John McCain, John Hagee, and Why the Holocaust Matters

Not long ago, McCain solicited the support of John Hagee, the well-known Pastor of Cornerstone Church and TV Evangelist for support for his campaign. Hagee enthusiastically endorsed the campaign, freely and all was well in the political realm for about an hour and a half. This election though, with Obama and his pastor having set the precedent, religious endorsements have proven problematic for both candidates, and even for President Bush, whose choice of Minister to marry his daughter and new son in law came out for Obama.

For Obama, his longstanding Pastor the problem was that his pastor was

A. Outspoken
B. Controversial

For McCain, the problem with his pastor friend was that he was

A. Outspoken
B. Controversial.

The Problem With Religious Endorsements

The problems which are beginning to surface in political endorsements by religious leaders, are that politics and religion keep trying to mix, have often mixed and have never been successful at it. Politics especially in free countries is dependent on pleasing as many diverse persons and groups as possible in an election year, and while lukewarm religion wavers also, religious groups' motives are to support the best candidate which supports their often divisive and controversial views. Hence, no matter how many people are involved (there are at least 70 million Gospel-believing Christians or more), once they endorse a secular candidate, their controversial beliefs and associations come out. Religion in this country, be it liberal or conservative, Muslim , Christian, Jewish or other, is inherently politically incorrect to someone, and the Media, constantly shifting feet not to offend commercial audiences, runs to the minor controversies of misspeak often characterizing all religious views as ready to 'shove their views down the throats' of the American people. For this reason, there are no longer safe religious endorsements.

Hagee, McCain & the Shoah

Obama's dilemma set the stage for the terrible world of political dilemma. He and his pastor, were long term friends by accounts, and his family life tied up with his pastor. His pastor, however had strong opinions, including lauding Farrakhan, and deriding the 'American condition', which proved to be an embarrassment to Obama when running for the highest office, as too many Americans were already concern for possible Islamic ties in Obama's past. Obama at first, was not disloyal to his soon to be former pastor, but when the outspokeness became cumbersome, he left the Church and his pastor, which did not have the effect he had hoped for , as some were glad to see him in a 'tolerant' stance, while others considered his character and loyalty of separating with an old family friend and pastor when the tides rose.

With McCain however, the situation is slightly different. Like with Obama, McCain had to have understood that fundamental Christians believe differently than many and have what are controversial views to some, though those views date back 2000 years and more. Speaking of things like the Rapture of the Church, Christ's return, the Blood atonement and so forth are not mainstays on the Senate floor, nor on the local news, and since Biblical illiteracy is rampant today, perfectly normal and accepted doctrine across many denominations sounds eccentric when spoken in public arenas, to people who 'have not heard of such things'. This is the dilemma both men but particularly McCain found himself in.

The controversial 'statements' which the Press was so horrified about were some remarks made by Hagee about the Holocaust happening for a reason in order to get the Jews back to Israel. It was a Media circus, in which Hagee was implied as anti-Semitic, like Wright was implied as Islamic, and neither McCain for election or foreign policy/relations reasons nor Obam could afford the campaign 'baggage', even if the perceptions were skewed. And they were, no matter what 'kernel of truths' existed.

McCain, though, may have also made a fundamental error in immediately declining Hagee's support, although the truth is, Hagee, while misunderstood, promoted a fundamental misunderstanding of the Shoah and the Jews and Israel which is rampant among born-again Christians. Both candidates would have done well to say something like, 'isn't it the remarkable nature of a dynamic Constitution, that we can seek and receive endorsements from those not exactly like us or sharing our views'---without causing further divisiveness, disloyalty and hurt feelings on both sides, with a sense of betrayal all around. Christians knew up front there were things about McCain they would not agree with: his fortune is partly tied up in the Beer industry, and one can hear the dear church women with their hankys in the back pew half fainting. However, he is pro-life on almost every piece of legislation of that nature he has encountered, and he is a thoughtful 'across the aisle' Senator, no matter what the Press, and one finds ration, reason, and a pretty constant support of Christian issues and mores, as well as a dignified and knowledgeable not only view of but relationship with Israel and her leaders. The beer thing aside, his history of voting should remind us that we have not found a perfect Christian candidate in some years who was electable, and while we should strive for the best, we are electing a President of a diverse secular nation and not a Pastor, which would be quite a different matter.

Hagee's Comment and the Shoah

Perhaps the first thing that should be said about the comments of Pastor Hagee is that as is often the case with portrayal of Christians, they were taken out of context, and slightly twisted from the original intent. Hagee was and often preaches about the Jews in history, the Jewish roots of Christianity, Jews in the endtimes, and Prophecy---he also has many ties in Israel and Israeli-based ministries, and has been a long time supporter of Jewish causes, politically and religiously. His support of Israel and often right teaching on Jewish-Christian relations and doctrine have immensely helped in the 20th and emerging 21st century to change erroneous views which have been too long floating around Evangelical and Fundamental Christianity, which through twisted doctrine have led many to an Anti-Semitic stance.

What Hagee was referring to was an issue of the Sovereignty of God, a Romans 8:28, 'all things work together for the good' idea, in which what I believe he was trying to say was that the Shoah, as horrible and detestable as it was, played a providential role in the return of the Jews to Israel. Even many Rabbis believe that, but two things caused the stir:

1. A slightly wrongful view regarding the nature and 'necessity' of the Shoah
and
2. A poor choice of wording.


To address the second first, it will go without question to both politicians and pastors that wording of certain responses can make or break reputations, deals, transactions and elections. Anyone who has ever taught the Bible or preached a sermon, knows what it is like to reach a point one needs to make within five seconds, and want to make it dramatically, yet want to not err from the Scriptures or correct doctrine. ( There are congregates who hang on every word with a slice and dice).
And sometimes, we say things a certain way, which many might take as incorrect but is not. So it goes with politicians. While I can never excuse some comments like McCain age old gorilla joke, or Obama's friend's dissing McCain's POW experience, I can say that if we are all lined up in a row with our whole lives layed out and every wrong comment, stupid hurtful joke, bad word etc exposed, none of us would qualify even for the address we live at, or job we have, or office we would seek. These should not be the constant crucibles the press uses for ratings. And both politicians and pastors should realize that in these days and times 'the walls have ears', and not be too mortified but be cautious.

THE HOLOCAUST, OR SHOAH and the Election

I have written before on the Shoah and the Elections and will iterate that I believe that the issue of the Shoah is critical to the choice of President. Why? because it has been the philosophical, social , religious and economic foundation of the world
and international relations ever since. We do not want a holocaust denier in the office: it would immmediately tell us that he could not see what was in front of him. We do not want someone with a superficial view either, for the politics of the Shoah and spiritual and social remnants confront us on every street corner in every nation, and have made us all what we are for the good or bad.

Did the Jews have to Suffer the Holocaust for the Return to Israel?

The primary question though, which was worded somewhat poorly is whether the Jews had to suffer the holocaust or Shoah in order to get back to Israel to promises and covenants of God, and the answer, which many Christians need to take to heart is simply 'no'---Israel was about to happen anyway. The move to resettle world Jewry back in the land had gone on almost as long as the dispersion into the nations. In the late 1800s talk heated up through the proposals of Herzl and others, and by a twist of fate, in gratitute for work of a Jewish engineer, in WWI, causing a British victory, the Balfour Treaty, declaring the place of Israel as a Jewish homeland came about. White Papers and other documents ensued, and rather than the holocaust having to happen so that the Jews could providentially be catapulted back to Israel, it is far more the case that following the 1917 declaration, the dynamics of the Shoah began to build to keep them out by Vatican and other national interests, and much more for a reason of divine warfare: wherever there is a great act of God about to ensue, there is a great opposition of Satan.

Now I know it is not o.k. to say 'Satan' in the press out loud for fear of accidentally naming one of their bosses, but it is hard for me to understand in the modern mind and 'zeitgeist' how one could believe as C.S. Lewis has pointed out, that there would not be a Satan also. Lewis declared that this was one of Satan's greatest triumph's for he could practice his warfare against the human race without identification. Yet a far more scriptural and historically accurate position, lies within a little studied aspect of the Glory of God: that the glory of God, is bordered by a great darkness. 'The horror of great darkness' mentioned in Genesis 15 follows the sacrifice of Abraham for the covenant of the Seed and the Land. There is a plague of darkness on Egypt just before the deliverance of the Children of Israel back to the Promised land, and Dt. 4 and 5 talk about darkness enveloping the fire burning on the mountain.2 Samuel 22 refers to darkness under God's feet, and 2 Chronicle refers to God dwelling within it (in Glory there is not darkness,but in its surrounds).Psalms 97:2 talks about darkness round about him, as do countless other passages in Psalms, such as Ps 18. At the Cross, in the deliverance of Israel, just as the Messiah 'gives up the ghost' and before the resurrection, the darkness takes the sky. And while the canons of Scripture are closed, it can be easily seen, that the great darkness, described in one Torah passage on the Exodus, was 'so great they could not see one another'---I cannot think of a better explanation for the Shoah.

