". His intention was to shock people, and to be applauded by the likes of all the other deviants such as Perez Hilton.

"And I'm hoping to break down that double standard with this number."

The religious right buys into the "shock factor" and in turn, through their large groups, FOX news and conservative movements, they just gives him more nationalized publicity. It's so easy to fall into this snare. Don't assume Hollywood is ignorant. They get up at arms calling for this action and that action. "Protest his albums, make his pockets hurt, fine him..." Why? You think it will have any bearing on slowing sales in the same nation that has been killing children for years, demeaning God by promoting evolution for decades in our schools, and all of the other unbiblical, immoral, unholy atrocities that are committed daily in America? It's like going after the apple on a apple tree. You have to cut the tree down. Don't waste your time protesting these people. There are more important things in life to devote your time to than Adam Lambert. I submit to you that in this time of recession and financial woes in this nation, his sales will skyrocket regardless of people not having money, nor will the events that occurred at the AMA have any negative bearing on his career as a "glam-god". This is what America wants. They want King Lambert and Queen Lady Gaga.

Who's world do you think this is? It's like when Christians, Protestants, Catholics, and even the Vatican all came together as one and were protesting "Brokeback Mountain" at the theaters worldwide. It didn't even make a dent, but rather far exceeded the producers expectations of their profits. We made them richer by protesting!

Who are you trying to change? The majority of people going to see these movies or these performers are not Bible believers. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing. They are "children of the world". "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them" - I John 4:5 Those who have Christ, we need to remember that we are pilgrims and strangers. Do you not consider the "kings" we have put into power as a nation? This is Satan's world, and if people in the entertainment industry in Hollywood want to have public orgies on stage on live TV in 2009, it is because our "kings" collectively have agreed to allow them to behave this way in the entertainment and music industry since the 1950's. With the documents of our nation now being twisted to give them ANY "unalienable right" they want, what change can we bring to stop the onslaught of sin and vileness without being regarded as the enemy of their freedoms? It's so backwards! I've said it before, this nonsense was not permitted just 60 years ago in America.

Adam Lambert defensively turns it into a "rights" issue. He wants "equality" at the expense of morality. He's not doing anything wrong, he just wants to fit in like Madonna! Please. The selfishness of Hollywood and her like-minded minions is so detrimental. It's ironic how this young man who once portrayed a biblical character has no concept of "none of us liveth to himself and no man dieth to himself". He has no understanding how that he is "justifying the wicked", and while doing so, he is leading a multitude of twisted fans, young and old, into a new fad of trendy, Manson-esque rock glam with a no-limit, no-borders, and a no-morals reality. Prepare yourselves for a surge of bandwagon glam and goth kids.

P.S. If anyone was speculating over the man's preferred "sexual orientation", (not likely anymore) or possibly who this guy is, the wikipedia (info site) has the attached picture of Adam Lambert, coincidentally, in front of our nation's flag. Interesting how he's portrayed isn't it?

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Prove all things, hold fast that which is right.

LGBT's Love, Honor, Cherish, and Reject

I had stated in a previous post that the opponents of Prop 8 were not going to wait for long this time to appeal. Our judicial system works in such a way that even if the people have spoken, which they decisively have (see image - red is for prop 8, grey is against prop 8), it can be done all over again. The question remained, would they wait until 2012, or begin sooner. That was answered today as the website"Love, Honor, Cherish" stated that they will be moving forward to repeal Prop 8. This site is the go-to website for all LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgendered) supporters. The petition is available for download, and the site also contains several articles and videos promoting and encouraging same sex marriage.

There is actually a section entitled, "Religion",where they spend time discounting and disproving anything God said derogatory or negatively about same sex unions, and even go so far as to say the "the new testament is more affirming of same sex love" by showing passages where the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (John) had his head on the chest of Jesus Christ. These are nothing more than attacks on morality, and Christians to promote and protect their lascivious lifestyles. Following the verses in the gospels that he lists, the writer, David Zelman actually states, "Jesus loves men, and is not afraid to be physical with them".

