The Christian Way to deal with Sin in the Camp

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2015

The Old Covenant is the blessings and curses of the Law of Moses. The penalty for the curse for breaking God’s directive was a justice that Christians and Westerners would be horrified to see executed in this day and age.

Classic Sin in the Camp Solution

4 So about three thousand men went up there from the people, but they fled before the men of Ai. 5 And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men, for they chased them from before the gate as far as Shebarim, and struck them down on the descent; therefore the hearts of the people melted and became like water.

6 Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads.

10 So the Lord said to Joshua: “Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?11 Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. For they have even taken some of the accursed things, and have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among their own stuff. 12 Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they have become doomed to destruction. Neither will I be with you anymore, unless you destroy the accursed from among you.

20 And Achan answered Joshua and said, “Indeed I have sinned against the LordGod of Israel, and this is what I have done: 21 When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. And there they are, hidden in the earth in the midst of my tent, with the silver under it.”

22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and there it was, hidden in his tent, with the silver under it. 23 And they took them from the midst of the tent, brought them to Joshua and to all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the Lord. 24 Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor. 25 And Joshua said, “Why have you troubled us? The Lord will trouble you this day.” So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. (Joshua 7: 4-6; 10-12; 20-25 NKJVAll of Joshua 7)

The difficulty of sin seems to have caught up with falsely imprisoned Pastor Saeed Abedini who currently is incarcerated in an Iranian jail subject to abuse and persecution for being a Christian. The sin is not given in specifics but in generalities described as marital problems with Saeed’s wife Naghmeh. Mrs. Abedini has let the cat of the bag that Pastor Saeed has been dealing with porn addiction which has caused unspecified emotional and abuse issues in the marriage.

Since the cat is out of the bag Naghmeh has announced she is suspending her public efforts in trying to get her husband Saeed Abedini released from an Iranian jail. I suspect she doesn’t want to deal with humiliating media questions that journalists will now be more interested in personal info on the Abedini marriage more than on freeing Saeed.

The secular media is quite unforgiving when they smell a Christian public figure has personal issues that Christianity views as immoral. Such media trolls have a tendency write anything that places Christianity in a bad light. Why? When Christianity is denigrated publicly the theme is pushed that Christian morality is antiquated and time to be placed in the history books as not essential in a lifestyle of living.

If Christianity is outdated than the concept of a Creator God is then erroneous. Thus moral stands against baby-killing in womb is outdated. The practice of homosexuality labeled as an abomination by God Almighty is okay the Almighty does not exist. Ungodly sexual practices (e.g. adultery, pornography, bestiality, polygamy, prostitution, pre-marital sex, man-boy sex and on and on) can be equated with the norm as long as a greater quantity of people begins to view the practices as not socially denigrating to societal norms.

When a devoted Christian slips into errors that non-practicing Christians and non-Christians are easily susceptible to, then those that condemn Christian/Biblical morality partake into a feeling of self-justification in their own choices.

New Covenant Good News to the curse of the Law

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1 John 1: 5-10 NKJV)

Here’s some Good News for Christians. Don’t listen to people more interested in self-justification rather than in a Redeemer that justifies those who breaks God’s holiness with His own Blood because that which is unredeemed no not what they do. So what about those who have embraced Redemption and should know better?

More Good News: Redemption makes the old twisted nature into a new creation with the stamp of Jesus Christ certifying the newness of life. But, there is more Redemption yet to come. A Redemption accepting humanity has not yet received full Redemption. Neither our human biological flesh nor our human soul in which sensory knowledge still reigns supreme are Redeemed. The union of the new creation spirit-man with the Holy Spirit of God in Christ is the down payment promise that the whole man (and woman) will be Redeemed.

From Suffering to Glory

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. (Romans 8: 18-25 NKJV)

Assurance of the Resurrection

5 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5: 1-5, 14-19 NKJV)

Ephesians 1:13-14

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[a] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Ephesians 4:22-24

22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 1: 13-14; 4: 22-24 NKJV)

When is that Promise to be realized? At the Second Coming of Christ when He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords to restore the whole of humanity and the whole earth to unfettered communion with God Almighty. Knowledge of God’s Will become as instinctive as human thought is in the present.

So what does that mean for Pastor Saeed and Naghmeh Abedini? It means nothing for the nosy particularly for nosy judgmental Christians who need to be just as concerned about the beam in their own eye rather than the speck of wood not clearly seen by the human eye in another. It means everything for the Abedini family of which repentance and restoration is always available to Believers in the Redemptive Blood of Jesus the Son of God and Savior. The process is between the Abedinis and God with the guidance of the man (or woman) of God in which has the spiritual responsibility of oversight by the Anointing of the Holy Spirit.

I am not a part of that process and those reading this probably not a part that process either.

I still pray for Pastor Saeed Abedini’s protection from Christian-hating Muslim Iranians and deliverance back home to the USA – the land of the free and home of the brave.

JRH 11/13/15

Please Support NCCR


Pastor Abedini’s Wife Cites Stress in Suspending Public Efforts for Husband’s Freedom


November 13, 2015

CBN News

CBN Video


Naghmeh Abedini is pulling back her public fight to see her husband Pastor Saeed Abedini freed from an Iranian prison.

Christianity Today reports the emotional stress of the effort, along with “abuse” issues in her marriage before and since Saeed’s imprisonment, have taken a toll. CBN News contacted the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the Abedini family, for a response.

“In recent days, Naghmeh — Pastor Saeed’s wife — has revealed that she is dealing with some very serious personal issues inside her family. She has asked for privacy and prayer. We are respecting her request. The ACLJ will not have any comment on the personal issues that she is addressing,” the ACLJ told CBN News.

The CT article is based mostly on two emails Abedini sent to supporters revealing the problems. In those emails she listed marital problems, including “physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse [through Saeed’s addiction to pornography].”

The ACLJ gave CBN News the following statement from Naghmeh Abedini:

“I regret having sent the emails. I was under great psychological and emotional distress. I am now taking time off to heal and to rest and to spend much needed time with my kids. I would appreciate for those who care about Saeed and our family to give us time for rest and healing and to respect our privacy.”

Meanwhile, The ACLJ told CBN News it remains committed to seeing Saeed’s freedom.

“What we are focused on is this: bringing home an American pastor who has been wrongly imprisoned in Iran because of his faith. We know that Pastor Saeed remains in grave danger in prison where he continues to be beaten and psychologically abused by Iranian guards and remains in need of medical care,” the ACLJ said.

“We continue to pray for Naghmeh, Pastor Saeed, and their family. We will continue our work — in this country and abroad — to secure the freedom of this U.S. citizen,” the ACLJ statement concluded.

Naghmeh also asked for prayer to continue for Saeed and their family. CT reported she pointed out that Saeed still shares his faith in Jesus while imprisoned — and that she calls her husband a “treasure.”

“But that does not mean he has not been battling with his own demons which I am believing that he can be freed of,” CT quoted from Naghmeh’s writings.

“I will continue to pray for my husband’s release and advocate for him as he suffers in an Iranian prison for his Christian faith. I would also ask others to join me in continuing to pray for his release,” Naghmeh said in her statement to CBN News.

Saeed Abedini has spent more than three years in an Iranian prison simply for his Christian faith. He is still being mistreated, beaten and denied medical care.

Despite Naghmeh’s revelations, several groups that have stood with the family said they will continue to speak out on her husband’s behalf.

“Regardless of any struggles that Pastor Saeed may be experiencing it doesn’t change the fact that the faith community needs to be a powerful and passionate voice calling for his immediate release and standing with our persecuted brothers and sisters,” said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who leads the Christian Defense Coalition.

Mahoney has led several prayer vigils across the country and met with political leaders to try and secure Pastor Abedini’s release.

Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, has also been actively involved in Pastor’s Abedini’s case.

“It’s hard to imagine the pressures that souls like Nagmeh and Saeed Abedini endure,” Schenck said in a statement released by his office. He reminded people who’ve prayed for the Abedini family that “they are not super heroes, just regular people facing the same problems we all do, only under extreme circumstances.”

Mahoney and Schenck will hold a press conference later on Friday to show their continued support for Pastor Abedini.

“God calls us to stand on principle and justice not personalities,” Mahoney said.

Meanwhile, reaction to Naghmeh Abedini’s personal family trauma on social media has been mixed.

Robin G., writing on CBN News’ Facebook page, said, “Something about his just doesn’t feel right in my spirit.”

Jan H. wrote, “I’m sad that she didn’t keep this private. What is the point in exposing this to the whole world?”

Jenny J. said, “This is absolutely heart breaking. I am shocked.”

Nadege S. added, “It is easy to accuse a man who is locked up thousands of miles away in a dungeon.”