It was not that God put Israel through one last destructive fire to 'sacrifice' them for the existence of Israel, or even for unbelief, for the slumber of Israel was providential, so that Gentiles might be added into the promises and covenants. Israel did not have to go through a 'purgatory' for cleansing or to produce the land: the Land was already on its way into their hands. What the Shoah was , was a last ditch effort of men's hatred and a warfare of Hell, to devour as much of the Seed as possible, so they could not enter the Land, and so the prophesied plan of God could not take place. It was the 'horror of great darkness' which edged the great and glorious fulfillment of the Covenant of the Land between man and God . (see Land Belongs to Israel
This view shows the great sorrow and darkness His Children have walked through on this earth in between His Canaan covenants, and does not make them as having to be tortured to get Israel back, or punished for not understanding the ways of God.

McCain and the Horror of Great Darkness

Now, it should be noted, that it is unlikely that John McCain will ever read this column, nor try to explain the Horror of Great Darkness to the Press, who actually are quite comfortable with it, but it is meant to offer a corrected view of what went on. God does not willingly afflict the children of men. Says so. Conversely, there is nothing that happens that is not held in his hand. So the real issue is and should be a non issue in a campaign: we have our little understood doctrinal points of view, but we can still endorse even a secular candidate who has never heard of such a thing. Conversely, if John Hagee and Anheuser Busch (different Bush) both decide to endorse McCain, he does not have to dissassociate because the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like it, or because AA doesn't like it, etc. I doubt Obama or McCain are down the line on anything all their contributors or supporters believe.
A sign of dignity and maturity in a country is that they begin to live and let live on the small stuff. Tell McCain never to make fun of women's appearances, nor tell off-color jokes. It doesn't suit you, it isn't dignified but it doesn't disqualify you to be president. Neither does the way Hagee believes. McCain was once an Episcopal which denomination is now allowing gays in the pulpit: do we not vote for the more conservative candidate? Even a lot of Episcopals disagree. And Obama's wife said 'for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country'---I don't think she would have said it if she had time to edit, but when you haven't had sleep or rest or quiet for weeks, or quality family time, and you are watched everywhere by everyone, give it a rest. I want to hear and so do most intelligent Americans how each of you dear candidates are going to stabilize this country much less Iraq. Give me real-time solutions so I can decide who and what you are. Your character(s) are already established beyond the petty goofs. We all figured out what Jesse Jackson meant without help from Bill OReilly. Here's to a more human election process, and how about asking how each candidate views the post-Shoah world and genocide instead of what they wore on an African visit or whether they were going to replace a Beach Boy. And by the way, somebody get both of them better joke books.

Obama & the "Christian Left" or "Right" or pseudo-Christianity: The Dilemma of 20 Centuries

There is a passage in Pilgrim's Progress regarding the main character "Christian" encountering a Mr. Worldly Wiseman. It goes as follows:

The gentleman's name that met him was Mr. Worldly Wiseman, he dwelt in the town of Carnal Policy, a very great town, and also hard by from whence Christian came. This man, then, meeting with Christian, and having some inkling of him,-- for Christian's setting forth from the City of Destruction was much noised abroad, not only in the town where he dwelt, but also it began to be the town talk in some other places,-- Mr. Worldly Wiseman, therefore, having some guess of him, by beholding his laborious going, by observing his sighs and groans, and the like, began thus to enter into some talk with Christian.

WORLD. How now, good fellow, whither away after this burdened manner?

CHR. A burdened manner, indeed, as ever, I think, poor creature had! And whereas you ask me, Whither away? I tell you, Sir, I am going to yonder wicket-gate before me; for there, as I am informed, I shall be put into a way to be rid of my heavy burden.

WORLD. Hast thou a wife and children?

CHR. Yes; but I am so laden with this burden that I cannot take that pleasure in them as formerly; methinks I am as if I had none. 1 Cor 7:29

WORLD. Wilt thou hearken unto me if I give thee counsel?

CHR. If it be good, I will; for I stand in need of good counsel.


(Mr. Worldly Wiseman's counsel to Christian)
WORLD. I would advise thee, then, that thou with all speed get thyself rid of thy burden; for thou wilt never be settled in thy mind till then; nor canst thou enjoy the benefits of the blessing which God hath bestowed upon thee till then.

CHR. That is that which I seek for, even to be rid of this heavy burden; but get it off myself, I cannot; nor is there any man in our country that can take it off my shoulders; therefore am I going this way, as I told you, that I may be rid of my burden.

WORLD. Who bid thee go this way to be rid of thy burden?

CHR. A man that appeared to me to be a very great and honourable person; his name, as I remember, is Evangelist.

(40)
(Mr. Worldly Wiseman condemned Evangelist's counsel)
WORLD. I beshrew him for his counsel! there is not a more dangerous and troublesome way in the world than is that unto which he hath directed thee; and that thou shalt find, if thou wilt be ruled by his counsel. Thou hast met with something, as I perceive, already; for I see the dirt of the Slough of Despond is upon thee; but that slough is the beginning of the sorrows that do attend those that go on in that way. Hear me, I am older than thou; thou art like to meet with, in the way which thou goest, wearisomeness, painfulness, hunger, perils, nakedness, sword, lions, dragons, darkness, and, in a word, death, and what not! These things are certainly true, having been confirmed by many testimonies. And why should a man so carelessly cast away himself, by giving heed to a stranger?

Now, before one thinks the above passage has no bearing on today's discussion, it must be noted that one of today's major headlines is that Obama is going after what he is describing as the "Christian Left" and some Evangelicals to get on board the 'Obama' bus, so to speak. That raw appeal, however, is just finally too much not to say something, and the quote above points to a critical and forefront problem in today's world in generally accepting all as 'Christian' whom choose to call themselves Christian, without any plumbline of doctrine or other position, and when it comes to 'courting' (it should be called 'date rape) the Christian vote, on either side, someone just finally has to lower the boom on poor Mr. Obama who has at times to appease those he's with worn Muslim garments, and accepted the presence of Muslim brotherhood 'protectors', and attending as so many others do a church which is more political than Christian.


"Neo-Christianity & "Pseudo-Christianity"

I was tempted to use the word 'neo-Christianity' in the title of this article because that is essentially where we are at in the new 'Christian Church World' today. Once you begin to discern between who is a Christian and who is not, and further whether they should vote for any particular candidate, all protest with 'who are you to say' and 'you don't know a person's heart' etc, but the truth is, and there is still truth, that the above objections come from a modern day relativism where everyone is anything they want to be just if one says so, the old 'I want to believe' syndrome with apologies to X-files.

The first and foremost issue though is that even the idea of 'truth' is dissolving beyond belief, and there are few plumblines as everyone wishes to as the Holy Scriptures says, 'do what is right in their own eyes'. Before there can be a discussion though of whether a Christian should vote for Obama, or the other fellow, or even vote when the choices are not perfect, it is past time for the discourse on what we mean when we say 'Christian'. Here's a little controversy: even in Evangelical, fundamental and pentecostal circles, the modern American Church is so far from the commands and teachings and even organization of Scriptures, as to constitute 'something else'. Perhaps they could be called 'neo-Christianity' for it is a new form and concept of following Christ which automatically makes it 'something else'. For example instead of bishops and deacons and a servant-pastor, we have boards of directors, 5013c non-profit corporations, and what we call deacons, bishops etc, only occasionally take on biblical roles. Further, our churches are open-forums, because they are corporations , anyone may attend, even unbelievers, and in today's atmosphere if one even suggested an unbeliever should not attend, or even take communion, one would be called 'intolerant' or mean-spirited, but the actual assembling of the brethren was meant for believers to be fitly joined as a body, and unbelievers were won first and then added in the Book of Acts. So the very 'church' we think is most since, is actually askance from the true ikklesia of Jesus Christ, and true biblical teaching and living is not found in either the more 'liberal' or legalistic churches.

