Head of NASA Praises Prayer and Christian Influence in Government: Left Has Orbital Meltdown


I live in Oklahoma. As such this post from Geri Ungurean on her blog Absolute Truth from the Word of God about former Oklahoma Representative Jim Bridenstine (my District roughly representing Tulsa) tapped to be Administrator of NASA by President Trump got my attention.

 

One Nation Under God by Jon McNaughton

 

Evidently Bridenstine is not shy about his Christian faith and it’s driving Leftists and Separation of Church/State activists nuts. Ungurean begins with SCOTUS concurring atheistic doctrine can simulate religion then goes into the fallacy of Separation of Church and State. Then Ungurean examines how Bridenstine Church/State Separation activists crazy.

 

JRH 4/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Head of NASA Praises Prayer and Christian Influence in Government: Left Has Orbital Meltdown

 

By Geri Ungurean

April 27, 2019

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 

Jim Bridenstine

 

Did you know that The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being? In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

 

And in 2005, a Federal court deemed “Atheism” a religion.

Read about that decision here:

 

From wnd.com  — written in 2005

 

Court Rules Atheism a Religion

 

Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group

 

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

 

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

 

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

 

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

 

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

 

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion. source

 

But if a person has the audacity to mention “God” or “Prayer to Him” in public; in this case in front of a Christian ministry by the HEAD of NASA– the reaction of the atheists is anger and of course citing the “Wall of Separation of Church and State.  So, the employees of NASA are attempting to take away a person’s freedom of speech because it will make them look bad – you know, guilt by association.

 

UNREAL

 

Let’s get something straight before I post about the Left’s response to the head of NASA (who happens to be a Christian).

 

You will not find “Separation of Church and State” anywhere in our Constitution.  The Left will tell you it’s there, but that’s a lie. This lie has been repeated so many times that the average person believes it.

 

So, where did the saying originate?

 

Satan is a liar and the father of them.  He is also the author of confusion.  He took our First Amendment and twisted it, just as he does with God’s Holy Word.

 

Here is the First Amendment of our Constitution:

 

“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.”

 

Do you  see in the First Amendment the verbiage “Separation of Church and State?”

 

Neither do I.

 

We don’t see it because it is NOT there.  The First Amendment was given its place of prominence because our Founding Fathers wanted to insure that the government would never establish a “religion” that would be forced upon the American people; and that we would always have freedom of speech.

 

Then why do we hear this clause so much?

 

In 1802, a group of Baptist ministers from Danbury, CT wrote to Thomas Jefferson. They were concerned about the possibility that the State would impose a denomination and their freedom to worship as Baptists might be in jeopardy.

 

Here is Thomas Jefferson’s response to these CT pastors:

 

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

 

The Final Letter as sent:

 

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

 

Gentlemen

 

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”  (Emphasis mine)

 

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

In the past 100 years, the phrase “Wall of Separation between Church and State” (taken from Jefferson’s letter) has been misconstrued  to mean that anything to do with Religion must be separate from State or Federal Government.

 

First of all, as I said before – the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found no where in the Constitution.  God-hating individuals have repeatedly used this statement (which was to PROTECT the Christians) so many times, that the average person on the street will tell you that this is part of America’s Constitution.

 

And don’t forget that this man (Jim Bridenstine) was addressing a Christian Ministry – NOT an audience filled with NASA employees!

 

Brethren, you should print this article out so that you can speak truth to a person who is parroting the lie that this clause is found in our Constitution!

 

From frc.org

 

NASA Chief Finds Space for Faith

 

April 18, 2019

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the First Amendment. Or maybe, after the spat over a speech by NASA’s Jim Bridenstine, it does. Thanks to the double standards of secularism, public officials can’t even talk about faith without making headlines. It’s no wonder, then, that when the head of America’s space program gave remarks at a Christian ministry, even he had trouble finding signs of intelligence in the criticism that followed.

 

Capitol Ministries [Blog Editor’s Link], the organization that Jim has supported for years, is hardly controversial. Nine of the president’s 15 cabinet officials are sponsors of the ministry — whose aim is simple: influencing government with biblical teachings. During his talk, Bridenstine even talked about the importance of that goal and what it means in the context of these times. “I love what Ralph said earlier: We’re not trying to Christianize the U.S. government. We believe in an institutional separation, but we also believe in influence. And that’s a big distinction and an important distinction, and that’s why I love this ministry.”

