Pledge For Religious Freedom

 

I PLEDGE that I will protect religious freedom in full for all Americans, and will advance international religious freedom as part of American foreign policy.

As part of this PLEDGE, I hereby commit myself to the following positions:

FIRST, that religious liberty in full is the birthright of every American, as recognized by the First Amendment. It entails the right to believe, worship, and practice in accord with one's faith, subject only to the limits imposed by the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights.The right of religious freedom must be applied equally to all religious communities in America, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others. At the same time, religious freedom does not mandate belief, but protects the right not to believe.

Religious freedom includes the right to employ religious arguments, or religiously-informed moral arguments, when contending for or against laws and policies, such as laws designed to protect the unborn and traditional marriage, or to relieve poverty and increase economic opportunity for the disadvantaged.

Religious freedom includes the right of individuals and of religious communities to engage in religiously-motivated charitable works. It also includes the right of individuals and of religious communities not to be forced to participate in, or to forfeit their employment because of refusal to participate in, activities that deeply offend their religious conscience.

SECOND, that I will nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to protecting for all Americans the religious liberty rights described above.

THIRD, that I will make religious freedom promotion a foreign policy priority of my administration. This will include ensuring the U.S. State Department performs its statutory duty of advancing international religious freedom; appointing an ambassador at large for international religious freedom who is a person of stature, experienced in matters of religious freedom and diplomacy; ensuring that the ambassador at large has sufficient authority and resources to succeed; ensuring that democracy assistance funding includes support for religious freedom; and ensuring that all of America's diplomats are trained in the importance of advancing, and how to advance,  international religious freedom. 

As of March 1, 2012 there is only been one Presidential candidate who has signed the Pledge for Religious Freedom. Only one. Rick Santorum. 

We, as individuals and as a country should be concerned with religious freedom. Our leaders and those who expect us to vote for them should be concerned about religious freedom. Religious freedom is the first amendment to the very constitution of this country. 

Why is religious freedom so important? If we didn't have the freedom to worship and believe or not believe as we choose to then we wouldn't be any different than any other country that is ran under a dictatorship. The United States and her citizens would be forced to worship one religion or no religion with the penalty of death if her citizens decided to worship any other way. 

Religious Freedom was one of the reasons this country was born. The Puritans and Pilgrims left England because they were being persecuted for their unwillingness to bow to the king of England and his one religion. They wanted to be able to worship God in the way they believed He would have them do so.

Hence the arduous and dangerous journey across the sea to America they came. One by one, group by group. Family by family. 

In writing the Constitution of the United States of America, our forefathers saw the need to put into it the first amendment:

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. 

This amendment was put in place to protect the citizens of the United States from a government, that given too much control, would try to control what they believe such as what had happened in England and in current countries today.

I don't know why the rest of the presidential candidates won't sign the pledge. It doesn't contain anything innocuous. All it is is a pledge stating they will continue to uphold the Constitution of the United States by upholding the religious freedom of her citizens. The one elected to be President will put into place those who will support him or her in the continuance of said constitution.

As a voter in this country I think it says a lot about the character and moral belief of our candidates in their signing or not signing of this pledge. As a Christian voter, it says even more.

I just want to say one thing to our presidential candidates, 

If you want to be believed and elected into office, you should consider signing this pledge. Of course it's only one of the many things we, the voters will look at when we go to the voting booths. We understand you could be signing it with your fingers crossed. But it might help make your stand on freedom in this country more believable.  

Fellow Christians, encourage your presidential candidate to sign the pledge. You can click http://members.opendoorsusa.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6321  to get more information to find out how to get the pledge to them.

God bless America, our home sweet home. May her freedoms continue to ring loud and true into the next century.

 

 

Christians Targeted in Sudan’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Christians Targeted in Sudan’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Black, largely pro-south civilians of Nuba Mountains flee aerial bombing.

JUBA, South Sudan, March 20 (CDN) — The “ethnic cleansing” that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has undertaken against black Africans in the Nuba Mountains is also aimed at ridding the area of Christianity, according to humanitarian workers.


By targeting Christians among people who are also adherents of Islam and other faiths in the Nuba Mountains, military force helps the regime in Khartoum to portray the violence as “jihad” to Muslims abroad and thus raise support from Islamic nations, said one humanitarian worker on condition of anonymity.


In South Kordofan state – which lies on Sudan’s border with the newly created nation of South Sudan but is home to sympathizers of the southern military that fought against northern forces during Sudan’s long civil war – Bashir’s military strikes are directed at Muslims as well as Christians, but churches and Christians are especially targeted, he said.