There are several types of Churches referred to today as 'Christian' but most are farther away than that:

1. The Catholic Church- the catholic church does not bear at all the organization nor basic teaching of Scriptures except in a few parts. They appoint an infallible head, though God declares no man infallible. They call their priests 'father' yet the scriptures declare no man is to be called father. Sacraments and ritual have taken the place of faith and grace, and salvation is tied to membership in the 'mother church' which is not a biblical requirement. Idolatry and icons condemned in scripture are frequent. Church policy and rules claim the same authority as scripture, a practice warned against in Revelation. They declare their descendence from St. Peter, but the RCC 's history really began with Constantine in 313 a.d.They have given a deified position to Mary and even claimed her as a co-redemtrix with a direct ascension, not taught in scriptures. Because they use christian 'language' though, often meaning different things than are meant, and they allow widespread sexual sin to continue in their pulpits. Yet they are grouped with 'christians' and may be consided the 'christian' left, though Catholics are very diverse in voting patterns.

2. Protestantism

More than most, most 'Protestant' churches stemming from Luther's Reformation including Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Congregationalists and other 'mainline' denominations consider themselves Christians, and today, mostly reflect in their platforms a liberal flavor, and certainly in their seminaries. Yet most are fairly far from the teachings of the New Testament, much lest the Old. They allow homosexuals as members which the Bible openly condemns and describes as a death knell to the Spirit [reprobation]; they are 'pro-choice' or favor a mother's right to kill a child before birth, a practice condemned in scripture. They are quick to open soup kitchens and homeless shelters as 'church projects' but rarely do so in more than perfunctory manner as though one should, and they do not ascribe to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In a poll not long ago, most of their seminarians did not believe in the Virgin Birth and most want a 'blood less' Christianity which is not Christianity, for the Covenant is blood-bought. Jesus is seen more as a martyr who died to show us love, but what he died for is seldom addressed, and salvation is seriously redefined. Jesus is sort of the all-time 'role model' for human behavior, but not really LORD and Savior. Politics abound in these churches, which also rely heavily on ritual, and one is more likely to hear a sermon on Green Peace or the Peace Corp than on a Biblical topic, especially in more metropolitan areas of the country. There is rarely church discipline or a strict adherence to the Word of God, and theological writings have a strong air of political correctness as opposed teaching the Word straight.

3. 'Wanna be Called Christians' are groups such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultic groups. Their doctrine though differs so greatly, that most shun working with them save for some liberal churches which will participate in community projects with them. They have strict codes and policies, but both teach the divinity of Christ in a very distorted manner, including teaching that Jesus and Satan were brothers, or that Jesus had the nature of an angel, which were dismissed as heresies early in church history. They range in voting patterns from conservative to liberal.

4. Fundamentalists vs Evangelicals vs Pentecostals

These terms are often used interchangeable but are far from interchangeble. 'Fundamentalist' in the strictest sense refers to an adherence to the fundamentals of doctrines, but it is a cover term to the other two in the press. Fundamentalist use the Bible as final inerrant authority, accepting its claim of infallibility and supposedly life follows suit, although in this day and time it is hard to say that actually happens. Fundamentalists though, mostly vote in a very conservative manner, and rarely vote democrat, although they may vote independently. Evangelicals are often more liberal than fundamentalists per se, allowing for example, divorced pastors, and other liberalities in style of worship and may even allow some extremes like 'Christian yoga' [most disdain], or youth rock concerts etc. Many of these groups have given themselves over to what some refer to as 'lifestyle' Christianity and a new 'admixture' of pop psychology, pop Christian music, t-shirts, events, conferences and cruises over-ride a lived faith. Christian radio stations, tv stations basically afford the ability not to have to ever give anything up at all for Christ and along with certain of the 'prosperity' movement teach that if you are right with God you are headed towards worldly wealth. There is a real mix of folks who refer to themselves as Evangelical, and hence a broad spectrum of voting perspectives, although they are usually pro-Life, opposed to homosexuality, family oriented, and fascinated with the latest books on cults, Christian meditations, and personal testimonies. This is the Dr. Dobson crowd, more into Christian psychology than Christ.

Pentecostals and Charismatics are those who usually adhere to the Holy scriptures as authoritative and also practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, word of knowledge, discernment etc. Some Pentecostals are from a 'Jesus Only' movement which teach against the trinity, which most consider a serious error in doctrine. Pentecostals tend to accept biblical dress styles such as uncut hair for women, long and modest clothes etc, but that is not particular to only Pentecostals and is seen across the varieties of Christianity. They are always morally conservative if they vote. Charismatics are more akin to the TV preaching on certain channels, and have varying doctrine, some willing to go 'beyond scripture' in prophecies etc, although that is a direct defiance of biblical commands. They also involved themselves in a form of 'lifestyle' Christianity, large meetings, etc and have travelled rather far beyond their azuza street history.

Baptists, while fundamentalists, are a group unto themselves. They range from 'Baptist Briders' who believe that only baptist Briders are heaven-bound, to "Independent Fundamental Baptists"- who teach the word as infallible and inerrant, with frequent church attendance, almost all are ultra-conservative and many are involved in fringe groups (not so fringe anymore) such as the Patriot movement, militia, or US Taxpayers party. They vary on Bible versions, but many KJV only persons are of that variety although with increasing research, that is changing across the board. They are a split off from the Southern Baptists who ar ea diverse group ranging from conservative to liberal with even some slightly charismatic churches, who vote any which way but loose, though mostly conservative.

Some black churches such as the one Obama was in for many years in Chicago are a mix of politics, service, good works, a lot of Jesus, though not necessarily biblically defined. African issues currently abound in many black churches of all denominations. Other churches considered 'cult like' including Mennonite vary from ultra conservative, some who will not vote, to liberal , 'high church' congregations and many others abound.

All of this is a somewhat lengthy explanation of why it is not really a comprehensible headline to say 'Obama courts' Christian voters or the 'Christian left. 'Church goers' is probably a more accurate term, for some particularly in high church protestantism hardly even believe in God but have more of a 'God concept' which is hardly true belief.

Should a Christian Vote for Obama?

Ultimately, given the policies espoused, a true Christian could not even entertain voting for Obama. Now, that will rankle especially young people who see him as a family man with ideals galore, hope for the future, and 'Strawberry Fields forever' playing in the background, but if a Christian should vote at all, Obama would have to be out on several counts.

The bible clearly teaches a few fundamentals which are definitional to being a Christian. First and foremost, one must believe in the Blood Covenant of Salvation, in which Jesus is Lord and Savior, dying for the purpose of putting away sin and enmity with God, forgiveness of sin, and a healing of man back to God, a doing away with the curse of the Fall. If you do not believe that, however much you like the stories, or however calming scripture is, you would not be in covenant with him, and you would not be one of His. Absolutely. All else is something else.

There are a few other mainstays though, no matter which way your church wind blows. He is the Way, and the way is exclusive, so one cannot be a broad ecumenist. He is the Truth, and and lie will not stand before Him. He is the Life, and the Resurrection, and until you get a hold of that, eternal life is not yours yet, and you only have a deceased hero. Being life, you can not be opposed to life, and must respect and care for it. You cannot support legislation to slaughter innocent life upon preference. You also cannot 'decide' life began after birth, for he says that before he formed you in the womb, he knew you, and each person is a part of his plan, not to be destroyed by another. A candidate who does not support cradle to grave life, is not to be supported. Better not to vote at all, than to put your hand, which is Christ's hand, to that bloody ballot.

You cannot, if you love Christ and keep his commandments, support homosexuality or homosexual unions. You can support civil rights for all, for we are all sinners, some saved by grace, and some still to be saved, but you cannot condone what the Bible, the Word of God, calls reprobation, which is a serious separation from God, and an abomination in His sight. (rms 1)

You cannot believe in rendering to Ceasar more than belongs to Ceasar, and church-state separation is a Biblical mandate, as the Church can have only one head, Christ. While it sounds good on the surface, just as Bush's points of life and 'faith based initiatives', Obama has a government run coordination plan for religious organizations that is the segue to a State Church as seen in a blurb on his website:

As president, Barack Obama will establish a new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships within the White House. The Council will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients. The Council will:

# Train the Trainers to enable local faith-based organizations to learn best practices, grant-making procedures and service delivery so that they can better apply for and use federal dollars.
# Partner with State and Local Offices so that federal efforts build on successes made at the state and local level.
# Hold Recipients Responsible by conducting rigorous performance evaluation, researching what works well and disseminating best practices.
# Close the Summer Learning Gap by focusing faith-based and community-based efforts on summer learning programs for 1 million children.