 

Jim couldn’t have been more clear: No one in the Trump administration is trying to create a theocracy. They just want the same freedom to bring their personal views to bear on public policy that liberals have. Still, secularists like Business Insider’s Dave Mosher, seem intent on dragging Bridenstine through the mud for daring to talk about actual NASA history — like Buzz Aldrin’s communion on the moon and the Apollo 8 astronauts’ Bible reading in orbit.

 

In a 2,000-word rant about the faith of Trump’s team, Mosher insists that “Some ethics and legal experts outside NASA have expressed concern over Bridenstine’s speech. They believe it ran afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which outlines a separation of church and state, and might have also violated ethics rules for federal executives.” Quoting people like Virginia Canter of Citizens for Responsible Ethics, Mosher tries to paint Bridenstine as a typical Establishment Clause abuser. “One’s personal beliefs must be respected, but when appearing in an official capacity, you have to adhere to certain ethical standards,” Canter explained. “One is not to give the impression that you are officially endorsing any products or service or enterprise.”

 

Funny, where was Mosher when Barack Obama was headlining political fundraisers for Planned Parenthood? Or worse, invoking God’s blessing on the abortion giant? Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have not only endorsed the group’s “service” — but funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to it. No one seemed to care when they appeared in their official capacities to preach the gospel of abortion. But put a Christian on the stage from the Trump administration — encouraging something as innocent as prayer — and they’re a walking ethics violation! This is NASA, for crying out loud. What are they worried about? Jim sending astronauts to evangelize the galaxy?

 

If secularists are upset about Bridenstine’s speech, then they should have been shaking the White House gates over the last administration’s agenda for the space agency. How quickly we forget those shocking comments in 2010 when President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his new mission should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations…” If you’re looking for a textbook abuse of public office, I’d say start with the Obama administration. After that, giving a few remarks at a charity function seems like small potatoes.

 

But hypocrisy is the name of the Democratic game. Like Secretary Mike Pompeo and countless other Trump officials before him, Bridenstine is just the latest target of an intolerant Left whose only goal is purging faith from public life and history. If activists can’t get Christians to stay quiet, then they’ll try to drive them out of government altogether. That will be tough to do in this administration, thanks to the fearless leadership of Trump. If his team has learned anything, it’s how to stand up to bullies. That shouldn’t be hard for a man Jim Bridenstine. He was already light years ahead of the opposition. source

 

I say WELL DONE to the head of NASA!  He is not ashamed of our Lord Jesus before men, and neither will Jesus be ashamed of him before His Father!

 

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33).

 

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

__________________

A MESSAGE TO MY [Geri Ungurean] READERS

 

Brethren,

 

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for subscribing to “Absolute Truth From the Word of God.”

 

Many of you have been so generous by sending gifts to my P.O. Box. It’s always so surprising and warms my heart when I see gifts from my readers.

 

Here is the address for the P.O. Box:

 

Geri Ungurean
PO BOX 1031
Savage, MD 20763

 

But I did something recently that I did not feel comfortable about. I added a “Donate” button which I just took down.  My husband and I had a scare (and it’s not over) We received a letter from the VA stating that the government is looking at the money paid out to disabled Veterans and they may be cutting back the amount. Tim  was in the Vietnam war and volunteered for Desert Storm.

 

Anyway, I told hubby that I should try to find a full time job.  He was against that because of my health issues and also he said that it would cut back the writing ministry. And who is going to hire a woman who is almost 68? LOL!

 

So, friends urged me to place a donate button on the site.  I haven’t felt right since I did that. It was like saying to God that I didn’t trust Him that He would take care of us.  It’s like a heavy weight has been lifted off since I took down that Donate button!

 

Your prayers are much needed and so appreciated for this ministry, and I thank you so very much for adding us to your prayer list!

 

I love you all so much!

 

I can’t wait to meet you in heaven as we worship our Precious Jesus together!

 

What a Glorious Day that will be!

 

In Yeshua,
Geri
MARANATHA!

 

[NCCR Blog Editor: I do not sure Geri Ungurean’s reticence about using a donation button. Even so I encourage you to send your monetary support to Geri for her steadfast faith in standing with Jesus the Christ, the Savior of all who believe in the risen Lord.]

 

In Support of Conservative Principles and Biblical Christianity


Ben Franklin praising Christian Morality quote

 

John R. Houk

© August 15, 2014

 

I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.

 

Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.

 

Thus begins my response:

 

Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.

 

Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I’ll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another’s faith or lack thereof.

 

The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray – so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith – so be it. Don’t force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.

 

The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman’s free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman’s womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of “fetus” is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.

 

The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.

 

The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.

 

Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.

 

JRH 8/15/14

Please Support NCCR