Meanwhile, another poster, Teresa C., warned people not to judge the Abedini’s writing: “We don’t know the whole story and it is not for us to know.”

The emotional and psychological trauma of enduring a hostage or kidnapping situation can be extremely difficult for families and loved ones involved.

“There’s a lot of studies that have shown that families incur post-traumatic stress at the same rate that hostages do,” Chris Voss, founder and CEO of The Black Swan Group, a company that solves business negotiations with hostage negotiation strategies said. “The reality is that this is the family’s darkest hour.”

Voss is a 24-year veteran of the FBI’s negotiation team and was the lead international kidnapping negotiator for the agency.

Voss spoke with CBN News’ George Thomas about the pressures that prolonged, illegal imprisonment can put on families. Click below to watch the interview.

CBN Video: Fmr. Hostage Negotiator Discusses Abedini Imprisonment


“When someone is a hostage, the fear and trauma is overwhelming and unending they don’t know when it is going to end and it is a really horrifying experience for families,” Voss told CBN News from his office in California. “Families are held hostage as much as the hostages are.”

In a Washington Post, editorial Naghmeh Abedini wrote about the emotional toll the ordeal was taking on her family.

“The continued imprisonment of Saeed has taken a very emotional and tragic toll on our family,” Naghmeh said. “My kids have had to grow up without a father. Saeed has missed so many birthdays, anniversaries, and special occasions.”

Abedini said since the US and Western countries signed a nuclear deal with Iran, her husband’s physical condition has gotten worse.

“Saeed was being beaten and interrogated by Iranian guards in prison,” Abedini wrote in the Washington Post. “During that encounter, guards interrogated Saeed and used a stun gun on him. Although there was no detailed information provided, Saeed was told he would face additional new charges, possibly extending his eight-year prison sentence.”

Voss says in such cases where a hostage victim endures great physical and psychological torture at the hands of their captors, families back home also feel the pain.

“What we have a tendency to do as human beings is that we imagine it in a very horrific fashion so the people that love him [Pastor Abedini] and the people that care about him are really putting themselves through hell trying to get him out, thinking about what he must be going through. It is truly the families [sic] darkest hour,” Voss said.

CBN News will continue to update


The Christian Way to deal with Sin in the Camp

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2015


Pastor Abedini’s Wife Cites Stress in Suspending Public Efforts for Husband’s Freedom


© Copyright 2015. The Christian Broadcasting Network.

How Many More Moral Dominoes Fall?

John R. Houk

© August 24, 2015

Tell me, does anyone recognize any of these moral condemnations found in Leviticus 18 that is considerable acceptable and not heinous in today’s American society?

6 ‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord.

19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. 20 Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her. 21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (Leviticus 18: 6, 19-23 NKJV)

Verse six addresses incest. The verses from six to eighteen specifically addresses the various incestuous relationships that God Almighty condemns as breaking His divine moral standards for living for God rather than against God.

Verse nineteen addresses having sex (with your own wife – duh) with a woman while on her period is not approved by God.

Verse twenty addresses having sex with a woman married to someone else; i.e. adultery. Yeah I know, this Scripture doesn’t address a woman sleeping with another woman’s husband. But again – duh – do the math.

Verse twenty-one addresses taking your babies and sacrificing them alive (as in burning them to death in homage to the fake-god or perhaps demon entity, Molech. ALSO in the same verse – as in the same breath – DO NOT profane the NAME of GOD.

Verse twenty-two addresses male homosexuality and again – duh – by doing the math and utilizing other Scriptures in the Word of God (viz. Romans), female homosexuality or lesbianism is also an abomination.

Verse twenty-three says for males or females having sex with animals is perversion.

Acceptance of Incest in American Society

Incest is criminalized in 48 out of 50 States. The fact that two states does not criminalize consensual adult incest of whatever nature is a disturbing example of how something defined as immoral in the eyes of God is slowly normalized in a society that sheds the moral authority of God’s standard. Without rhetoric but simply an examination of State laws and incest, here is an excerpt pertaining to the legal issue in the USA:

The crime of incest is committed when people who are related to one another engage in sexual activity, get married, or live together as man and wife. … In the United States, child sexual abuse is always a crime, and incest between adults is a crime in all but a few states.

How is Incest Defined?

Incest is defined differently in different states. In some states, incest is limited to sexual activity. In other states, people can commit the crime of incest by engaging in sexual activity, marrying, or living together romantically.

Generally, in the U.S., incest laws ban intimate relations between children and parents, brothers and sisters, and grandchildren and grandparents. Some states also ban relations between aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Laws vary as to half- and step-relatives and adopted relatives. Second and third cousins are generally free to marry and first cousins are free to be together in most states.

Some state’s incest laws are limited to heterosexual sexual relationships. For example, in Georgia, incest is defined as sexual intercourse between fathers and daughters and mothers and sons, including step-children; siblings and half-siblings; grandparents and grandchildren; aunts and nephews; and uncles and nieces. In North Dakota, incest includes not only sexual activity, but also marriage or cohabitation between first cousins, as well as people who are more closely related than first cousins, whether whole or half-relatives.

Is Incest Between Adults a Crime?

Almost all states criminalize incest between adult relatives. Some legal scholars have argued that incest laws as applied to adults should be rethought. Rhode Island repealed its criminal (adult) incest statute in 1989, and New Jersey law imposes no criminal penalties for incest where both parties are adults …


Incest between adults is a felony, punishable by five years’ to life imprisonment, depending on state law. Incest against children is punished just as severely, if not more so, as other cases of child sexual abuse, usually by lengthy prison terms or life in prison. … (Incest Laws and Criminal Charges; By Ave Mince-Didier; Criminal Defense Lawyer – published by NOLO)

Adultery in USA

Adultery used to be so morally outrageous that it was a criminal offense. Not so today. The worst consequence for adultery today are the monetary damages are translated for the cheater – in courts the loser is usually the husband but not always these days. The largest consequence is if there are minor children involved – children lose no matter who the cheater is.

… As Eleanor Barkhorn reported last week, a survey of 1,535 American adults found that 91 percent considered extramarital infidelity to be morally wrong …

While this same poll showed growing acceptance of divorce, pre-marital sex, and having babies out of wedlock, the 91 percent disapproval rate for cheating is nearly twice what it was 40 years ago, when similar surveys showed that only half of American adults believed that having an affair was always wrong. As political scientist John Sides notes in a recent detailed analysis of changing attitudes towards adultery, “Americans, and especially better educated Americans, have become less accepting of adultery with the passage of time.” Pointing out the simultaneously growing acceptance for ending an unhappy union, Sides summarizes what he sees as our contemporary attitude: “If you’re in an unhappy marriage, don’t cheat. Just get divorced.” (How Marital Infidelity Became America’s Last Sexual Taboo; By HUGO SCHWYZER; The Atlantic; 5/29/13)

The USA Today ran an article in 2014 that implied it was shocking that twenty-one States still had criminal laws associated with adultery. It is this kind of media attitude that directs Americans away from Godly morals and to whatever is morally relative in the norm of Secular Humanism.

The New York Times ran an article in 2012 on adultery based on the high profile case of David Petraeus getting caught in an adulterous honey jar with mistress Paula Broadwell. The article goes on to the shocking fact that adultery is still on the criminal codes of States and U.S. Territories to the tune of twenty-four. Then uses the term American Exceptionalism in a negative connotation rather than positive:

This is yet another example of American exceptionalism: in nearly the entire rest of the industrialized world, adultery is not covered by the criminal code. (Adultery, an Ancient Crime That Remains on Many Books; By ETHAN BRONNER; NYT; 11/14/12)

you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech

Among Judaic theologians there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not the Children of Israel burnt their babies to death or simply ritualized a symbolic gesture of passing babies quickly through fire in dedication to a deity other than God almighty. Most theological scholars of both Judaism and Christianity agree that some kind of sacrificial death was enacted on babies regardless of burning to death or merely murdering the tike in the name of a foreign god. The Judaic view can be read at the Jewish Virtual Library or the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Here is an excerpt that is easy to read and represents a Christian perspective:

Molech was an ancient god worshiped by the people neighboring Israel during Old Testament times. While much about Molech’s nature and origin are uncertain, the Bible mentions Molech on eight occasions, providing some context regarding the problems associated with this ancient god.

The first mention of Molech is in Leviticus 18:21 in which the Lord commanded, “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” The worship of Molech clearly involved ritual child sacrifice, something God’s people were not to practice. This act was punishable by death according to Leviticus 20:2 which states, “Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death.”

Further, child sacrifice to Molech was considered profanity against God’s holy name. Leviticus 20:3 says, “I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.” Not only were those who sacrificed their children to be stoned to death, those who ignored such a sacrifice would be abandoned by God (Leviticus 20:5).