So can one support Obama and be 'right with Christ'? The answer has to be no. Is McCain the answer? He at least leans toward pro-life, though it does not seem to be an issue of comfort to him. This column is actually not to promote McCain over Obama, for that is not the issue at hand. The issue is how preposterous it has become for anyone to use the Christian label who does not have openly Christian views, or the audacity of a candidate to court people whom he will do in in office.
It is unconscionable. Do I like some of his policies? Yes, in fact some of the things he promises, although a little naive, would be good for the nation if accomplishes them, for he is a trained Civil Libertarian, a serious need in this day and time, and that is not inconsistent with the Gospel at all. But when Civil Liberties is only for the politically correct, then , no. I am a 'christian environmentalist': I believe God from the beginning gave us the care of the earth to treat with love and concern and we have ransacked it, but I cannot sacrifice that belief for the love of the unborn, who Mr. Obama, are the true hope of this generation with Christ as the greatest hope.

I know the changes which occur in a person when one accepts and receives Christ as Savior, and as one grows in Christ, as I have done with others (for 23 years), one begins to take on the Mind of Christ and the heart of Christ, and it is not ever again 'politics as usual'. Charles Colson once coined the term 'kingdoms in conflict', and one would have to point to our King as being one not of this world, but sovereign to the ones of this world. I study the shoah or holocaust and do not want a stronghold of Fascism or Organized Crime, or Communism in its modern form, either, I also hold to Christian and political freedom. So I am not advising people how to vote, but I am saying, that one cannot 'court' groups of voters, as though they were stupid, promise the sun moon and stars, and then immediately turn on them when the office is obtained. Belief and life in Christ is not a toy for desperate politicians seeking votes. At some point integrity has to come to play.

When Worldly Wiseman responds to Christian in Pilgrim's Progress, he urges Christian to turn back to the kind of Christianity which does not meet with fire, trials, pain and discomfort or even death. I say, with our vote as with our other decisions, we should respond as Polycarp as he faced death:

Eighty and six years have I served Him, and he never did me any injury; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior. --Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, and Bishop of Smyrna

John McCain, Obama, Sergeant, "You Can't Have My Son".

I almost died of sugar poisoning on that commercial about Baby Alex going to Iraq in 100 years. Do the Math. The draft even would be over for Baby Alex. Even Obama won't want em for the Good Lord knows what at 100. There's an even more terrible reply of one cruel mother humorously offering a child freely to Uncle Johnny for the war, and somewhere between the two, humor aside, the logic is bizarre and twisted, and that is coming from a realistic pacifist.

YOU CAN'T HAVE HIM EITHER

I would like at this point to go into a prolific and articulate discussion of the concept of a 'Just War', and whether Christians should ever participate in war, and will declare at the outset that my son, who is a Private first class in the Army Reserves, and I do not agree on that, at least not now. But did you know, that if I attempted to convince him definitively not to continue in or join the Army, that I would be charged with a crime? Well, it seems that free speech is somewhat suspended to parents of recruits, although nothing I have said hasn't been said by many even of rank in the military about Iraq. And there is a reason for this, which I was not aware of when my adult son made 'his own' decision: when your sons join the Army, they are considered 'Army Property'.

Now, as a civil libertarian, I am not sure how this slipped passed the Emancipation Proclamation some 150 or so years ago, but it did. I am also not terribly certain whether it is recent or ancient fine print, but it is in the paperwork they sign, and as those of us with children in that age range know, once they have made their minds up, small clauses become seemingly inconsequential, but that clause has bothered me since the start.

A Person is not Property; A Person is not Army Property

Now, I raised my son with Christian pacifist ideals, and quite frankly I did not raise him to kill another human being, or wantonly disregard the life even of an enemy and we have seen our share. And my son is a fine and decent and responsible person, but since returning from boot camp and AIT school, he has parted at least in some uncomfortable ways from the way he was raised, even been led to believe some of it is not appropriate, and I am not the first Christian parent to say that. There is always a spiritual battle and layer which goes with every choice, and things in the spirit change like things in the natural, and when a person agrees to sign an oath of allegiance which excludes God as first allegiance, it has a spiritual outcome. It also is wrong I believe, even in the military to endeavor to train tenderheartedness and love out of a person. There really are some just wars, sons really do have to fight them, but most military men I have met in my life came back with a greater respect for life, or appreciation of it, after finding out that 'war games' are no games at all. Faith in God though, is something the military should not tamper with nor should they be allowed to dissension family ties, relationships and beliefs just to keep more bodies coming.

Further, the definition of 'property' implies ownership by someone:

Property means Right of Action for things that can be exchanged. Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law (e.g. Saint Irenaeus). Wikipedia

The definition of property implies not only ownership but a number of legalities associated with ownership. Property does not have civil rights. Property is not allowed free speech. Property, in this case seems to enjoy no other right but the one to bear arms. Most parents, including myself were never aware of that surrender when their children in a noble spirit chose to sign up to defend their country, if that is indeed what is occurring in Iraq.

But if the government, particularly the Army wants to argue 'property rights', I would also like to vie for mine, though it may cause division, the division they have begun is already there:

1. I was never informed that my son would become property of the US Army.
2. I was never made aware nor ever agreed to a surrender of my parental rights before God or in the Constitutions to advise, correct and lead even a child over majority age in issues of faith and other life issues. In fact, I rather promised as do all Christian and Jewish parents when children are born never to surrender that duty, as soldiers of a greater army.
3. I will hold my property rights in my son before theirs if they wish that atrocious label:

A. God had the concept of my son.
B. God gave me the son.
C. I never reniged on that contract, nor sold any rights nor surrendered any rights, even if he turn away from me forever.
D. I invested all my money in my son.
E. I attended everymoment of his upbringing, including:

25 years of Biblical Spiritual traiing
12 years of Homeschooling
4650 diaper changes
27375 meals prepared
around 70,000.00 in mortgage and rent
219,000 hours of non-stop care and monitoring at 10.00/hr= 2,190,000.00
Meal cost: 68, 437 (frugal)
All furniture purchased, @ 7000.00 over 25 years.
2 bikes: 150.00
Christmas Gifts: 2500.00
schooling costs @ 2000.00 over 25 years due to clever budgeting
All books: @2000.00
All Medicines & medical bills (not insured): over 2000.00+
All clothes, budget: 2-3000.00
Time, love attention: priceless and the list is endless, but those are a few
claims including homeschooling, daycare (first 4 years 12,000),
All transportation costs.
So, for the moment do the math.....

You did not even come along to this piece of 'property' until 2007, had him for 5 or six months and weekends since, fed him burgers out of a mess hall and gave him only one color and kind of clothing to wear. ever. You yelled at him all the time. You taught him how to kill, and even kill children if necessary. You taught him how to really hurt another person in arm to arm combat.

And you want to tell me, I do not have greater property rights, to the point I can't suggest the Iraqi war is immoral? Now, I don't want to be beat up or hurt, because my life is about the gospel and not about protesting the war, but I think you better respect his and every other troop's personhood and rights, understanding the military's special concerns, without viewing him as property shipping thousands and thousands as though they were kindling wood on an oil fire.

So, Johnny, Barak, George, I had no choice, you already snookered my baby into your new Reich, but you better treat the fella right, or his mother is going to come back for her property and so is his LORD and Savior.

"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.."

Psynister Psychology: "Psychologizing of Belief"The

Neurological Correlates of Belief

I read the above article and was dumbfounded that the "Psychologizing" of Belief has finally gone so far, that scientists now wish to study neurological 'underpinnings' of belief, ascribing them to some bottom line physiological process, and the natural hypothesis and projection is that 'belief' may be in the article above 'treated' pharmaceutically. That is not so remarkable a concept really, except to the degree it has reached, for medical and psychological models of cognitive processes have often been examined and almost all of human experience has been 'translated' into terms which psychologists, psychiatrists and physicians find suitable for third party payments and research funding.

Back twenty years or more ago, I was an Assistant professor at a Medical School in Behavioral Sciences. I knew even then, before my faith was more important than my psychology, that those who ascribed totally without examination to the "Medical Model" of human behavior, were not even comfortable with a psychological view, much less a theological view, and certainly not an Evangelical one at that. I recall a conversation I had with a Pharmacology professor on Grief and Bereavement, in which he stated that one day, he believed they could find a 'cure', i.e. a pharmacological one, for grief. His reasoning was the same reasoning of all those who share that viewpoint, that since human behavior almost always correlates with physiological changes and events, then if one can stop, altar or modify those events for example at the neurological level, then one could, say, alleviate the pain of the grieving process. The modern American mind enjoys easy, one-two punch answers: take a pill, and suffering a loss will not hurt, as though love, and death and relationship were mere factors in an equation, with no meaning above biological events.