“The ongoing war against Christians and African indigenous people is more of an ‘ethnic cleansing’ in that they kill all black people, including Muslims, but they give specific connotation to the war in targeting Christians to secure funding and support from the Arab and Islamic world by saying this war is a religious war,” he said. “And in so doing, they get huge support from those countries.”


Aerial bombardment killed the five members of the Asaja Dalami Kuku family, which belonged to the Episcopal Church of Sudan, in Umsirdipa in the Nuba Mountains on Feb. 25, the source said.


The government in Khartoum is using Antonov airplanes to drop bombs, “coupled with state- sponsored militia targeting churches and Christian families,” said the humanitarian worker.


“The brutal state-sponsored militias are moving from house to house searching for Christian and African indigenous homes as the government continues with air strikes,” he added.


The Satellite Sentinel Project has gathered evidence that Antonov aircraft have indiscriminately bombed civilian populations in South Kordofan, although after a recent crash the government has said it will no longer use the planes.


In Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan, at least four church buildings have been razed and more than 20 Christians killed, he said.


“The Islamic north sees Nuba Christians as infidels who need to be Islamized through Jihad,” the source said. “But the fact of the matter is this war is ethnic cleansing – a religious as well as political war, indeed a complex situation.”


Between June 2011 and March 2012, four church buildings have been destroyed, said another humanitarian worker; they belonged to the Episcopal Church of Sudan, the Roman Catholic Church, the Sudanese Church of Christ and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.


“On Aug. 18, 2011, the Sudanese Church of Christ building was razed to ashes,” the worker said.


On June 7, 2011, state-sponsored militia destroyed the office of the Sudan Council of Churches at Kadugli, along with its vehicle, the sources said.


On Feb. 26, three church leaders visited the devastated areas of Kaduguli, led by Bishop Daniel Deng of the Episcopal Church of Sudan, and then presented grievances to the government. They were surprised that the government denied the attack on the church buildings.


“A government official said [southern and other] militia groups were the ones destroying the churches, and not the government,” one of the aid workers said.


Fighting in South Kordofan, a major battleground during Sudan’s 1983-2005 civil war, broke out again in June 2011 as Khartoum moved to assert its authority against gunmen formerly allied to the now independent South Sudan. The conflict between Bashir’s forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) spread from South Kordofan to Sudan’s Blue Nile state in September 2011.


The United Nations estimates the conflict has displaced 400,000 people, with 300,000 in danger of starving within a month. Additionally, the U.N. Commissioner for Refugees estimates there are 185,000 refugees from South Kordofan and Blue Nile in South Sudan and Ethiopia.


Sudan’s Interim National Constitution holds up sharia (Islamic law) as a source of legislation, and the laws and policies of the government favor Islam, according to a U.S. Department of State report. On several occasions in the past year, Bashir has warned that Sudan’s constitution will become more firmly entrenched in sharia.


When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005, the people of South Kordofan were to decide whether to join the North or the South, but the state governor, wanted for war crimes himself, suspended the process, and Khartoum instead decided to disarm the SPLM-N by force.


“The church and enfeebled women and children have become victims of this fight,” one of the humanitarian workers said. “We as the church have a moral and spiritual obligation to stand with our brothers and sisters who are suffering in the Nuba Mountains.”



This is copied in its entirety from Compass Direct

Saudi Grand Mufti Calls for "Destruction of All Churches in Region"

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
March 14, 2012

According to several Arabic news sources, last Monday, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is "necessary to destroy all the churches of the region."

The Grand Mufti made his assertion in response to a question posed by a delegation from Kuwait: a Kuwaiti parliament member recently called for the "removal" of churches (he later "clarified" by saying he merely meant that no churches should be built in Kuwait), and the delegation wanted to confirm Sharia's position on churches.

Accordingly, the Grand Mufti "stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it."

As with many grand muftis before him, the Sheikh based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that "There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula," which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region.

While the facts of this account speak for themselves, consider further:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah is not just some random Muslim hating on churches. He is the Grand Mufti of the nation that brought Islam to the world. Moreover, he is the President of the Supreme Council of Ulema [Islamic scholars] and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas. Accordingly, when it comes to what Islam teaches, his words are immensely authoritative.

Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam—for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor—imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of "intolerance" and "bigot," demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse.