The final mention of Molech in the Old Testament is found in God’s words to Jeremiah. “They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:34-35).

Molech represents the most repulsive of acts in God’s sight, the ritual sacrifice of children to a pagan god, which was condemned in the strongest way by the Lord, including punishment by death. (Who was the Canaanite god Molech? From; Copyright © 2011 – 2015 Got Questions Ministries, All Rights Reserved. Molech)

My take is baby-killing in the name of another faith or ideology that is contrary to God’s moral standard profanes God Almighty’s very name. It is my humble this addresses the abortion issue of killing unborn human beings in the name of defining a woman’s choice over their body is more important than a living person’s life dependent on a woman’s body for nutrition until a viable birth emerges.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Now we come to the crux of my moral outrage to societal acceptance of ungodly practices. I began this examination of the abandonment of God’s standards for morality by American society by reading a blog entry vocal support for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) agenda of brain washing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a loving normal path for humanity. I should point out that God himself calls homosexuality an abomination. Leftist multiculturalists, Secular Humanists and Homosexual Activist have gone to great lengths to discredit either God as irrelevant or that we Biblical Christians are not getting the Biblical Scriptures a correct interpretation. Either way – to use a British term – it’s all bollix.

Here is the post I found very disheartening:

Automattic, the company behind, is committed to diversity: providing a platform for everyone to publish on the web and building a diverse, distributed workforce around the world.

A collaborative effort between Accelerate with Google and Automattic, the Accelerate.LGBT conference series is designed to help diverse businesses and nonprofits optimize their web presence, empowering professionals through focused workshops and hands-on, one-on-one support from Automattic and Google employees. We held our first event in San Francisco this past April, which was a great success.

We’re excited to announce the next free Accelerate.LGBT event on September 17, 2015, in Dublin, Ireland. Here’s a sneak peek of the sessions for this afternoon event:

· Get found on Google Search and Maps

· Optimize your website for business

· Engage a younger audience with your brand

· Find the best talent for your organization — inside Google’s hiring secrets

· Unlock your organization’s online potential

If you live in Dublin or plan to be in the area at this time, make sure to join us, follow us, and interact with us (#AccelerateLGBT)!

If you’d like to attend, please register for the September 17 event.

If you’d like Accelerate.LGBT to visit your area, tweet us! We’re also taking a poll to help us decide where to host our next event. [Blog Editor: At this point a poll vote is provided. I am not participating on my blog.]

We’re proud to partner with Google to offer this Accelerate.LGBT series to help businesses and nonprofits get the most out of the tools available on the web. We hope to see you in September! (Next Stop for Accelerate.LGBT: Dublin, Ireland; By Anne McCarthy;; 8/21/15 3:00 PM)

At the end of a bunch of Accelerate.LGBT photos there is a subscription reminder to me:

You are following this blog

You are following this blog, along with 21,462,995 other amazing people”.

That means Twenty-one MILLION plus people received a WordPress notification promoting an ungodly event.

I was tempted to not include the links promoting event and the people sponsoring the event but that would be disingenuous of me to use WordPress quote as it was intended to be read.

It is also not surprising that Google is a partner with WordPress in this “Accelerate.LGBT” agenda. If you type the letters LGBT in a Google search you will discover the initial search results are all positive for an LGBT agenda or critical of those who condemn an LGBT agenda.

Trust me. Google and WordPress are a drop in the bucket in media formats promoting acceptance of the ungodly Homosexual Lifestyle. The media is so supportive of homosexuality that I can count some Leftist or homosexual goofball posting a comment castigating my stand with God in some of the most horrific vitriol. That translates to it is okay to condemn a stand with the Word of God but I am a hate-filled homophobe for defending God’s morality.

I’m beginning to understand how early Christians may have felt some ostracism when Roman pagans condemned them as rebellious to the Emperor and Roman government. Or the ostracism from Jews who felt Christianity was a heresy that confronted the Law of Moses and dared to include the son of man in Jesus as co-equal with the ONE God as the Son of God. In the first hand Christians faced a Roman death sentence depending on its proximity and on the other hand faced the rage of devoted Jews who felt the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been blasphemed. In both cases those early Christians chose to face those condemnations without retribution knowing the Roman and Jewish perception was not an accurate picture. Frankly I may have a long ways to go to attain that Early Christian devotion since I have experienced a time in my life when a solid majority of Americans – whether devoted or nominal or agnostic – would have not accepted the homosexual lifestyle as a moral choice even if it was a Constitutional choice.

My how the Left Wing propaganda machine has influenced American thought.

I could on and on about how accepting homosexuality as normal will more than likely lead to other justifications for ungodly practices in America. Some to think about are:

o Polygamy

o Man/Boy sexual relationships

o Further normalizing Incest (Oh my God – even legitimizing homosexual incest … ewwww …

There are undoubtedly more consequences that I do not wish to dwell on but here’s consequence that may be on the road to societal acceptance condemned by God as perversion – BESTIALITY.

Leviticus 18:23 – ‘Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.’

Adultery is something people wag their heads about but the constraints on the practice drive people to anger to even think about making an adulterer pay a legal price for committing such an act.

Incest is not illegal in two American States. How many incest dominoes will fall?

Same-sex marriage was forced on the American culture by a SCOTUS majority unilaterally ignoring the Constitution and instituting the practice as a political right when in fact it is an ungodly act.

Polygamists were excited for the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage because much of the logic applies to the one man and many loving wives scenario.

I haven’t ran into it yet but the underground Man/Boy culture relationship is quietly huge in the Western World including the USA. It is underground only because the Man/Boy crowd doesn’t have enough media advocates shaming activist Courts to accept the perversion. Titles to read on Man/Boy homosexual movement:

o Brief history of the modern childlove movement – Free Republic; Posted on 3/3/2007, 11:23:28 AM

o Gay Rights and NAMBLA – By John R. Houk; SlantRight; 10/1/09 (some links within post are dead)

o Obama associates and the North American Man/Boy Love Association – By Bobbette Madonna; Broadside News; 5/3/14)

o NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part One By Cliff Kincaid; Accuracy in Media; 1/4/10)

o NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part Two By Cliff Kincaid; Accuracy in Media; 1/5/10)

If the trend continues I will not be surprised that it will no longer be a crime for a human being to have sex with an animal in my lifetime. After all homosexuality went through decades of promotional propaganda until the SCOTUS majority validated same-sex matrimony.

JRH 8/24/15

Please Support NCCR

America Needs Prayer – PARTICIPATE

John R. Houk

© July 27, 2015

Joseph Farah of WND sent an email promoting the third annual 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance. Farah begins with the recent SCOTUS decision that essentially told God Almighty He is in error for condemning any proclivity toward homosexual sex as an abomination. SCOTUS accomplished this usurpation of God’s prerogative as Creator by the unconstitutional activist rewriting of law forcing ALL American States to accept same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court’s slow but sure whittling away of the moral standards of America by creating law rather than telling Congress to address a legal issue has activated a slow decent into a sewer humanist morality. The decent has been so slow that Americans are like the adage of a frog tossed in a pot of water which doesn’t notice it is slowly being boiled to death.

In truth there is only two ways for moral Americans to reclaim a USA that is exceptional once again: the Founding Fathers’ path of Revolution OR humbling ourselves before Almighty God in prayer and repentance OR both.

Farah’s email provides various links to WND opinion pieces pertaining to the 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance of which one is to the page promoting the event. Here is a video from that page and the following words leading to participation:

VIDEO: Dave Kubal 911 National Day of Repentance

Our country is in a deep spiral of moral and spiritual descent. As believers, this fact is starkly clear. The Bible declares that such things lead to national judgment. The biblical warning signs of national judgment that appeared in the last days of ancient Israel are now reappearing on American soil (The Harbinger, Jonathan Cahn). The Bible declares that the prayers and repentance of God’s people can help facilitate, repentance, revival, healing, and restoration.

This has resulted in 9/11 Pray – a Day of Prayer and RepentanceThe call for such a day first started September 11, 2013 and was first sounded by Joseph Farah, of World Net Daily and producer of The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment. It to was early affirmed by Jonathan Cahn, Michele Bachmann, Greg Laurie, Chuck Norris, and more and the movement kept spreading.

9/11 Pray: National Day of Prayer and Repentance is appointed for believers across the nation to pray according to the pattern in 2 Chronicles 7:14 ‘If My people who are called by name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.’

It will be a day for believers to humble themselves, pray, to seek God’s face, and to turn, in repentance, from their sinful ways and having done that, to pray and intercede for America, for God’s mercy and purpose, for revival.