Is Grief a Disease?

In 1961, a man named George Engel wrote an article in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, entitled "Is Grief a disease?", and I responded indignantly in 1984 at the APA convention in Toronto with a paper given at Division 32 with "Is Grief a Disease? Revisited", a response to the medical model. Dr. Engels went on and on in his article about how grief was a disease and could be 'treated' and I went on and on 23 years later on how grief was not a disease and how dangerous a viewpoint that was. That, dear readers, is the beauty of academics, going on and on about thus and such and never arriving at a consensus. By far, I think, I was quite right, and my point of view, shared by many is better for the world in general, but remains a 'Minority Report'. The constant 'medicalizing' and psychologizing of human dignity, suffering, love, honor and other such "concepts' which defy operational definitions, represents on of the most significant and putrid denigrations of the human condition which we confront today.

Martin Buber, I-Thou Relationships & Dehumanization in the Shoah

Now, this column usually confront issues to do with the Shoah or Church or ethics and one may consider this somewhat 'off-topic' but it is anything but. One of the most central themes in the human factors behind the holocaust and subsequent genocides is the dehumanization of the person. When one has empathy with another, it is very hard to harm the person, and when one must due to some societal limit, empathy and sympathy play a role in humane treatment, whether in prisons, or war, or treatment etc. Martin Buber, the premiere Rabbi of moral ethics in the Shoah, referred to the proper perspective as an I-Thou relationship, between man and God, between man and man. He spoke often of the dignity and worth of human beings, souls encountering souls, and life having intrinsic and not just overlaid meaning and significance.

Hitler, however once noted that his main beef with the German people was that they did not know how to hate, and that to have a really effective war effort, he had to train 20th century Germans how to hate, so they could effectively and rabidly confront an enemy for the purpose of defeat. He set about with quite a plan: the individual, both Jew and German became objects: the Jews, objects for destruction, the Azazels who would carry all the 'sin' out of Germany, who when they were gone, the Nazis reasoned, all would be well in politics, society, religion and the family. Germans also though were 'objectified': they were not existential heroes, nor people of faith, but a segment of the 'Volk', a part of the war effort, and the only viable relations were mediated by the State. The value to the State became the premiere ethic: the first to go were those inhabiting the beds of State Mental Hospitals, the feebleminded and the mentally ill, for they were defined not as human life with that intrinsic value, but as 'useless feeders': they drew off the German economy but never added to it, and in time, they were systematically euthanized along with other human riff raff such as alcoholics, epileptics and the chronically unemployed. Sixty four thousand Germans were murdered before such an outrage arose which closed the whole thing down. One can kill 'useless feeders' and deem them 'lebensunwerte leben' [life unworthy of life] and the moral plumbline was cost to the State, and the muddying of bloodlines.

Back in the USSA...

So, here, now that the war has been over for 60 years, we are certainly in the US above all that, it could never happen here. Well, except for the inconvenience of over 40 million infants destroyed on their way into life , or the massive numbers of black men administered syphilis in the 50s to see how they might die, or the massive sterilization and killings of our own mentally retarded during the same war, by Eugenicists here, or maybe by one lonely death of a lovely young woman called a PVS
(permanent vegetative state) in which a nation watched her starved to death and even water withheld in a grotesque thirsting to death while we debated over coffee whether that was all right. It was the week sharks surrounded the waters of the State she was dying in. This is of course leaving out the victims of the drug trade, organized crime, gangs etc in which we have all quite willingly 'objectified' one another as means to the end of our own comfort and wealth.

All this diatribe is leading to the point at hand, of the devastating topic of redefining even human belief, and ascribing it to the realm of psychological or medical malady as if that occurred in a philosophical vacuum. It does not: to even investigate the physiologic underpinnings of 'BELIEF' means that we believe we can use mechanical and biological weapons against it, as though there were no real 'belief' or 'faith', as though in the 21st century many believe in scientific realms we have somehow all implicitly agreed to this, as though it were the only thing that made sense. The authors conveniently cite the case of the Unabomber, the deranged mail bomber who caused so much suffering and who according to his evaluators was dirty , unkempt, schizophrenic, and paranoid because of his concern regarding major events in the world. Oh my goodness, it sounds like bloggers.

In a serious note, though, while I have no first hand knowledge of that case or the way the man actually was, it is nonetheless the case that all issues of belief are now open to a translation into either psychological or medical language and 'diagnosis'. An inkling of this began in the USSR which for years had a diagnosis under the category of 'schizophrenia' of 'political delusions': that category incarcerated many very noble persons of conscience behind the walls of Soviet mental hospitals, for the Kremlin understood as do law enforcement and government officials in this country and elsewhere that breaking people down, or even tagging them with labels such as mental illness, is a means of deflating their arguments and credibility which is often a protest against 'the way things are'.

The military has understood this method for years, as a means for dealing with unruly soldiers who just don't go along the complete robbery of all their civil rights the day they join the armed forces. Corporations use this method against whistle blowers. More and more, and very alarmingly it is being used against people of faith, who really still do believe in the God whom you can not see, but really is there, or in faith which is still the 'substance of things not seen'. Throughout the ages, BELIEF has scared the 'hell' out of science, because 1) it involves the 'unseen' and 2) it has an effect, rather undeniable, which defies science.

Differences in Epistemology

I have used this example before, but will once again. After becoming a Christian, I had the opportunity many years ago to revisit my Alma Mater, and during the visit spoke with my former Department chair. When he asked what I was doing, I told him I had left the field because my beliefs had changed, and unlike some others, I did not feel that the basic tenets of Christianity (belief) were in any way comfortably juxtaposed with the basic tenets of what I prefer now to call 'the psychologies', for it is not a unified theory. He puffed on his pipe a little and though I expected him to say, 'oh nonsense' or some such thing [he was known for his frankness], he said, "Well of course they're not. They have two different 'epistemologies'. For those who wish a 'textbook definition':

epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification.---Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy

The Battle for Belief

This casual statement, made by a non-believer, but a very fine and thoughtful man, summarizes the intense and very real premiere battle of the 20th and 21st Century: the BATTLE FOR BELIEF. Now, the battle for belief, truly has been going on since the beginning of time, as was the main topic of conversation even since Eden, for the Serpent in the Garden, tempting Eve, began his discourse with 'Yea, hath God said..." and the rest, well, is history. The Fall of man, the loss of communion with God, came with the sin of open defiance against God and unbelief. Belief and faith, however dissensioned, remained the central issue of life for centuries, with the Church and other 'faiths' constantly calling into question what God really had said, what He and his commands were, which was His way, His Book, etc, but even science and other academic disciplines were held up to the scrutiny first of the Church until such philosophers such as Aquinas, Descartes, Kant , Hume and many others started holding faith and science under scrutiny, with human reason implicitly assigned a deified role. In short, the Enlightenment of the 1700s, reversed roles, and now Man was Scrutinizing God and not God scrutinizing man. The unraveling of the seamless robe of belief, set man and his rational thinking apart as an authority above God, his Church, faith, belief etc, as though human reason occurred in a vacuum, with no implicit assumptions to it. [Like where it came from.]

Always though, through these some 20 last centuries (and before), there was an acceptance of belief, in something as established: whether one believed in the God of the Bible, Hindu or other eastern deities, myth, etc or even in science, the idea of belief was clearly established. There were always believers and unbelievers, whatever the scenario, and both thought each other rather ridiculous, but they continued in any event with varying degrees of antagonism.

In early centuries in Church history though, with belief and faith a given, the arguments and councils dealt with doctrinal topics, such as whether Marcion was a heretic, or over dualism vs monism, or which books belonged in canon, etc, in other words issues of the variety of aspects of Belief and Faith. But by the late 1800s, after years of science, dissension, the splitting off of Luther's reformation, the politicizing of the Roman Church etc, the issue became one of whether faith alone was enough, or whether doctrine and practice of the thing now called "Christianity" would be determined by the Church through 'faith and reason'. These two positions are referred to as

1. Faith & Reason - fides et ratio
2. Faith alone [sola scriptura] - which the Roman church, derogatorily [although paradoxically] called 'Fideism' [literally faith in or of God, but they mean faith as god].