Yet the Grand Mufti—the highest Islamic law authority of our "friend-and-ally" Saudi Arabia—gets a free pass when he incites Muslims to destroy churches, not that any extra incitement is needed (nary a month goes by without several churches being bombed and destroyed throughout the Islamic world). In fact, at the time of this writing, I have not seen this story, already some three days old, translated on any English news source, though "newsworthy" stories are often translated in mere hours.

Likewise, consider the significance of the Grand Mufti's rationale for destroying churches: it is simply based on a hadith. But when non-Muslims evoke hadiths—this one or the countless others that incite violence and intolerance against the "infidel"—they are accused of being "Islamophobes," of intentionally slandering and misrepresenting Islam, of being obstacles on the road to "dialogue," and so forth.

Which leads to perhaps the most important point: Islam's teachings are so easily ascertained; there is no mystery in determining what is "right" and "wrong" in Islam. The Grand Mufti based his fatwa on a canonical hadith, which Muslims and (informed) non-Muslims know is part of Islam's sources of jurisprudence (or usul al-fiqh). And yet the West—with all its institutions of higher learning, including governmental agencies dealing with cultural and religious questions—is still thoroughly "confused" as to what Islam teaches.

All of this is nothing short of a scandal—a reminder of just how deep the mainstream media, academia, and most politicians have their collective heads thrust in the sand.

Meanwhile, here is the latest piece of evidence of just how bad churches have it in the Muslim world, for those who care to know.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics:  Anti-Christianism, Saudi Arabia  |  Raymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. [This has be copied in its entirety from Middle East Forum ] 

USCIRF Identifies World’s Worst Religious Freedom Violators

USCIRF Identifies World’s Worst Religious Freedom Violators

March 20, 2012 | by USCIRF

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a federal government commission that monitors global religious freedom, today released its 2012 Annual Report and recommended that the Secretary of State name the following nations “countries of particular concern” or CPCs: Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.* The report can be found at: http://www.uscirf.gov/reports-and-briefs/annual-report/3706-2012-annual-report.html.

 “It’s no coincidence that many of the nations we recommend to be designated as CPCs are among the most dangerous and destabilizing places on earth,” said USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo. “Nations that trample upon basic rights, including freedom of religion, provide fertile ground for poverty and insecurity, war and terror, and violent, radical movements and activities.”

The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) requires that the United States designate annually as CPCs countries whose governments have engaged in or tolerated systematic and egregious violations of the universal right to freedom of religion or belief.  IRFA also tasked USCIRF with assessing conditions in these and other nations and providing policy prescriptions for ways the U.S. government can constructively engage.

“In addition, some of the countries we recommend for CPC designation maintain intricate webs of discriminatory rules, requirements and edicts that can impose tremendous burdens for members of religious minority communities, making it difficult for them to function and grow from one generation to the next, potentially threatening their existence,” added Leo.

In Egypt, the transitional government has failed to protect religious minorities, especially Coptic Christians, from violent attacks at a time when minority communities have been increasingly vulnerable.

“These governments too often stand idly by in the face of violent attacks against religious minorities and dissenting members of majority faiths,” says Leo. “Inseparable from freedom of expression and association, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief often is the first human right threatened by tyranny.”

Iran and China remain gross abusers of human rights and among the world’s worst religious freedom violators. Iran continues to detain, torture, and execute its citizens, and in the past year, Baha’is, Christians, and Sufi Muslims have been subjected to intensified attacks, harassment, detention, and imprisonment.

In China -- the only CPC designee with a seat on the United Nations Security Council – conditions for Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims are the worst in decades and in the past year, Beijing has stepped up its crackdown on Protestants and Catholics. Dozens of unregistered Catholic clergy, for example, remain in detention or have disappeared.

USCIRF’s Annual Report highlights the mistreatment of Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, Buddhists in Vietnam and China, and Baha'is in Iran and Egypt.  The report repeatedly notes the brutal assaults endured by Christians seeking to practice their faith peacefully. Muslims, too, suffer in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, and non-Muslim nations like Russia and Burma. The Annual Report also calls attention to the promotion of anti-Semitic bigotry in countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

USCIRF also announced that the following countries are on its 2012 Watch List: Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, and Venezuela. While not rising to the statutory level set forth in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) requiring CPC designation, Watch List countries require close monitoring due to the nature and extent of religious freedom violations these governments have engaged in or tolerated.