This is being initiated and led by the Spirit of God moving on the hearts of believers and leaders across the nation, and not by any one organization or effort.

It is a call for both individual and corporate prayer and repentance. It is open to all believers. Any individual, any church, any ministry, any Bible study, any leader can join in – with individual prayer, prayer services, gatherings in church, gatherings in one’s region, town or city, media events, fasting, intercession, worship, etc….however the Lord leads. The most important thing is that God’s people come before Him in prayer and repentence (sic) for themselves and America.

How You Can Be Part: Spread the Word, Send, forward, post this, to as many people as possible, let your pastors/congregations/family/neighbors/friends people know Sign up to get further information/posts, the 9/11 Pray How-To Guide, The Declaration and more. (AMERICA IS IN RAPID DEPARTURE FROM GOD)

Facebook: 9/11 National Day of Prayer And Repentance

One can JOIN in prayer at the least or in person if available and can get there.

VIDEO: 911prayer video 03 “Short Promo”

Posted by I FA

Published on Sep 9, 2014

JRH 7/24/15

Please Support NCCR


AMERICA: Prayer Can Reverse a Downward Spiral

By Joseph Farah

Sent: 7/21/2015 9:42 AM

Sent by WND

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to impose homosexual “marriage” on the nation, WND CEO Joseph Farah says it is more important than ever for Americans to repent. And he’s calling for believers in God throughout the country to participate in the third annual “9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance.”

“When America was founded 239 years ago, fellow believers fought to establish and protect the role of God in preserving the fabric of our country. We are a nation originally built on and by prayer. Today, as Christians, we can look around and readily see that our beloved homeland is tragically broken and our culture is disintegrating and dramatically moving away from God,” he said.

But he said the solution is available.

“How can we save America? What would our founders do if faced with such predicaments? Those of us who understand the challenges we face for the very survival of America as one nation under God must start planning now to do something radical,” he said.

“That something is the 2015 nationwide day of prayer and repentance.”

The “9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance” began in 2013 with an editorial column at calling for “a nationwide day of prayer, fasting and humility” to respond to national challenges rivaling “anything we’ve seen since the start of World War II.”

Though Farah did not anticipate it, pastors, preachers, rabbis, and others around the country responded enthusiastically and what he initially termed a “throwaway” column became a movement.

Thousands of churches and hundreds of thousands of individuals have participated in the “9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance” in previous years. However, this year’s event takes on special significance because of contemporary events in politics and culture.

Jonathan Cahn, the well-known Bible teacher and author who warned years ago of divine judgment if America did not reject secularism, has suggested America is already a “post-Christian” nation and that bathing the White House in the colors of the homosexual “rainbow flag” was “a sign of desecration covering the White House.”

Cahn’s warning to the Supreme Court not to implement homosexual “marriage” and to turn back to God went viral racking up millions of views in only a few days.


Elizabeth Farah

Joseph Farah and his wife Elizabeth trace the beginnings of the “9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance” to their efforts producing the most successful faith movie of 2012-2013, “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,” based on Cahn’s New York Times best-selling book, “The Harbinger.”

Farah says “the movie has had a profound impact on millions with its biblically based revelations of how God’s judgment is befalling our land as it did ancient Israel” and Cahn has affirmed the “9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance.”

Cahn’s work shows how the Israelites responded to catastrophe with pride and defiance, rather than prayer. In his interpretation, this led to catastrophe for the Jewish people.

Seeing contemporary Americans in a similar situation, Farah believes, “If there is one word that could instantaneously reverse the critical state that our nation is in today, it is this – repentance.”

In his view, the “9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance” is an effort to urge the entire nation to repent and avoid destruction.

Other leaders are also stepping forward to encourage Christians to participate in the effort, including Michele Bachmann and Chuck Norris.

Also Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, who has promoted the event:

Ken Ham, president and founder of Answers in Genesis, is another supporter.

Farah said of the event, “September 11 will be a day for believers to humble themselves, pray, fast, seek God’s face, and personally repent of sin. Having done that, it is also a day to pray and intercede for God’s mercy upon America. The Spirit of God is moving in the hearts of believers all across this nation to initiate this event, and the 9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance is being promoted and carried out by a variety of organizations and leadership efforts.”

Farah encourages pastors to open their churches on Wednesday, Sept. 11, to allow both their community of members and their communities at large to gather and pray.

Individuals can also participate in the effort in several ways, according to organizers:

· Pledge to pray as an individual or a group and to receive FREE devotionals and other resources at The website has more information on how to participate, the resources available and how to stay in touch for updates. Sign up today.

· Pass the word, (send, forward, and post this), to as many people and groups as possible. Learn more at and let your pastors, congregations, and friends know about this event and put it on the calendar.

· Plan to participate either as a group locally, on the national conference call or other event you create in concert with the day.

· Most importantly, prepare to repent by praying in advance of the day & be led by the Lord as to how you can participate.

Farah points to 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads, “… if My people, who are called by name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (NKJV)

Farah condemns the response of the contemporary culture to America’s challenges.

“The people of America are responding predictably to today’s culture by doing what’s ‘right in their own eyes’ – as the people of Israel did before their judgment. No longer does Washington see itself as a servant of the people, but rather as their master. Man’s conventional answers are not going to work. God will not be silently mocked by blatant disregard.

“As followers of Christ, we are at a crossroads. The number of Americans with godly values appears to be rapidly declining, and it is imperative for the church to turn away from culture and turn to Scripture to find answers. Second Chronicles tells us that God desires to heal our land. Our part is clear – to humble ourselves, pray, seek His face and turn from our evil ways.”

Thank you and God’s blessings!

Joseph and Elizabeth Farah

Watch this WND exclusive video of David and Jason Benham on the importance of prayer and repentance:

VIDEO: David and Jason Benham Promote 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance

Published: WNDTV

Published on June 9, 2015


America Needs Prayer – PARTICIPATE

John R. Houk

© July 27, 2015


AMERICA: Prayer Can Reverse a Downward Spiral


WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006 |
Copyright 1997-2015 Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Support WND with your contribution!

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4

Christ is the End of the Law


More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2015


I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.


Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.


With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):


I don’t understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” KJV (Comment by JP)


The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:


In Romans 10:4, Paul’s words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul’s intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”


To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.


The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “’the aim or purpose’ of a thing” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version’s rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”


Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).


Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God’s law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul’s intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).


[What Did Paul Mean by ‘Christ Is the End of the Law’? From; 2/2/11]


The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.


In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.


Tenth Amendment


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:



For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.


There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.


On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.


In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.


This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.


Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:




22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.


13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.




18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)


If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.


Article V


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.


The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.


If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.


Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?


People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.


People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.


NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.


The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.


If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.


America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.


The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.


Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:


The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!


Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”


That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!



… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?



… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …



Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek;; 3/17/15)


Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:


Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author – Fred Elbel;; Copyright 2007-2014 – all rights reserved.)


Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:


The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.


In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.


This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.


In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.


“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.


An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.


A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …



In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.


Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.


With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.


Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.


Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”


“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.


Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)


What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.


When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.


JRH 5/30/15

Please Support NCCR


See Also: “Focus on the Family President Reacts to Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Marriage Case

Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section

Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation

Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say


Homosexuality & Choice: Are Gay People ‘Born This Way?


Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

Bible-- Homosexuality Ungodly Abomination

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015


What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.


What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.


ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 


SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.


Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:


Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”


Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)


… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.


Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.


Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])


Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.


Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.


Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.


JRH 4/8/15

Please Support NCCR



‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’


April 7, 2015



In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.


And that’s probably not going to turn out well.


The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.


The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.


Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.


The new brief goes much further.


“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”


The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.


Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”


And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.


“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.


Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.


The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).


The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”


The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”


Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.


“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”


WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.


Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.


That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.


“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.


Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”


“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.


When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.


In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”


The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.


“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”


The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?


“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”


The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.


“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.


But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”


On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”


“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”


The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.


“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”


The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”


Beware, the brief says.


“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”


Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.


And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”


“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”


Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.


That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.


The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”


California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.


Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.


“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.


The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.


Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.


“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.


Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015




Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved.