Prior to such unlearned statements from a unregenerate man trying to explain the doctrines of the bible, he listed many OT references, and merely explained them away due to failed traditions, and out-dated laws of men. He typically and expectedly goes to the story of David and Jonathan and their close friendship, with pro-gay comments, but then list verses about sodomites being removed out of the land by righteous kings with zero comments. Why not comment on some of the greatest men and kings in the Bible, who routinely removed the sodomites out of the land? A homosexual or sodomite attempting to teach the dispensations and doctrines of the bible is like a med student attempting to lecture interns on the intricacies of brain surgery. It's interesting to point out when he gets past the gospels, and into the books such as Romans, Jude, and Revelation, he has no explanation but only list the verses. He says nothing. He then hangs himself by stating:

"The bible is a book to be interpreted and understood in the context of the time it was written."

So he understands the difference between Levitical law, and the gospel of the grace of God right? No, he ignores any New testament condemnation of homosexuality, and further more, has no explanation for the existence of such passages. This is the game. Portray any opponent of gay-marriage as an uneducated, dumb, simpleton Christian stuck in the past. The video on the same page shows a man and woman coming to the justice of the peace to get married. They jokingly portray this couple being slapped with all these OT laws. Some examples aren't even biblically founded, but rather referenced the time when wicked men practiced the act of "Droit de seigneur" or "Jus primae noctis" which means the "lord's right" allowing the ruling lord of an estate or lands to take the virginity of the virgins, or have the right to the first night. Amazingly, they use this to indicate it is from the bible.

"Love honor and Cherish" is nothing more than another LGBT mask to hide the true agenda. It's purpose is to educate by way of deception, and to promote by way of discrediting. Make Christians look like bigoted idiots with out-dated laws and references to morality contained within the pages of the bible while ignoring context. Any verse of scripture that is against homosexuality is to be explained away and tossed.

"Any person of “faith” who uses the text to condemn, persecute, or dehumanize homosexuals and deny them their rights is randomly justifying a pre-existing prejudice."

In their eyes, we are not afforded the right to disagree. if we do, it is immediately tossed up as prejudice. We are de-humanizing them!

Do you realize what he just said? Any verse of scripture from a bible that condemns or, persecutes homosexuals is guilty of being prejudice. Another article has a sermon from a pastor of a Church in Pasadena California that goes so far as to say the sin of sodom was inhospitality. Inhospitality? Really? They don't even have to have their research documented or thoroughly prepared. This is a "pastor"! They know people read and accept instead of reading and searching a matter out. David Zelman actually said that the lesson we get from Sodom is that "men should not have sex with male angels" I'm not making this stuff up. Read it!

Genesis 13:13 But the men of SODOM were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" Genesis 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out, that we may know them" (if there is any doubt what "know them "means look at Gen 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived") Two verses later, Lot pleads with them "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" Inhospitality, yeah, I guess I see that in there. Sigh...

I Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the inhospitalities of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

He explains away Leviticus because there are other abominations being committed that were listed in Leviticus as well as homosexuality. Ok? Does that change the fact that it's still considered an abomination in the Old and New testaments. Read the article! These people don't even understand their own statements. He explains away Leviticus because of the outdated "abominations" such as using incense improperly or eating pork, but neglects to tell you that many of these laws and commandments found in Leviticus are "ready to vanish away" due to the "new testament"(Hebrews 8: and 9:). Leviticus was written in 1440 BC by OT Jews to OT Jews. Leviticus dealt with the "Levitical Priesthood".

This man continues, and never deals with any verse in the NT. Why is that? Because they can't explain it away by merely referencing old Jewish customs found in Leviticus. They don't even understand simple Sunday School theology, how that we are no longer under the law but under grace. The LGBT has been documented several times in previous posts if you really desire to remove the mask, and see them for what they are. Keep in mind that I can't even post other websites dealing with the LGBT due to content found on such sites. Love, Honor, Cherish? As long as you don't disagree!