Due to the provisions of P.L. 112-75, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011, USCIRF this year felt compelled to accelerate and compress its process of preparing its Annual Report.  The new law that reauthorized the Commission calls for five of the nine Commissioners to terminate their service on March 21, 2012, leaving the possibility of no quorum after that date. Faced with the strong possibility of a substantially delayed Annual Report or none at all, the Commission opted to issue the Annual Report in March rather than just prior to May 1. With a marked deterioration of conditions for religious freedom around the world, the Commission believes it would have been unsatisfactory to countenance a significant delay, or to skip a report for 2012 altogether. Too much is at stake for international religious freedom.

*Four Commissioners dissented from the recommendation that Turkey be designated a CPC.  Their views are contained in the Annual Report.

To interview a USCIRF Commissioner, contact Paul Liben at pliben@uscirf.gov or (703) 870-6041.

THE CHURCH'S ROLE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA by Pastor Roger Anghis

[This has been copied in it's entirety from News With Views Website. I believe it's time for Christians to awake, stand up and make their vote count.]

By Pastor Roger Anghis
March 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Psalm 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”

Proverbs 29:2 “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

For 54 years we have been told that the church is not supposed to be involved in the political arena. Some have even attempted to convince us that the church has NEVER been involved in the political arena. Both concepts are wrong. Historically and Biblically. It was the church’s involvement in the political arena that brought about the 1954 LBJ gag order that took the church partially out of the political arena. If you are a student of history, you will find that God has ALWAYS had a man of God advising a nation’s leader. Bill Graham has been an advisor to 11 presidents. All US presidents have had godly advisors. In the Old Testament all kings, godly and ungodly, had a man or woman of God advising them. 

Today’s culture tells us that a Christian should not be in politics. It’s as if the political arena is off limits to anyone who has Christian moral values. One political party, the Democrats, resists the influence of moral values, claiming separation of church and state, and calls the attempt to establish a moral foundation in our laws the forcing of our religious beliefs on the people, yet that very political party has no problem forcing their immoral beliefs of same-sex marriage and abortion on demand for any reason and the teaching of our children from grade school on about so-called safe-sex perfectly acceptable. 

Because of fear of losing their 501 (c) 3 status, the church has backed away from its responsibilities in teaching true biblical values. Political correctness has changed the way the church addresses sin. Most sins are diseases now. Alcoholism, sex addiction, drug addiction and even overeating are considered something that we cannot control.

Some denominations allow homosexuals to be ordained as ministers even though they refuse to live a celibate life.

We have allowed ourselves to be fed the beliefs of man instead of the truth of God’s Word. It is our individual responsibility to know the Word of God. 2 Timmothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” We have politicians that distort the Word of God to justify their perverted morals. The former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has stated that the Catholic church has never been able to determine exactly when life begins. She made this statement to defend her stance and the stance of Barrak Obama and Joe Biden on abortion. She has been refuted by several members of Congress as well as 32 Bishops, but she has basically called them liars. We need to question the so-called wisdom of man. We must ALWAYS judge the wisdom of man according to the Word of God. Jesus is the head of the church, not a man. His Word is explicit about moral standards. Ephesians 1:22 “And hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” 

Our Founding Fathers understood this and directed not just their everyday lives, but our government according to these standards. They lived by the integrity of their word and they lived according to the values set forth in scripture.

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character...” —Noah Webster

What has happened is the church has allowed the secular world to determine the doctrines of the church. Little by little we have let government take the rights of the church away from it. In 1947 the Supreme Court of the US coined the phrase “separation of church and state” in a decision that took the right to commingle a person’s personal faith with their government job. This decision led to many other decisions that have taken religion out of the public square by not allowing anything religious, the Ten Commandments, pictures of Jesus and even copies of the Declaration of Independence out of the public eye. That Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared and allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.

Why has the church not defended its rights? Public opinion, at times seems more important than the truth of the Word of God. Too many ministers refuse to do anything political for fear of offending someone or losing their 501 (c) 3. The church should be more afraid of offending God than the IRS!

There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord, and had a record of attending church regularly! Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. 

We are seeing the Democrat Party bound and determined to see the US become a socialist nation. They are supporting the forcing of religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They support hate crimes legislation that would make preaching the gospel concerning the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. They have supported over the years, the removal of religion from the public view. They will not allow the true history of this great nation be taught because it is wrought with Christianity. Today is has become illegal to pray in the Name of Jesus in the public square, at a government function, a football game, graduation exercise. 