Baby Killing and God Almighty

John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
Published by mendel7
Published on Published on Oct 3, 2012
Yurki1000 responded to a comment presented by a person who calls himself “That guy” who wrote quite a pejorative comment to a January 2014 post entitled “Be informed: What Girl Scouts USA does with their cookie ‘dough’”. The original post was about the Girl Scouts of America became supportive of the baby killing machine known as Planned Parenthood. One thing to keep in mind about Planned Parenthood is that it was founded by Margaret Sanger who was a promoter of Nazi-style eugenics. Sanger’s eugenics theories were utilized the belief that African Americans were an inferior race and that the physically and mentally handicapped could be eliminated by weeding out the gene from the populace via abortion (aka baby killing).
Before I proceed further I’ll share an edited version of “That guy’s” profanity laced Left Wing defense of Planned Parenthood:
You’re ridiculous [sic], making the scouts [i.e. the Girl Scouts] out to be little minions of satan killing babies with every small oz. of nougat and coconut goodness. If you boycotted every institution that did supposed “immoral” things you’d most likely be starving, homeless and without a country to live in. It is total douches like you helping create ignorance and further the lack of intelligence in people. I hope you didn’t have kids that will one day grow up to be as ignorant as yourself. [Sounds like a disciple of Margaret Sanger, right?]
Instead of pointing the finger at those “damn liberals and their baby killing ways, maybe try looking deeper into your closed minded DEMOCRATIC leaders (not just the right but also the left) who sign bills with no regard of which let your children ingest poison from Monsanto and give them immunity in any court of law within the USA [Like there is an equivalent comparison between baby killing and a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) like companies like Monsanto that modify plant food genetically with potential harmful side effects]. If your child gets liver cancer from a roundup [Roundup Ready] soaked [More on Roundup GMOs] tomato, you can’t do sh*t but put more money in their pockets with her medical bills.
I’ve said my piece. Pick your battles wisely you f**k*ng goof ball. [Comment from That guy; 4/2/15 12:21 AM; Text and Links enclosed by brackets by this Editor]
Adding genetically modified material to a plant hoping for a better food product is not the same as killing unborn babies to terminate the genetic line of humans that race-supremacists dream of to eliminate the perceived detriments to the human race. Even though the overall concept of GMO foods may have long health risks for all human health, the intention is to increase the food supply for the growing population. (The scary thing is if Leftist population control advocates begin using GMOs to actually phase certain humans much like Sanger thought she could do with murder.)
Published by WestPhillyGurl
Published on Jan 3, 2011
Here are some titles with embedded links so you can get a good picture of the racist/master-race eugenics of the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
·         GROSSU: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaireWashington Times 5/5/14
·         The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black America – (Part one of six part post) © 2012
Now in setting up the nefarious nature of Planned Parenthood’s beginnings and matching that to the fact that PP’s nationwide baby-killing machines are responsible for the most murderous abortions in America. Yurki11000’s comment focuses on Roe v. Wade in 1973 opening the floodgates of legalized baby-killing as measured to the Biblical morality of the debacle initiated by America’s Left.
Yurki1000 excerpted a 2013 Denison Forum essay entitled “WHAT ABORTION HAS COST AMERICA’S FUTURE”. I encourage to read the entire relevant essay but here I am just utilizing Yurki1000’s comment excerpt.  Within the Jim Denison essay is a link to another Denison essay written in 2011. That very informative and yes, very lengthy, essay examines abortion from through the eyes of a Christian but in a fair way presents the Pro-Choice (idiots) view validating abortion. That is a good read to start, refer back to occasionally and learn. That essay is entitled “ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD”. I am cross posting Denison’s essay directly after Yurki1000’s excerpt comment.
JRH 4/7/15

Please Support NCCR

 Roe v Wade
Of course many businesses are bad. But still. God’s opinion counts.
 Thou Shalt Not Kill
 SCOTUS rules abortion legal
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
The year was 1971, and the date was December 13th. Roe v. Wade was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on January 22nd on 1973, 39 years ago, the Court ruled to protect a woman’s right to access an abortion. This week marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that struck down many state laws restricting abortion. Surprisingly, only 44 percent of Americans under age 30 know that Roe deals with abortion. Even more surprisingly, 53 percent of Americans think abortion “is not that important, compared to other issues.” Here’s why they’re wrong.
Since Roe, more than 55 million lives have been aborted. According to the Movement for a Better America, the resulting labor lost to our nation will cost our future GDP some $45 trillion. By comparison, our national debt stands at $16 trillion. Consider the impact on Social Security: each day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. At current trends, Social Security will be bankrupt in 21 years. One major reason: of the generation under 45 whose taxes support Social Security, a third was aborted.
By Jim Denison
July 22, 2011 17:04
Every year, approximately 40,000 people die on American highways. Every ten days, that many abortions are performed in America. Doctors conduct 1.5 million abortions every year in the United States, more than the total of all America’s war dead across our history.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in January of 1973, more than 48 million abortions have been performed in America. This is a number larger than the combined populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Depending on the year, an abortion occurs for every three or four live births in our country.

Abortion is the moral issue of our time. It seems impossible to wrestle with the difficult issues of our day without addressing this crucial debate. Most conservative Christians believe that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore wrong. But are we sure? Is this a biblical fact? If the answer is clear, why have so many denominational leaders taken pro-choice positions? Is there a biblical, cohesive, practical position on this difficult subject?

I began this essay with the conviction that the pro-life position is most biblical. But I did not know much about the legal issues involved, or the theological arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion. As you will see, the debate is much more complex than either side’s rhetoric might indicate. But I believe that there is an ethical position which even our relativistic society might embrace.

Choosing sides

An “abortion” occurs when a “conceptus” is caused to die. To clarify vocabulary, “conceptus” is a general term for pre-born life growing in the mother’s womb. More specifically, doctors often speak of the union of a sperm and an ovum as a “zygote.” A growing zygote is an “embryo.” When the embryo reaches around seven weeks of age, it is called a “fetus.” However, “fetus” is usually used in the abortion debate to describe all pre-born life.

A “miscarriage” is a spontaneous, natural abortion. An “indirect abortion” occurs when actions taken to cure the mother’s illness cause the unintended death of the fetus. A “direct abortion” occurs when action is taken to cause the intended death of the fetus.

Why do so many people in America believe that a mother should have the right to choose direct abortion?

In 1973, the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, its landmark abortion ruling. In essence, the Court overturned state laws limiting a woman’s right to abortion. Its decision was largely based on the argument that the Constitution nowhere defines a fetus as a person, or protects the rights of the unborn.

Rather, the Court determined that an unborn baby possesses only “potential life” and is not yet a “human being” or “person.” It argued that every constitutional reference to “person” relates to those already born. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees protections and rights to individuals, but the Court ruled that the amendment does not include the unborn.

The Court further determined that a woman’s “right to privacy” extends to her ability to make her own choices regarding her health and body. Just as she has the right to choose to become pregnant, she has the right to end that pregnancy. The Court suggested several specific reasons why she might choose abortion: “specific and direct harm” may come to her; “maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future”; “psychological harm may be imminent”; “mental and physical health may be taxed by child care”; problems may occur associated with bearing unwanted children; and “the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood” should be considered.[1]Since 1973, four positions have been taken in the abortion debate:

·         There should be no right to an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. This has been the Catholic Church’s usual position.
·         Therapeutic abortions can be performed to save the mother’s life.
·         Extreme case abortions can be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or severe deformation of the fetus. Most pro-life advocates would accept therapeutic and extreme case abortions.
·         Abortion should be available to any woman who chooses it. This is the typical “pro-choice” position.
Moral arguments for abortion [2]
“Pro-choice” advocates make five basic claims: (1) no one can say when a fetus becomes a person, so the mother is the most appropriate person to make decisions regarding it; (2) abortion must be protected so a woman who is the victim of rape or incest does not have to bear a child resulting from such an attack; (3) no unwanted child should be brought into the world; (4) the state has no right to legislate personal morality; and (5) a woman must be permitted to make pregnancy decisions in light of her life circumstances. Many theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders consider these claims to be both biblical and moral.

First, “pro-choice” proponents argue that a fetus is not legally a “person.” They agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the Constitution nowhere grants legal standing to a pre-born life. Only 40 to 50 percent of fetuses survive to become persons in the full sense. A fetus belongs to the mother until it attains personhood, and is morally subject to any action she wishes to take with it.

Second, abortion must be protected as an alternative for women who are the victims of rape or incest. While this number is admittedly small in this country (approximately one percent of all abortions), it is growing in many countries around the world. As many as one in three women may become the victim of such an attack. They must be spared the further trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

Third, no unwanted children should be brought into the world. If a woman does not wish to bear a child, she clearly will not be an appropriate or effective mother if the child is born. Given the population explosion occurring in many countries of the world, abortion is a necessary option for women who do not want children. The woman is more closely involved with the fetus than any other individual, and is the best person to determine whether or not this child is wanted and will receive proper care.

Fourth, the state has no right to legislate our personal moral decisions. The government has no authority to restrict homosexuality, consensual sex, cigarette consumption, or other individual decisions which many people consider to be wrong. Since there is no constitutional standard for when life begins, decisions made regarding a fetus are likewise a matter for individual morality.