Faith with Reason is the argument developed by the Roman Church, usually with the pretext that since God made humans, and ergo human reasoning, then issues of faith and belief are satisfied by faith and reason, although usually, the human reasoning of theology, is much like that of science, philosophy and the rest of the world.
It is also set in direct opposition to the 'Sola Scriptura' argument which Luther posited in which the Word of God, through faith only, is the ultimate authority in belief and faith. The dialogue was set, and the Roman Church came to see and has set forth since, that the second position is heresy, allowing them to administer as god-given the policies regulations and ordinances of a man made church as ecclesiatical law.

more to follow...

Occupy, Till I Come

The Righteous Concern Over the Display of a National Flag in the House of God

It was 1933, in a patriotic, but depressed Germany, and church attendance was not what it used to be. Economic problems prevailed leaving life in Germany less than it used to be, and no one was quite certain what might happen, but for the first time, there was some seeming hope, at least for gentile Christians and Catholics, that a new era of prosperity might come, even though many were unsure what the new Fuhrer was completely about. The Catholic Church had strong ties to the new regime, with the signing not only of the 1933 Berlin Konkordat with the Holy See but with several other concordats including ones with Munich and Bavaria--the Berlin concordat solidified a unified approach to relations between Rome and the Nazis, including an agreement that while racial questions were not settled between the two, the two 'governments' would pursue a live and let live policy, quite friendly at first, in their mutual affront against communism. Eminent German-Holy See ties faced Berlin and Munich: Faulhaber (the Pope's consecrator) was present, as was Eugenio Pacelli, (Pius XII), a long term Vatican presence in Germany, along with several other notables including Orsenigo who would replace Pacelli. So firm were the ties, that Pacelli admonished many later protestors regarding the nazi regime to "leave the German question to him", and Faulhaber arranged the gala celebration of Hitler's Birthday on behalf of the warm welcome of Rome.

The Protestants also were not unused to a strong Church-State tie, as before the Weimar Republic attempted to overthrow the status quo in Germany, there had always been State support and monies for Protestant schools, hospitals, orphanages and nursing program, without hardly a word of protest. The Deutsche Christen, was not thought of as so sinister an organization back then, and included many factions including those like Neimoller and Bonhoeffer who later started the Confessing Church and seminaries and the Pastor's Emergency league along with a few thousand others. Conservatives, moderates and liberals coexisted just as they do today in modern US churchs such as UMC and PUSA. (well..) Further, church attendance was perfunctory and expected but on the wane: new forms of 'pop' spirituality were on the horizon, with the renewed interests in Volikische mysticism, eastern religions, occultism, psychical investigations, and the neo nordic renaissance of literary and philosophical ties to Germany's past. Hitler had already made major inroads into church politics, so in 1933, certain 'requests' were somewhat expected in exchange for a lessening of confrontations with the church and church officials and payment of pastors pensions, for example.

One of the first requests, made both to Catholics and Protestants, was the display of the Nazi Flag, on the altar of German Christian Churches.

THE HAKENKREUZFLAGGE [broken cross flag]

The Nazi Flag, or "Hakenkreuzflagge" was ultimately designed by Hitler himself and was suggested by a similar design by a dentist from Sternberg who had been a part of the German Workers'Party

We wanted something red enough to out-Herod Herod", recalled Drexler, something to outdo the Reds but "quite different." Anton Drexler was one of the founders and the original leader of the German Workers' Party, which became, after Hitler joined, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nazi Party for short.

Devereaux Cannon, 12 May 1998 [from "Orignis of the Swastika Flag"

The flags of all countries, have a very specific meaning. Flags do more than merely 'represent' a country, they are by many countries laws, including current US law, considered a 'living thing ' representing a 'living nation'.

US CODE 36 #176
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others from the 'Confessing Church' [the Church which broke off from the Deutsche Christen when Nazi 'doctrine' was infused] understood well what the placement of the Nazi Flag meant for the House of God: it meant 'occupation'.

In all countries, when wars are fought, and land is taken, the conquered territory is and has always been denoted and demarcated by first the posting of a flag. Flag and banner bearers often went first into battle in ancient times. At Iwo Jima, the famous picture of the flag setting is embrazen on the public memory. What went up first on the moon? The American flag. Was it merely a sign of patriotism? No, it symbolizes, but more than that ESTABLISHES the taking of territory, the OCCUPATION of territory. German resistors clearly understood. The posting of a 'living' flag meant the acceptance of a higher order of authority and government than the one before, one which would 'hold up legally' so to speak, at least for the present, and would bring with it the imposition of the laws and government of the nation to whom it belongs. In Nazi Germany, the meaning was clear: Christ was no longer head, nor church authority, but the posted flag meant that the church was under the authority of the German government, the Third Reich, and would have to bow to its criteria.

Before the weeping and gnashing of teeth in '45 and 46 in what would become the WCC {World Council of Churches] regarding what responsibility German churches played in the genocide of the Jews, the German Church was met with a number of 'requirements'-
Romans could no longer be taught without severe adjustments, the Old Testament was to be eradicated due to its inferior nature, not for the Christian, Jesus was to be taught as an Aryan whose father was a Roman soldier, sermons had to be censored and reviewed by State authorities, Church authority would rest with the government, with a Reichbishop, converts from the Jewish community could not attend, or if they could they were to be segregated and not receive 'communion' or receive it separately, Pastors were robbed of free speech, roughed up and imprisoned for speaking against Hitler, clergy lost offices, publications were reviewed, and violent acts against uncooperative churches and clergy took place on a regular basis.

The Third Reich had a technically legal right to do these things. Although in Spanish, the following clip shows an act of Dietrich Bonhoeffer not often spoken of in which it is portrayed that he took the hakenkreuzflagge down from the church platform:



The setting of the Hakenkreuzflagge, design by Hitler, and described in Mein Kampf as an ensign of Nazi Power, meant occupation and legal control and not merely the nod of a head to high brow national sentiment.

THE US CHURCH & A NEW DAY AND HOUR

Before the war was over, those who had kept to the basic tenets of Christianity by rallying behind the Barmen Declaration, which proclaimed the lordship only of Jesus Christ and no nation, nor 'Fuhrer' were arrested, disbanded, humiliated, beaten up, and some imprisoned and assassinated such as Bonhoeffer in Flossenberg. Neimoller, upon giving a sermon entitled "Our Only Fuhrer is Jesus", was arrested and taken to Dachau. Another pastor, Zedlacher was arrested, imprisoned and beaten for teaching our responsibilities of mercy toward the Jews in Romans 11, and their rightful place as God's chosen, for which the whole church interceded. Evangelical Churches in the Confessing Church were looted, confiscated, closed and by the end of the war, all the seminaries closed. Even the new Hebrew and Greek texts behind modern German bibles carried a dissension of mention of the Jews and basic doctrines. [1]

By 1946, Niemoller was pleading for the church to never return to the apathy which almost caused its death, to never return to "the spirit of retaliation or force" which was anathema to the Holy Spirit of God [See Stuttgart Confession Many in the German church saw no special need for German clergy to repent, but those who had gone along with the requests and policies of the Third Reich, were given the cold shoulder in many higher offices between then and now.

How, one may ask, does this apply at all to the Church in the US today? One may argue that because we do not have a state church, surely these things are of no consequence to us, except as historical reminders of what might have been. US Flags adorn most altars of most churches and we would shudder if I called them "registered" churches, but the truth is, most of our synagogues, churches and other places of worship are indeed firmly under State control, and we as citizens have unquestioningly, without any scrutiny at all, allowed the Federal Government to 'occupy' what is not rightfully theirs.

Not a Call of Anarchy

Before discussing the issues however, a firm statement must be made regarding the absolute Biblical mandate to be excellent citizens of the country we abide in, to obey its laws and authority [Rms 13] and 'go the extra mile' in reasonable and even some unreasonable requests. Anarchy, disrespect, and overthrow are the opposite of what Christians should be about: they are conversely to be 'agents of order' as well as agents of grace. Our laws though, cover most of what the government would ever need to get into a church for: crimes can be investigated there as anywhere else, civil rights reasonably enforced etc. We have unwittingly though, through the 5013c charters of 'non-profit' corporations, which most churches register as, created a state headed, state defined church, in which the State has a right to membership records, to enforce taxes, censor speech from the pulpit , and is headed in the direction of hiring enforcement, including the hiring of unlike faiths, and even sinful lifestyles.

That flag on your altar on Sunday morning carries a meaning and legal contingency with it. Did you know, for example, that every flag of every nation or entity must be flown lower than the US flag, including the Christian flag? Some will argue that this does not apply to churches , that there is an exception. The only exception is for naval chaplains at sea!!!