Most people believe that the “separation of church” and state are in the Constitution. It is not in ANY of our founding documents. Some use the First Amendment as the source of that. The 1st Amendment states: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Not being able to pray at a football game is ’prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Not being able to pray to start a town council meeting is ’prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’

The churches responsibility has always been to inform the public as to the qualifications required of our leaders. Exodus 18:21 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”. That addendum that Congress passed in 1954 prohibited the church from properly informing the people of the character of a political candidate. That addendum prohibited the free exercise of religion and violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Most pastors believe that the church shouldn’t be involved in politics at all. What you read in this article today will be unfamiliar information to many pulpits. Revisionist historians have taught what THEY want you to believe instead of what the real history actually is. They are trying to rewrite history saying that most of our Founding Fathers were deists.

There was a book printed that contained the writings of George Washington on four different areas of life. In the original book it contained comments by his contemporaries. The book is now being printed again however the comment are now by revisionists and have left out almost all of the religious references of the original book and refer to him as a deist.

These revisionists have claimed that the United States is NOT a Christian nation and never has been. One candidate for president this, John Kerry, stated that we are no longer a Christian nation. The very first document created in the US in 1620 is called the Mayflower Compact. This document states: In the Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, or England, France and Ireland, King defender of the Faith,

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid;.

John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court that decides if the laws that are passed are within the parameters set out by the Constitution, stated this: “Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty as well as the privilege and the interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers.” 

Another of our Founding Fathers was Patrick Henry. His famous statement; ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ Is not being taught in schools any more. It promotes patriotism and self worth and that causes problems with dictating what some people want you to believe. 

Another statement he is credited with making is: “It can’t be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded NOT by religionist, but by Christians, not on religion but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The revisionist historians want you to believe that Patrick Henry was a deist. 

There were 55 signers of the Constitution- 29 were Episcopalians, several were Methodist, and some were Baptist. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 24 held seminary degrees. There was only one so-called deist and that was Ben Franklin, but even he has enough sense to know that Providence should be called upon at times. During the Constitutional Convention they had spent days debating key provisions of the Constitution without making any progress. During that time of intense debate he made this comment: “All of us who were engaged in this struggle must have observed frequent instances of super intending Providence in our favor.”

He went on to say: “To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting, in peace, on the means of establishing our future nation felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend, or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see this truth, that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

If our Founding Fathers demanded a “separation of church and state” then why was the first act of Congress a four hour prayer session followed by a preacher giving a sermon? Why was one of the first acts of Congress to order the printing of the Bible for distribution among all citizens of the US?

Why did Samuel Adams write: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient, He reigns in heaven from the rising to the setting of the sun. Let His kingdom come.” John Adams describes our government in this way: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The education of all of our Founders was based on the morals and values of Christianity and was incorporated in a book called the New England Primer.

Benjamin Rush proposed the idea of public schools. He is actually called the Father of Public Schools in America. If public schools were intended to be the godless institutions that they are today, his writings should exhibit that philosophy. What he does say is far from that idea. He believed that the Bible should be the primary book of learning in the public school. He stated: “Without religion, learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” His reference to ‘religion’ was not any religion, but Christianity exclusively.

We have to remember that in the days of our Founding Fathers, their reference to ‘religion’ was not a generic reference as we see today. If they asked what religion you were, they were referring to Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc. They almost never considered anything other than Christianity. Benjamin Rush believed that you had to teach the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the morals that are found in the Bible, because he believed, and rightfully so, that to educate without that type of foundation would produce a self centered person that was only concerned about himself. He also stated: stated “If they were ever to take the Bible out of public schools, we would be spending all of our time and all of our money fighting crime when it could be prevented in the classroom.” Our nation has more of its population in prisons than any other nation. He was right! 

This was a very prophetic statement in 1791. In 1963 we saw the Bible and prayer taken out of our public schools. From that day we started to see a rise in crime not just in the school, but in society in general. Divorce rates began to rise after several years of decline. Pre-1963 the trouble in schools was chewing gum in class, cutting in line, talking in class and passing notes. Today we have metal detectors because students are bringing guns and knives to school to kill other students and teachers. The NEA claims that there is no correlation, but it all started when prayer and the Bible were removed from our public schools. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 3:11

It is time for the church to wake up and resume its role as the leader and role model for the communities they are in. Do they have the courage?

© 2012 Roger Anghis - All Rights Reserved

Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFreeSpeech.org, an organization designed to draw attention to the need of returning free speech rights to churches that was restricted in 1954.

President of The Damascus Project, TheDamascusProject.org, which has a stated purpose of teaching pastors and lay people the need of the churches involvement in the political arena and to teach the historical role of Christianity in the politics of the United States. Married-37 years, 3 children, three grandchildren.