The state should impose legislation on moral questions only when this legislation expresses the clear moral consensus of the community, and when it prevents conduct which obviously threatens the public welfare. Nearly everyone condemns murder, for instance, and believes that it threatens us all. But Americans are divided on the morality of abortion. It is hard to see how aborting a fetus threatens the rest of the community.

And so abortion should not be subject to governmental control. It is better to allow a mother to make this decisions than to legislate it through governmental action. Many who personally consider abortion to be wrong are persuaded by this argument and thus support the “pro-choice” position.

Fifth, the rights and concerns of the mother must take precedence over those of the fetus. Even if we grant fetuses limited rights, they must not supersede the rights of mothers, as the latter are clearly persons under the Constitution. If we allow abortion to protect her physical life, we should do so to protect her emotional health or quality of life as well.

This was one of the Court’s most significant arguments, as it sought to protect the mother’s mental and physical health. Many “pro-choice” advocates are especially persuaded by this argument, and view the abortion debate within the context of a woman’s right to control her own life.

Moral arguments against abortion

“Pro-life” advocates counter each of these claims with their own ethical arguments. First, they assert that a fetus is a human life and should be granted the full protection of the law. The fetus carries its parents’ genetic code and is a distinct person. It does not yet possess self-consciousness, reasoning ability, or moral awareness (the usual descriptions of a “person”), but neither do newborns or young children. As this is the central issue of the debate, we’ll say more about it in a moment.

Second, most “pro-life” advocates are willing to permit abortion in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. Since such cases typically account for only one to four percent of abortions performed, limiting abortion to these conditions would prevent the vast majority of abortions occurring in America.

Third, “pro-life” advocates agree that all children should be wanted, so they argue strongly for adoption as an alternative to abortion. They also assert that an unwanted child would rather live than die. By “pro-choice” logic, it would be possible to argue for infanticide and all forms of euthanasia as well as abortion.

Fourth, “pro-life” supporters do not see abortion legislation as an intrusion into areas of private morality. Protecting the rights of the individual is the state’s first responsibility. No moral state can overlook murder, whatever the personal opinions of those who commit it. The state is especially obligated to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.

But what of the claim that legislation must always reflect the clear will of the majority and protect the public welfare? The collective will of the culture must never supersede what is right and wrong. For instance, marijuana is so popular that as many as 100 million Americans say they’ve tried it at least once. Nonetheless, we ban it because its harmful effects are clear to medical science. The effects of abortion on a fetus are obviously much more disastrous to the fetus. And just because society is unclear as to when life begins does not mean that the question is unknowable.

If more of the public understood the physical and ethical issues involved in abortion, the large majority would consider abortion to be a threat to public welfare. Abortion threatens the entire community in three ways: (1) it ends the lives of millions, on a level exceeding all wars and disasters combined; (2) it encourages sexual promiscuity; and (3) it permits women to make a choice which will plague many of them with guilt for years to come. And so abortion meets the standard for legislative relevance, and must be addressed and limited or abolished by the state.

Fifth, “pro-life” advocates want to encourage the health of both the mother and the child, and do not believe that we must choose between the two. As the rights of a mother are no more important than those of her newborn infant, so they are no more important than those of her pre-born child. The stress, guilt, and long-term mental anguish reported by many who abort their children must be considered. The legal right to abortion subjects a woman to pressure from her husband or sexual partner to end her pregnancy. Killing the fetus for the sake of the mother’s health is like remedying paranoia by killing all the imagined persecutors. For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates argue that a moral state must limit or prevent abortion.

When does life begin?

This is obviously the crucial question in the abortion debate. If life does not begin until the fetus is viable or the child is born, one can argue that the “right to life” does not extend to the pre-born and abortion should be considered both legal and moral. But if life begins at conception, there can be no moral justification for abortion, since this action kills an innocent person.

There are essentially three answers to our question. “Functionalism” states that the fetus is a “person” when it can act personally as a moral, intellectual, and spiritual agent. (Note that by this definition, some question whether a newborn infant would be considered a “person.”)

“Actualism” is the position that a fetus is a person if it possesses the potential for developing self-conscious, personal life. This definition would permit abortion when the fetus clearly does not possess the capacity for functional life.

“Essentialism” argues that the fetus is a person from conception, whatever its health or potential. It is an individual in the earliest stages of development, and deserves all the protections afforded to other persons by our society.

Our Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If an unborn child is considered a person, it possesses the “inalienable” right to life as well.

So, can we determine when life begins? Our answer depends on the definition of “life.” A “pro-choice” advocate recognizes that the fetus is alive in the sense that it is a biological entity. But so is every other part of a woman’s body. Some consider the fetus to be a “growth” and liken it to a tumor or other unwanted tissue. Biology alone is not enough to settle the issue.

What about capacity? Many ethicists define a “person” as someone able to respond to stimuli, interact with others, and make individual decisions. A fetus meets the first two standards from almost the moment of its conception, and clearly cannot fulfill the third only because it is enclosed in its mother’s body. Would a newborn baby fulfill these three conditions?

What about individuality? If we view a fetus as a “growth” within the mother’s body, it would be easier to sanction her choice to remove that growth if she wishes. But a fetus is distinct from its mother from the moment of its conception. It is alive–it reacts to stimuli, and can produce its own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity. It is human, completely distinguishable from all other living organisms, possessing all 46 human chromosomes, able to develop only into a human being. And it is complete–nothing new will be added except the growth and development of what exists from the moment of conception.

It is a scientific fact that every abortion performed in the United States is performed on a being so fully formed that its heart is beating and its brain activity can be measured on an EEG machine. At 12 weeks, the unborn baby is only about two inches long, yet every organ of the human body is clearly in place.

Theologian Karl Barth described the fetus well:

The embryo has its own autonomy, its own brain, its own nervous system, its own blood circulation. If its life is affected by that of the mother, it also affects hers. It can have its own illnesses in which the mother has no part. Conversely, it may be quite healthy even though the mother is seriously ill. It may die while the mother continues to live. It may also continue to live after its mother’s death, and be eventually saved by a timely operation on her dead body. In short, it is a human being in its own right.[3]And note that you did not come from a fetus–you were a fetus. A “fetus” is simply a human life in the womb. It becomes a “baby” outside the womb. But it is the same physical entity in either place.

For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates believe that the U. S. Supreme Court was wrong in deciding that a fetus is not a person entitled to the full protections of the law. Apart from spiritual or moral concerns, it is a simple fact of biology that the fetus possesses every attribute of human life we find in a newborn infant, with the exception of independent physical viability. Left unharmed, it will soon develop this capacity as well. If a life must be independently viable to be viewed as a person, a young child might well fail this standard, as would those of any age facing severe physical challenges.

The Bible and abortion

These statements are based on moral claims and legal arguments. They are intended to persuade society regardless of a person’s religious persuasion. But many in our culture also want to know what the Bible says on this crucial subject.

Silent on the issue?

“Abortion” appears nowhere in the Bible. No one in the Bible is ever described as having an abortion, encouraging one, or even dealing with one. The Bible says nothing which specifically addresses our subject. And so many have concluded that the issue is not a biblical concern but a private matter. They say that we should be silent where the Bible is silent.

“Pro-life” advocates counter that by this logic we should be silent regarding the “Trinity,” since the word never appears in Scripture. Or “marijuana” and “cocaine,” since they are not in a biblical concordance. However, these issues came after the biblical era, while abortion was common in the ancient world. So this argument doesn’t seem relevant.

If abortion is a biblical issue, why doesn’t the Bible address it specifically? The answer is simple: the Jewish people and first Christians needed no such guidance. It was an undeniable fact of their faith and culture that abortion was wrong. How do we know?

Consider early statements on the subject. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides are a book of Jewish wisdom written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50. They state that “a woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.”

The Sibylline Oracles are an ancient work of Jewish theology. They include among the wicked two groups: women who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” and sorcerers who dispense materials which cause abortions (2:339-42).

The Mishnah (“instruction”) was the written record of Jewish oral teachings transmitted since the time of Moses. These teachings were committed to writing around 200 B.C. In the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin we read: “We infer the death penalty for killing an embryo from the text, He who sheds the blood of a man within a man, his blood shall be shed; what is ‘a man within a man’? An embryo” (Sanhedrin 57b, quoting Genesis 9:6).

An abortion was permitted only to save the life of the mother:

If a woman was in hard travail [life-threatening labor], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the great part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life (Oholoth 7:6).

The Jews in the Old and New Testaments did not need to address the issue of abortion, since no one considered it a moral option. In a similar vein, I have never preached a sermon against cigarette smoking or plagiarism. The Bible does not specifically speak to these subjects, and they are legal within certain limits, but no one in our congregation would consider them to be moral or healthy choices.