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.



In a missionary conference, the US flag would have to be eminent above the rest, including the Christian flag. The flag on the altar, does not just INTIMATE occupation of the House of God, it ESTABLISHES it, in an unholy way. This is not to be understood at all as disrespect for the US government, nor to advocate any form of rebellion or overthrow, but it is to say that churches which casually without thought [and synagogues and mosques as well] sign on to a 5013c non profit status are creating a state church status, of the same nature of the Deutsche Christen, although only a few seemingly benign requirements are forefront, and that the flag at the head of the church, along with the registration, gives the US Federal government legal rights. It also gives them the premiere headship of the House of God, which Biblically is only Christ's, the Messiah.

This was the very issue of the Barmen Declaration authored by Barth and others, who declared that Jesus alone, the Way, Truth and Life, had a right to head his House. No Government could supersede that inalienable right, and if it did, it was not the choice but the responsibility of righteous Christians to stand against it, in peaceful and excellent protest.

The Church is never to be at war with the State, but it often happens, they are as Chuck Colson put it "kingdoms in conflict". Standing however, for the removal of the flag on holy altars, and resistance against government registration and taxation of churches is not a call to rebellion or overthrow, but a call to understand the intense cost in freedom, that not to do so will bring about. This is not an issue any longer to be considered only by fringe churches, or little white Aryan monstrosities up in the hills of the Dakotas, but by all: it affects the Independent fundamental Baptist Pastor who chose to not register the church school with the State, it also affects the liberal Episcopal priest who made a sharp remark about Cheney from his Pulpit in CA. It is an issue across the board and it affects our freedom of worship deeply, only we can still now, stand against it: but only if great multitudes of churches will gracefully and quietly, in the civil disobedience of Mordecai, stand against a great wrong which has prevailed against the US church in the past century.

This is not angry defiance, but a gracious rebuke: King Saul was not to do the work of the prophet Samuel; Uzziah, the King was not to enter into the place of sacrifice as head of the State even in the God sanctioned theocracy of Israel: both were overthrown because of it. No overthrow of the US government is advocated here, only the peaceful re-establishment of a civil right for churches of self-government, that this country was founded on, and it must be seen that way, or the encroachments of the next decade will become more and more severe until resistance is impossible.

Niemoller once noted that if all the evangelical pastors in Germany had stood up in the beginning, they might very well have prevented the Holocaust and carnage of WWII, if in '33-34' they had been willing to lay down their lives. No doubt a few would have been killed, hurt or imprisoned, but they were anyway, in fact in great numbers.
It must be remembered at the time, that these small 'restrictions': registries, pensions, limited sermons, etc seemed as 5013c incorporations do now: minor things in order to keep the peace, and 'everybody does it this way'. However, churches are being closed down and pastors arrested by minor non-compliances such as failure to keep notes in a bound form; irregularities and oversites in the sale of church bonds etc. Those minor infractions give the state the right to come in and look at membership roles, accounting, salary records etc. A church who singularly decides to go 'unregistered' becomes an immediate target of cruel scrutiny by government agencies.

If many,many churches, mosques, and synagogues will at least begin by making the stand, of removing the flag from the altar to a more acceptable place of respect, it could at least send a message to Washington, that we want our churches back. We have not relinquished the great right which was bought by the blood of our sons and daughters in battles, to worship God as He has commanded, with no other gods before him. Respect, dignity, and excellent citizenry are also required of us, but we are "citizens of no mean country" ourselves, and our 'conversation [citizenry] is in Heaven", and while in His house, our obligation is towards Him as head.

"Occupy till I come", is also a command to the Christian soldier of any nation: in Love, obedience and all quietness, without the spirit of overthrow and retaliation which led the German church to destruction and division. The occupation of the House of God, though, is ours, is HIS, and we must graciously remind and call the State to that right order.

MAY 15,2008-BLOGGERS UNITE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

-----



ALL OVER THE WORLD, BLOGGERS, JOURNALISTS, CLERGY, ACADEMICS , STUDENTS AND OTHERS ARE REGULARLY BEING ARRESTED FOR THE GREAT CRIME OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRACTICE OF THEIR FAITH AND OTHER BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS 'OFFENSES'.

TODAY, MAY 15TH, 2008, SPEND A MOMENT AT NOON , ONE MINUTE OF YOUR TIME, AT HOME, IN THE WORKPLACE, ON THE STREET, OR IN THE MALL, AND PAUSE IN A PRAYERFUL STANCE FOR FREEDOM, AND THE DESIRE TO LIVE PEACEFULLY. THIS IS A NON-PARTISAN EFFORT, TO SHOW THAT WHILE WE MAY DISAGREE, EVEN VEHEMENTLY WITH ONE ANOTHER SOMETIMES, WE STILL CHERISH THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, OF THE ABILITY TO OPENLY AND WITH LOVE WORSHIP GOD AND NAME HIS NAME, AND LIVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, FREE FROM WAR, HARM AND BRUTALITY DIRECTED TOWARD US BECAUSE OF OUR VOICES RAISED IN OBJECTION TO THE VARIOUS FORMS OF DESPOTISM.

STAND AT NOON, ONE MINUTE.

Dangerous Blogging: Heal your world: Write!

A few years ago, I went to the Reno Police Department to report missing CD backups and other diskettes and paperwork related to a holocaust education curriculum I direct on line at shoaheducation.com. During the course of reporting the missing materials, the officer taking the report stopped and asked, "Occupation?"

Now, heretofore, and always in the past, that was a very easy question to answer, but at the time I was unemployed, though working 12 to 14 hour days. I had in the past been a University Professor, Seminary instructor, Researcher, etc and in off seasons I had worked contract in Big Business, Hospitals, and even at menial customer service, but outside of being Polling Place Manager during election years, I had to think quick, as the fellow seemed very impatient.

"Writer." I said.

I could see him smirk, as if that was not a real occupation. He gave me the same look as if I had said, "Marshmallow Evaluator". I am still not sure what he wrote down, but it was probably a synonym for 'nutcase' or 'troublemaker'. I think, frankly, that both are part and parcel of writing, but I was not about to let him think that. I stared right back and he went on. I had my carefully documented notebook in front of me.

"Writer?"

"Uh, yes." "Writer."

Now, I did not say I was a great writer, as though I was Grace Paley or Emily Bronte sitting there complaining about missing manuscripts, and the only thing Steven King and I share in our finances are the 0's, but, yes, after tens of thousands of pages of written articles, some published some not, web pages, blogs, handbooks, teaching materials, curriculae, tests, poetry, great unpublished novels, and grocery lists, I did then and still do consider myself a writer. The criteria for a professional writer is not money alone, for if it was, Emily Dickinson would have had to answer to the same question "belle of Amherst, who scribbles in her Bible". There are any number of writers here in Wisconsin who write prolifically on topics such as "Contemporary Methods in Buck Skinning" (there's more than one way), but they have other jobs, like 'Ice fisherman', or 'Cheese maker', or 'football hero'.

Yes, though, I think, "Writer" will do. Now you should be aware I never got back any of those diskettes or backups, because in Reno, writing is not a real career, but 'casino bouncer' or 'bus driver' suffice. If I had said, "Blackjack dealer", I probably still wouldn't have gotten back the diskettes, but somebody would have been at least beat up for stealing them.

Writing, for Real

Writing though is, a very real occupation, but better still, a calling. Technical writers have for 5 millennia described the events of history, science, politics and other aspects of life. Creative writers have spoken to the heart with the great works of poetry and literature. A few poor fisherman, shepherds, Kings and the like at God's direction, wrote the Bible which changed the world---it took writers to produce the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Shakespearean dramas, and thousands of other documents which shaped nations and the future of the world. One writer wrote 'Croatoan' on a tree, and one word alone kept historians busy for 400 years. A famous American General wrote 'nuts' in response to a request to surrender, and won a battle in WWII because the Germans couldn't translate it. Writers, in short, have been a central mainstay in keeping the nations free, in bringing ideas to light, in softening the heart, consoling mourners, inspiring Kings and Queens, and even in righting wrongs and bringing nations up and down.

The Dark Side

Writers also though, have destroyed people and begun genocides: Mein Kampf, for example was a ritual of hateful tedium, but before it fell into disinterest, there was a cost in millions of lives. A novel inspired the Oklahoma City bombing. "protocols of the Elders of Zion" led to an urgency to persecute Jews on a worldwide and continuing basis. Prince Machiavelli wrote the foundational work for Wall Street Ethics, and along with Descartes, Nietzsche, Voltaire, Darwin and other mere 'writers', gave birth to a new day where no one gives a d--- about any one else, as long as they can get ahead.