Web site: RestoreFreeSpeech.org
E-Mail: editor@restorefreespeech.org

Pakistani Woman Charged with "Blasphemy" for Refusing Islam

Pakistani Woman Charged with ‘Blasphemy’ for Refusing Islam

Relatives who became Muslims try to force her to renounce Christian faith.

FORT ABBAS, Pakistan, March 12 (CDN) — A young mother has been falsely accused of “blaspheming” Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, because she rebuffed attempts by relatives who had converted to Islam to force her to renounce her Christian faith, family members said.


Police in Khichiwala, Bahawalnagar district, in Punjab Province, charged 26-year-old Shamim Bibi, mother of a 5-month-old girl and resident of the village Chak No. 170/7R Colony, in the Fort Abbas area, under Section 295-C of Pakistan’s “blasphemy” statutes after neighbors accused her of uttering remarks against Muhammad. She was arrested on Feb. 28.


Speaking ill of Muhammad in Pakistan is punishable by life imprisonment or death under Pakistan’s internationally condemned blasphemy laws.


The young woman’s brother, Ilyas Masih, and her brother-in-law, Shahbaz Masih, told Compass that she had been wrongly accused because she had resisted pressure to convert to Islam four days before her arrest.


“Nazeeran, sister of Shamim’s husband Bashir Masih, and her nephew Nadeem and niece Bella accepted Islam on Feb. 24 and called on her to do the same,” Masih said. “She refused, telling them that she was satisfied with Christianity and did not want to convert.”


He said the newly-converted Muslims persisted in trying to force her to convert, but she resisted.


“Shamim told them that she had complete faith in a living God, and that there was no reason for her to start ‘worshiping graves,’” Masih said.


That remark was not the one deemed “blasphemous.” Rather, on Feb. 27 her neighbors accused her of making derogatory remarks – as yet unknown – on a separate occasion about Muhammad while in her courtyard.


Ansar Ali Shah, a local prayer leader in Chak 170/7R Colony, claimed that Shamim Bibi’s neighbors, Hamad Ahmed Hashmi and Abdul Qayyum, told him and other Muslims that they had heard the Christian woman making derogatory remarks about Muhammad in her courtyard, according to the First Information Report (FIR No. 30/12) registered by the Khichiwala police station. But there is no indication in the FIR of what, exactly, Shamim Bibi was alleged to have said.


As word of the allegation spread, a large crowd of villagers besieged her house and demanded “severe punishment for the infidel,” claiming she had hurt their religious sentiments, sources said.


Shahbaz Masih, her brother-in-law, told Compass that Qayyum, one of the two men named in the FIR as witnesses, has denied hearing anything from Shamim Bibi that supports the charge.


“Qayyum told police that he wasn’t even present in his house at the time of the alleged incident and had come to know about it from Hamad, the other witness,” Shahbaz Masih said.


Hamad Ahmed Hashmi, a motorized-rickshaw driver, also was not present at his house at 3 p.m., the time of the alleged remark, Shahbaz Masih said, based on information gathered from Shamim Bibi’s neighborhood.


“Hamad transports schoolchildren and could not have been in his house at the time of the incident, as it was just after school closing hours,” he said.


Bahawalnagar Superintendent of Police Investigation Irfan Ullah acknowledged that one of the two witnesses had admitted to not being present at the alleged “crime” scene at the time of the alleged remark.


“Qayyum told us that he hadn’t witnessed the incident and his name had been included in the FIR by the locals, but still that does not prove that Shamim did not commit blasphemy,” Ullah told Compass by phone. “The other witness is standing by his claim, and she has produced nothing so far which can prove her innocence.”


He vehemently denied that police had caved in to pressure from local Muslims and had registered a case in undue haste.


“I visited the village twice, and so far nothing has come up that suggests that the people have accused Shamim wrongly,” Ullah said. “We registered a case against her on the directions of the district police officer.”


Bahawalnagar District Police Officer Salman Ali Khan could not be reached for comment.


Shamim Bibi’s family and her infant daughter, meantime, may have to wait for a long time for her return. While no one has been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan, most are freed on appeal after suffering for years under appalling prison conditions.


Vigilantes have killed at least 10 people accused of blasphemy, rights groups estimate.


Section 295-C of Pakistan’s blasphemy law states: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”


END

THE CANDLESTICK by Carter Conlon

This message is copied in it's entirety from Pastor Carter Conlon of Times Square Church. I felt it was something that needed to be shared with all of you. May the Lord bless you and may you find yourself returning to your first love, Christ Jesus.