When the Christian church moved out of its Jewish context, it encountered a culture which accepted the practice of abortion. And so, after the New Testament, Christians began speaking specifically to the subject.

For instance, the Didache (the earliest theological treatise after the Bible) states: “thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide.”[4] And the Epistle of Barnabas (early second century) adds, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own life. Thou shalt not procure abortion, thou shalt not commit infanticide.”[5] These books were widely read and accepted in the first centuries of the Christian church.

Important biblical passages

While the Bible does not use the word “abortion,” it contains a number of texts which relate directly to the beginning of life and the value of all persons. Let’s look briefly at the most pertinent passages.

Exodus 21:22

“Pro-choice” scholars usually begin the discussion with this statement in Exodus:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 21:22-25).

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus commented on this text:

He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given to the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.”[6] (Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:33).

But notice the translator’s note: “The law seems rather to mean, that if the infant be killed, though the mother escape, the offender must be put to death; and not only when the mother is killed, as Josephus understood it.”[7]And note this later statement by Josephus:

The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have done so, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind.[8]

If this text does indeed teach that a person causing a miscarriage is only to be fined, while one causing “harm” is to receive severe punishment, we would have an important indication that the fetus is not as valuable as its mother. Is this what the text clearly teaches?

The New Revised Standard renders the text, “so that there is a miscarriage.” The New American Standard follows suit, as does the New Jerusalem Bible. But the New International Version translates the text, “she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury.” The New Living Translation similarly states, “they hurt a pregnant woman so that her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results . . .” The English Standard Version renders the phrase, “so that her children come out, but there is no harm.” Why this crucial difference in translation?

The Hebrew phrase is literally rendered, “And they come forth children of her.” “Children” is the plural of yeled, the usual Hebrew word for child or offspring (the Hebrew language has no separate word for “fetus” or the pre-born). “Come forth” translates yatsa, a word which does not specify whether the child is alive or dead, only that it leaves the womb. And so the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22 does not indicate whether the woman suffered a miscarriage (NRSV, NASB, NJB) or experienced a premature healthy birth (NIV, NLT, ESV). But it does refer to the fetus as a “child.” And it is important to note that the text does not use shachol, the Hebrew word for “miscarriage” (this word is found in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14 among other occurrences).[9]Verse 23 settles the issue for me: “But if there is serious injury . . .” (NIV), implying that no serious injury occurred in verse 22. In other words, both the mother and her child survived the attack and were healthy. And so this passage does not devalue the pre-born life or speak specifically to the issue of abortion.

Genesis 2:7

The Bible describes man’s creation in this way:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up–for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground–then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Gen 2:4-7).

It seems that Adam did not become a “living being” until he could breathe. And so some believe that a fetus is not a “living being” until it can breathe outside the mother’s womb. Until this time it is not yet a person. President Bill Clinton explained his pro-choice position as based significantly on this logic. He said that his pastor, W. O. Vaught, former pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, told him that this was the literal meaning of the text.

There are three problems with this argument. First, Adam was an inanimate object until God breathed into him “the breath of life,” but we know conclusively that a fetus is animate from the moment of conception. Second, the fetus breathes in the womb, exchanging amniotic fluid for air after birth. Third, Adam in Genesis 2:7 was a potential life even before he became a human being. By any definition, a fetus is at the very least a potential human being. We’ll say more about this fact in a moment.

Psalm 139

One of David’s best-loved psalms contains this affirmation:

For it was you who formed my inward parts;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made

Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.
In your book were written

all the days that were formed for me,
when none of them as yet existed (Psalm 139:13-16).

David clearly believed that God created him in his mother’s womb and “beheld my unformed substance” before he was born. “Pro-life” theologians point to this declaration as proof that life is created by God and begins at conception.

Of course, those who do not accept the authority of Scripture will not be persuaded by this argument. And some who do believe that David’s statement is poetic symbolism rather than scientific description. He is simply stating that he is God’s creation, without speaking specifically to the status of a fetus.

Jeremiah 1:5

As part of God’s call to the prophet Jeremiah, the Lord issued this declaration: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God clearly formed Jeremiah in the womb and “knew” him even before that time. He “consecrated” or called him to special service even before he was born. God’s plan for Jeremiah began before his conception and his birth.

It’s hard for me to see how those who accept biblical authority could make a “pro-choice” response to this statement. I suppose they could claim that the verse is symbolic and spiritual, not scientific, that it is a metaphorical description of God’s eternal plan for Jeremiah. But the text seems to be specifically related to Jeremiah’s conception and gestation.

Luke 1:39-45

Luke’s gospel records the visit of the pregnant Mary to the pregnant Elizabeth:

In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Luke 1:39-45).

When Elizabeth said that “the child in my womb leaped for joy” (v. 44), she made clear the fact that her “fetus” was a fully-responding being. She used the word brephos, the Greek term for baby, embryo, fetus, newborn child, young child, or nursing child. It is the same word used to describe Jesus in the manger, where the shepherds “went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the manger” (Luke 2:16).

Paul used the word in reminding Timothy “how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). The Bible makes no linguistic distinction between the personhood of a human being, whether before or after its birth.

The rights of the innocent

The Bible consistently defends the rights of those who are innocent and undeserving of punishment or death. For instance:

·         “Do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty” (Exodus 23:7).
·         “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
·         The Babylonians attacked Jerusalem “for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to pardon” (2 Kings 24:3-4).
It is clear that God cares for the innocent and defenseless of the world. Children, whether before their birth or after, would be among his most valued creations.

The witness of Christian history

How has the Church viewed the issue of abortion across its history? Are “pro-choice” religious leaders in step with traditional Christian thinking on this subject? Or has the Church even spoken with a unified voice when addressing the question?

Early church fathers were clear in their opposition to abortion. Athenagoras (ca. AD 150), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian (ca. 155-225), St. Hippolytus (ca. 170-236), St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-79), St. Ambrose (ca. 339-97), St. John Chrysostom (ca. 340-407), and St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) all issued strong condemnations of this practice.

However, these theologians did not specifically say when the body receives a soul. This is the process called “animation” or “ensoulment” by early philosophers. Many in the ancient world followed the thinking of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) on the issue. He believed that “ensoulment” occurred 40 days after conception in males and 90 days in females, and taught that abortion prior to this time was not murder.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), arguably the greatest theological mind after Paul, can be quoted on both sides of the issue. As regards whether souls are given to bodies at conception, Augustine said, “He . . . who formed them, knows whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them after they had been formed. . . . I have no certain knowledge how it came into my body; for it was not I who gave it to myself.”[10] He was critical of a theologian who was too dogmatic on this issue, claiming, “how much better it is for him to share my hesitation about the soul’s origin.”[11] He did not believe that we can know when people “obtain their souls.”[12]

And yet Augustine was convinced that those who die in the womb will be resurrected with the rest of humanity and given perfect bodies in heaven. If they died, they must have lived; if they lived, they will be resurrected. Babies deformed at birth will be given perfect bodies in paradise as well.[13] It would seem that Augustine believed life to begin at conception, as the moment the fetus can die, it must have been alive.

Theologians, popes, and church councils in the centuries to follow would continue to debate this issue. St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) could speak of the “murder of an unborn child” (Letter 22:13), and yet he could state that abortion is not killing until the fetus acquires limbs and shape (Letter 121:4). Pope Innocent III (ca. 1161-1216) stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus when the woman feels the first movement of the fetus (the “quickening”). After such “ensoulment,” abortion is murder; previously it is a less serious sin, as it ends only potential human life.

Thomas Aquinas (1225?-74) condemned abortion for any and all reasons. However, he agreed with Aristotle’s conclusion that a male child was formed enough to be judged human at 40 days, a female at 80. Only when the fetus could be considered human could it have a soul.

On the other hand, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued a decree in 1886 which prohibited all procedures which directly kill the fetus, even to save the life of the mother. He also required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

To summarize, Christian leaders across church history have been uniform in their condemnation of abortion once the fetus was considered to be a “person.” Many in the ancient and medieval world were influenced by Aristotle’s beliefs regarding the time when this occurred. If they could know what we know about the fetus from its earliest stages of life, I believe they would revise their opinion and condemn abortion from the moment of conception. But it is impossible to know their position on information they did not possess.

What about rape and incest?
The Bible makes rape a capital offense:
If the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor (Deuteronomy. 22:25-26).

God’s word clearly condemns such a crime against women. “Pro-choice” advocates often point to this issue early in the debate, arguing that a woman should not continue to be victimized by bearing a child as the result of such a horrific crime.