Everyone is a Journalist...

Enter the Internet. My favorite internet quote is by Marvin Kalb who said (roughly)

"on the internet, everyone is a journalist, and no one is an editor."

ahem. So, my new motto is

"Unedited, Uncensored, Unread."

I started writing on the Internet 11 years ago, when the thing was brand new, so to speak (not counting green screen), and for the first time, ANYONE could publish, often without cost. There was no taste back then and no limits as to what one could say. There were websites on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and websites on UFOs and the Illuminati, and how Hitler is still alive. There were websites with goofy animations and yellow type on black backgrounds about dogs, and sandcastles, and the European Union, and everyone had an opinion. After a year or two, the hot fad was forums which became the new 'backyard fence' in the US competing with talk radio, and information is indeed running 'to and fro' as prophesied in the Book of Daniel.
A few years back though, a seemingly harmless invention for those who did not want to put out all the work of a website came about in the birth of the BLOGging movement, and from what began as personal site 'diaries' came a bold new venture into news blogging, and academic blogging and commentaries. There are still more than anyone will read, but due to early blogging we now have such events as the Huffington Post, "Fake Steve", and most importantly, a way which has brought a modicum of free speech even to nations such as Red China, where such things are frowned upon. Because of brave independent bloggers, and search engines and releases, even the News media has been kept from a form of death during oppressive times, because independent bloggers have been able to get out news which International news media can not cover either because of time limits, or a new 'commercial' censorship. A reporter who writes an unfavorable story might be stalled at the White House getting a press pass, but the guy catering an event can anonymously blog what goes on.

Dangerous Blogging

What has not been foreseen, however, is that Free Speech is becoming dangerous on the internet, and is not so 'Free' as it once was. In Red China, Yahoo turned over personal information which led to a blogger's mistreatment and imprisonment.. An outspoken blogger in Egypt complaining about the oppression of a Muslim government, received jail time. A Muslim woman attorney appeals on youtube.com for support as she is persecuted for standing for fair treatment of women in her country. Stories and videos of police brutality caught on tape, a death in a boot camp, a politician's past: for the good or evil, the news is getting out fourfold in a generation when TV and other broadcast news is carrying only a portion of what is occuring in a very dangerous world.

Fool, that I am

Fool that I am, I thought when I began to write and ever since that particularly in a free country, one should be able to express their opinions, beliefs, and observations without retribution. I did not expect when I started a little website 11 years ago, that writing, and belief, could be dangerous. They are indeed dangerous: clear thinking, and the careful expression of it, could cause a virtual nobody to be heard on national issues, and even stop a war. Ideas bear themselves. I have told my children since they were small, that the Truth has a life of its own: you do not have to be defensive in presenting it. Too many people today feel that they have to 'get up in everybody's face' with the truth at hand---but one vital characteristic of the Truth is that while it requires exposure and an audience to have great effect, it does not require much argument.

While Truth has its own power, though, truth in a world with a changing foundation is volatile. Is it a piece of cake to take Fortune 500 companies to court, so to speak over their role in the Holocaust? Ask Edwin Black and Eva Kor. Can one speak freely about the Oil Industry , Iraq and Privatization without consequence? Ask Palast or the fellow down at UF who was tasered for asking a question. If a blogger says, "excuse me, but are there like, ten times more serious earthquakes occuring than there used to be?", is he or she causing undue alarm, or carrying information which causes people to make wise decisions? If some 'nutcase' border guard blogs about what is really occurring right across the border, are they dangerous and alarmist, or are they giving John and Jane Doe the right to govern their own future? The past administration has been Pollyanna time: we read the ads from WalMart and Menards and Penneys, but we do not hear on a nightly basis about Red Chinese build up of troops and business interests in Mexico, or the frightening numbers on the increase of neo-nazi and other fascist groups, or the cities known to locals which have completely fallen to organized crime or even gang warfare.

Could a bloggers or web director be physically beat up, or even poisoned for what they write about their country or faith? A KGB agent who came forward found out how deadly plutonium was in response to free speech. Would you believe in the US that law enforcement would without conscience give away an author's work to children and functional illiterates without a court order or going to court? Is that dangerous to even suggest, here, where writers thought all they had to do was write?

The History of Blogging

The real history of 'blogging' did not begin on the internet. It began with graffitti on a subway wall, with broadside ballads sung by balladeers who travelled town to town. It began with towncriers, and newsboys, with anonymous pieces of papyrus left where people would find them. Blogging began when Emmanuel Ringelblum and the Oneg Shabbat group in the Warsaw ghetto gave up their lives refusing escape in order to chronicle the truth of what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto. I like to think that among the first modern bloggers, one would have to include Sophie and Hans Scholl, Chris Probst and the White Rose in Munich, handing out the very dangerous pamphlets on why it was unethical and immoral to kill the mentally retarded just to free up state monies and hospital beds. Why, those 'bloggers' [only a mimeograph machine then] paid with their lives by guillotine, for 'having their say' in this world.

Martin Luther King [he scribbled a sermon somewhere] said that if you have not found something worth dying for then you have not found something worth living for. Blogging seemed like so much fluff when it began, but it became a tool for free speech worldwide by common men and women, even children. That is when it became quite dangerous, for free speech has the peculiar quality, of allowing persons to govern themselves and not turn to oppressive regimes, contemporary oligarchies, with a new vision which would make one shudder to even hear about. I once heard there were two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't, but I think there is one legitimate division: those who wish for free speech and self government, and those who wish to control free speech and governments. My son and I have decidedly declared the former: we differ on the means to bring it about, but I believe we are not alone. We do not want to walk quietly with no means of escape like victims of the Einsatzgruppen into a mass grave where there is no distinction between death and life.

There are movements afoot in this world, to redefine ideas of freedom, where individuality and personhood become archaic concepts in favor of a corporate/state personhood, a utilitarian notion which does away with privacy, creativity, free speech, faith and other forms of expression unless it benefits the State. I do not want my children or grandchildren to walk into that 'brave new world' which is the death of humankind as we know it, and a nightmare of unending horror in what it means to be a 'soul'.

"Writer."

I think I will stand by that. I think now, I understand what it costs, and I think I understand what it will cost if I cease to be a voice among 300,000,000. I think sometimes I may need time to heal from the consequences of what I say, but I am determined to face them anyway. I think I know that death in not without possibility, the way the world is, but my own life was bought with a price.

On May 15th, bloggers, and free speech advocates, and human rights advocates around the world are observing a day to commemorate free speech. I say, why not stand up at noon, at the work place, on the street, at the lunch counter, even at home for one minute and by that say, "I am one of the millions, kind sirs, who still believe free speech and self government are real possibilities". A few this year, a few more next year, but the governing forces of the world, need to know, far beyond blogging how many there are, who though we may waiver and fail, are not giving up on what is right.

Shalom Aleichem

MAY 15th: Stand Up for Free Speech: Bloggers Unite

Visit

The Sedition of the Person

IN writing the last blog, on 'Differential Psychology' and its parentage in Racial Science, a very particular further issue crossed my mind and many will no doubt worry about that particular crossing. The concept I am positing for discussion is both relevant and directly related to Shoah Studies: the 'Sedition of the Person'. It is not that the concept under different rubrics has not been considered before, many consider it partly under the term 'depersonalization' (general usage) or 'dehumanization' but I am proposing that it is best considered in macrocosm instead, as a 'sedition' of personhood as an essential element in all genocides, the essence of which was seen in the Shoah.

Sedition

Most of the time when the word 'sedition' is used, we are speaking about the sedition of nations, and it has been used so singularly there that we think of it only in those terms. Sedition when applied to nations usually implies the 'undoing' or 'undermining' of a nation or the ways of a nation. Wikipedia defines Sedition as:

Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

The concept of 'sedition' though is most clearly seen in the italicized phrase above:
"insurrection against the established order". That portion of the idea of sedition against nations can also be applied against:

1. The sedition of a community, state or region
2. The sedition against any organized or governing group
3. The sedition of a family cohesion or even a family 'line'
4. The sedition of any process or method
5. The sedition of natural processes such climate, land forms, forests etc
6. The sedition of bodily processes seen in disease and malformation
7. The sedition of belief and
8. The sedition of the 'person'.

It is most essentially the last, which I believe represents the final 'crumbling point' of social order, socie