“A GREAT MULTITUDE OF ALL NATIONS AND KINDREDS AND PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES” (REV. 7:9).       tscnyc.org
VOL VIII  /  ISSUE 3  /  MARCH 2012
THE CANDLESTICK by Carter Conlon “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love” (Revelation 2:1–4). It is critical that those of us who have been walking with God for any length of time pay special attention to these words. Ephesus was a church that was theologically sound. The followers of Christ tested what was preached and did not tolerate anything that strayed from truth. These were a working people who labored without fainting, but something had happened to them along the way—they had left their first love. Have you noticed that there is something very attractive about first love? That is why we love weddings! Even the most callous person is strangely warmed inside watching a young couple exchanging vows at the altar—a classic picture of first love. The couple sees no wrong in each other, and they look forward to sharing the rest of their lives together. Imagine a scene fifteen years later when this same wife is feeling under the weather. Her husband is sitting at her bedside at 3 a.m., holding cough medicine and reading to her its healing ingredients. “Honey, this cough medicine contains 6.2 milligrams of diphenhydramine, which is an antihistamine and a cough suppressant; 2.5 milligrams of phenylephrine, a nasal decongestant.” She simply looks at her husband and asks, “Why are you reading all this to me?” He replies, “Well, there are a lot of frauds on the market, and I’m not willing to go to all this trouble and have you take an inferior product.” Suddenly she looks up at him and asks, “Do you love me?” “Of course I love you,” he says. “It’s 3 a.m. and I’m sitting here discussing with you the truth of the healing that I hold in my hand.” Remember when Jesus appeared to His disciples on the shore and asked Peter a similar question? Jesus turned to him and asked, “...Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” (John 21:15). We do not know exactly what He was referring to when He said “these,” but it must have been something within reach, something He was pointing to. Perhaps it was the boats, the oars, the nets, the friends. Peter must have loved the smell of the sea, handling the oars, the thrill of casting his nets into the water and bringing in fish, the camaraderie that he shared with his friends. Suddenly Jesus is asking him, “Do you love Me more than these? Do you love Me more than the things that you have become familiar with? Do you love Me more than what you have grown accustomed to tasting, touching, feeling and handling?” Peter could have replied, “Well, I am here, aren’t I?” The Scriptures tell us that when Peter saw Jesus standing on the shore and one of the disciples recognized it was the Master, Peter leaped from the boat into the water. There was a love in his heart. He could have said to Jesus, “Didn’t you notice that I got here first? I had my seat reserved at the fire before the rest of the people even arrived. Why would You ask me if I love You? You know that I do!” Today I could ask you this same question in Christ’s stead. Do you love Jesus? Do you really love Him? Some would answer, “Well, of course, I love Jesus. I would not be reading this if I didn’t love Jesus. I would not be studying the Scriptures and examining truth if I didn’t love Jesus. I would not be going on missions trips if I didn’t love Jesus. It is quite obvious that I love Him.” Let us look again at the husband who carries on with his duty to properly present the medicine that he holds in his hand. Once again, in a voice barely above a whisper, his wife asks him, “Do you love me?” In reality, this husband has become much like that church in Ephesus—concerned about having the right product, concerned about getting up because of duty and doing the right thing, concerned about the appearances of love. Yet Jesus said to this church, “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:4–5). When I first came to Christ, I could hardly wait for opportunities to read the Word of God. Winning the lost seemed as easy as breathing. There was no program involved—I simply loved Jesus with all my heart. People would ask me, “What happened to you? Why do you always seem to be so calm? What is the difference that I see in your life?” I did not open my mouth and explain, “Well, I have been testing and proving those who claim to be apostles, and I found them to be liars.” Neither did I tell them that it was because I had gone on a missions trip or had been working in the house of God. The answer was simply, “I love Jesus. He has come into my heart and transformed my life. He has broken the power of the things that once bound me, and He has given me hope for a future. He is teaching me how to be a good husband and father.” I had a simple answer because in my heart, I loved Him. People are attracted to that relationship of first love.   A THIRD TIME Having just answered Jesus’ question, Peter was probably settling down by the fire when Jesus once again asked him the same question, “Do you love Me?” Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, You know I love You.” Perhaps Peter should not have been so quick to answer, for he was asked the same question one more time.    “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee...” (John 21:17). By this point, Peter was exasperated and essentially said, “Lord, You know all things. You have already asked me this twice, and this is the third time. You know that I love You. Why would You keep asking me that question?” Jesus answers him succinctly: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me” (John 21:18–19). Jesus was saying, “Peter, just embrace Me once again. Do you remember those early days around the table when I told you I was going to Jerusalem and that I was going to be betrayed and crucified? Remember that day when you said, ‘I will go with You and I will die with You. Where You are, there I will be?’ You did not say that out of duty, you said it because you loved Me. Now I am asking you to stretch out your hands and embrace Me one more time. Embrace Me in the way you did in those first moments.” This is the same thing that the wife was saying to her husband as he dutifully read the contents of the cough syrup: “I just want you to embrace me. I want to know that I am the love of your life and not a labor in your life. I want to know that I am still as important to you today as I was that day we spoke those vows to one another. I don’t want you to read to me, I want you to hold me!” There are men reading this whose marriage is not going well. Could it be because you have lost your first love? I believe if you will reach out and embrace your wife again, you will find that she still wants to be given to you, that she still desires to walk with you. God has put it in her heart to be loved by you. You will find that a lot of healing will come into your home if you will just simply reach out, stop talking and start holding. The Lord went on to say in Revelation, “...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7). I believe Jesus was saying this to the church in Ephesus as well as to His Church today: “Will you simply love Me as you once did—when no cost was too great and no journey was too far? Will you reach out and allow Me to lead you? Will you embrace My will for your life and walk with Me wherever I go? If you are willing, I will unlock to you the full victory of Calvary and it will be strength and life to you.”   THAT WHICH MAKES US ATTRACTIVE   “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:5).    So what is the candlestick? Simply put, the candlestick is the light of first love—that bright, burning flame. It is what makes Christ in us attractive to people who are outside of the kingdom of God. It is what makes our children want to follow God. Have you ever noticed a young couple in a restaurant eating together, so in love that they are not even aware of the food on their plates? They are staring into each other’s eyes while the food is getting cold. Then you look at the same couple twenty-five years later—he is reading the newspaper and she is looking out of the window. The only words they have to say to each other are, “Nice potatoes.” “Yeah, and these peas aren’t bad.” There is nothing attractive about that relationship, nothing that would cause young people to look at them and say, “Wow! I would love to be married someday and have a relationship like that!” Likewise, when our relationship with Jesus degenerates into simply testing and proving, laboring and concentrating on not fainting, keeping right and avoiding the fraudulent, nothing attractive remains. There is nothing about our relationship with Christ that anybody in the world is going to desire, let alone ask about. Yet that is the danger we can fall into. It is so easy to become an Ephesus church, focusing on doing everything right. Right doctrine, right works, right programs—all at the expense of losing what was so precious in the beginning. God help the bride of Christ who suddenly needs a pamphlet to talk about her Bridegroom. “Can I tell you about Jesus? Wait, I have it here somewhere. There is a pamphlet here that describes Him. Yes, let me tell you about my Bridegroom.” No! Our hearts should be captivated! Just as it says in the Song of Solomon, “Have you seen him? He is the fairest among ten thousand! He is altogether lovely!” (see Song of Solomon 5:10–16). That is first love.   RETURN TO YOUR FIRST LOVE   I don’t know about you, but I want to finish this race the way I started. I want my marriage to finish even better than it began. I want my love for Jesus to increase. I don’t want to preach in different places and have people conclude, “Wow, he sure is theologically accurate. He sure can rip apart the false prophets. He sure can labor without fainting.” I would much rather people notice, “He sure does love Jesus! Everything in his being, everything in his voice, everything in his eyes simply exudes a relationship that I would like to have!”    Perhaps you started out so in love with Jesus, yet somewhere down the road that love has degenerated. In your heart you know that your relationship with Him is not what it used to be. It has become all about works, doctrine, and learning to endure. If this is the case, Jesus would say to you today, “If you can overcome this declension and get back to your first love, all that I have will be yours again. I will fill your heart with compassion. There will be light in your eyes, and people will ask you the reason for your hope.” How do we come back to our first love? I believe it starts with asking the Lord to ignite our hearts once again, and then simply reaching out and embracing Him. Jesus told Peter, “Stretch out your hands.” He was talking about embracing the Lord—embracing the heart and will of God; walking together with Him in intimacy again. Don’t let your candlestick be taken away in this critical hour. Come back to your first love, whether you have walked with God for fifty years or for ten. Simply come back to that place where you love Him with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind and all of your strength. We must have the flame of first love burning brightly in this dark hour. This is what our testimony should be; this is what will bring Him glory in our generation! Carter Conlon ©2012 Times Square Church