Unprotected intercourse results in pregnancy about four percent of the time. If one in three women is likely to be raped in her lifetime, and incestuous relationships subject a woman to repeated sexual abuse, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are so likely that abortion must be legal as a remedy for women subjected to such crime.[14] Nearly all pro-life advocates concede the point, allowing for abortion in the case of rape and incest.

However, it has been established by numerous surveys over the years that rape and incest victims represent approximately one percent of the abortion cases recorded annually in this country. A decision to limit abortions to this exception would prevent the deaths of nearly all of the 1.5 million babies who are aborted each year. Only about three percent of the abortions performed each year in America relate to the health of the mother, and three percent relate to the health of the child. Ninety-three percent are elective.

To allow for abortion because of the very rare incidence of abortions performed because of rape and incest is something like suspending all marijuana laws because of the small number of patients who could benefit from its medicinal effects. We could stop the use of traffic lights because of the incidents when they slow a sick person’s rush to a hospital, but would we not cause more harm than we prevent?

At the same time, Americans must be conscious of the fact that rape and incest are far more common in some other countries and cultures. Rape in particular is a typical means of coercion and military control in some societies. There the percentage of abortions related to rape may be much higher than is the case in America.

This caveat stated, I’m not sure that even this decision is the moral choice. I must quickly admit that my status as an American, Anglo male makes it very difficult for me to commiserate with women who have experienced such trauma as rape and incest. But it is hard for me to understand how the child which is produced by this terrible crime does not deserve to live. Ethel Waters, the famous gospel singer, was the product of a rape. So was a student I taught at Southwestern Seminary, an evangelist with a global ministry today. I tread very lightly here, but would at the very least suggest that this issue is far from the primary cause of abortion in America today.

Conclusion: a way forward?

“Pro-life” advocates typically believe that life begins at conception, so that abortion is wrong. “Pro-choice” advocates typically belief that life begins when the fetus is viable independent of its mother or at birth, and that abortion should be a legal choice for the mother prior to that point. The framers of the Constitution did not address this issue. The Supreme Court in 1973 interpreted this silence to mean that constitutional rights to life do not extend to the pre-born. And yet the Bible speaks with a single voice in viewing the pre-born as the creation of God and as children deserving of protection and care. In light of these contradictory facts, is there a way to move forward?

Given that the participants in this debate come from a variety of religious and personal worldviews, it seems implausible to find common ground by beginning with biblical teachings or religious convictions. So I suggest the following non-religious, constitutional strategy.

First, we should build a consensus for permitting abortion to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. These account for a small percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year. Even though some (like me) question the morality of this position, most would concede the point in order to reduce the 93 percent of abortions which are elective in nature. Allowing for this exception removes the most obvious and emotional obstacle to the “pro-life” position.

Second, we should understand that the pre-born possess at least the potential for “life,” however it is defined. Many of us believe that a fetus is a human being by every definition of the term except independent viability, and note that the pre-born will attain this status unless harmed. But even those who disagree with this assertion will admit that every fetus is in the process of becoming a “person.”

Third, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates should work together to fulfill President Clinton’s desire that abortion be “rare.” Even the most ardent “pro-choice” supporters surely would support an agenda intended to decrease the number of abortions performed each year.

One way to achieve this goal would be for both sides to promote adoption as the best answer to an unwanted pregnancy. Both sides could also support abstinence and birth control education. Many “pro-life” advocates view birth control measures as promoting sexual promiscuity, but we may have to choose between sexual activity or unintended pregnancy and a resulting abortion.

Both sides could join forces in educating the public about the actual characteristics of the fetus. It has been proven that women are far less likely to choose abortion when they see a sonogram of their unborn child or learn about its present capacities. Adoption would then become a more likely option for the mother to choose. Leaders from both sides could be asked to adopt a united agenda aimed at decreasing the number of abortions performed each year in our country. If this strategy is successful, it may change the public’s opinion regarding the morality of abortion.

Fourth, whatever the “pro-choice” position decides to do to help limit abortions, “pro-life” advocates must do all we can to care for both the unborn child and its mother. We must care for the mother and the father of the child, and do all we can to help those who have chosen abortion in the past. We must work hard to advocate adoption and to provide life necessities for at-risk families. We must be “pro-life,” not just “pro-birth.”

It may be that these steps would eventually help to change the legal status of abortion. A constitutional amendment extending legal protection to the fetus would be more likely to pass if more Americans were taught to view the fetus as a life. Alternately, it would be more likely that the courts would recognize the rising consensus against abortion and rule in light of this conventional wisdom.

Conclusion: choosing life

Mother Teresa, writing to the U. S. Supreme Court as it was considering petitions related to the abortion issue, stated boldly:

Your opinion [in Roe v. Wade] stated that you did not need to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” That question is inescapable. If the right to life is an inherent and inalienable right, it must surely obtain wherever human life exists. No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency. It was a sad infidelity to America’s highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined, when the inalienable right to life began for a child in its mother’s womb.[15]

She has been widely quoted as stating, “It is a deep poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”[16]

I attended my first National Prayer Breakfast in 1995, where I heard remarkable speakers address the president and other national leaders. Those attending were still talking about the previous year’s keynote speaker. Mother Teresa, 83 years old in 1994, had said to the 3,000 in the audience, “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” Later in her speech she implored the gathering, “Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child.”[17] She received a standing ovation. After her speech, she approached President Clinton, pointed her finger at him, and said, “Stop killing babies.”

Would abortion be a moral choice when a family is very, very poor; they have 14 children, and another on the way? That child was John Wesley. What about a father who is ill and a mother with tuberculosis; their first child is blind, the second is deceased, the third is deaf, and the fourth has tuberculosis. Now she is pregnant again. Her son would be called Beethoven.

A white man rapes a 13-year-old black girl and she becomes pregnant. Her child is Ethel Waters. A teenage girl is pregnant, but her fiancée is not the father of the baby. Her baby is Jesus.

In a church I once pastored, a woman gave me her unsolicited testimony regarding an abortion she had chosen eleven years earlier. Here’s her story:

I cried tears of shame, tears of pain, tears of heartache. I cried for my sin so black I didn’t believe that there could ever be a way that I could make amends–ever be a way that I could atone for what I had done. That there could ever be a way that I could be clean again. For 11 years I cried for myself, because I couldn’t get away from what I had done.

But God blessed me. In the depths of my dark and lonely valley he was there. His grace and mercy are great–his love is so wonderful. He wooed me back to his side, saying to me, My child, my child, I love you. O my child I love you. Yes, I forgive you.

I am blessed. I know that I am forgiven. I have forgiven myself–God has headed me. But many are not so blessed–they never get to meet my Jesus; they never experience his love and forgiveness. For them, the crying goes on.

[1] [2] For more on the ethical arguments for and against abortion see Milton A. Gonsalves, Right & Reason: Ethics in theory and practice, 9th ed. (Columbus: Merrill Publishing Co., 1989).[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985 [1961]) 3.4.416.[4] The Didache, or teaching of the twelve apostles (Nashville: Christian Classics, 1980) 2:2, p. 27.[5] The Epistle of Barnabas 19:5, in Christian Classics p. 118.[6] Josephus: Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978) 4:3:33, p. 100.[7] Ibid., 100.[8] Josephus, Against Apion 2:25, p. 632.[9] For further discussion of this linguistic issue see Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,´inReadings in Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 32-5.[10] Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed, Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1991) 1:25; vol. 5, p. 325.[11] Ibid., 1:17; p. 322.[12] Ibid., 4:5, p. 356.[13] Augustine, Enchiridion 85; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 3:265.[14] Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Reproductive Choice: Basic to Justice for Women,” in Readings n Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 2:27.[15] Mother Teresa, “Recalling America,” in First Things May 1994, 9.[16] Illustration Digest Nov-Dec-Jan 1993/4, 15.[17] Mother Teresa, “Whatsoever you do,” speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994;
Baby Killing and God Almighty
John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
© 2009-2015 Copyright, Denison Forum. All rights reserved.

Religion and the Constitution

One Nation Under God. John McNaughton



John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)


Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.


Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.


Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.


Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)


The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.


Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.


New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.


Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:



In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …



… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.


On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”


In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]



Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”


Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”


Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …



The Wall That Black Built


The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]


Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …


Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …


The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.


The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.



Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.


By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.


… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)


Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.


I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.


For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.


16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)


See Also:


Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW;


What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution;


Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.




JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR




By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM


The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.


The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.


The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.


Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.


It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.


The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.


Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.


Leviticus 18:22; 20:13


Chapter 18


22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.


Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)


1 Corinthians 6:9-11


9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)


Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10


Chapter 1


26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.


28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,


Chapter 13


8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)


1 Timothy 1:10-11


10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)


Mark 10:6-9


6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)


What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.


In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.


This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.


Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015



© Robert Smith


Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.