The Culture of Death

The liberal mainstream media believes that there is hypocrisy of the Religious Right promoting a "Culture of Life". Are they right?

This will be best explained by illustrating what those who oppose the "Culture of Life" believe. The people opposed to the "Culture of Life" believe in the "Culture of Death".

What is the "Culture of Death" and what do they believe in?

1. Those who believe in the "Culture of Death" believe that if an innocent baby, still in it's mother's womb, is going to be born to a poor young single mother, that it is better for the baby to be murdered than to live.

2. Those who believe in the "Culture of Death" believe that an innocent baby, still in it's mother's womb, is not a person, but property of the woman. It denies life and personhood to a human baby. It says that the human being, in a mother's womb, has no Right to Life, as guaranteed in the founding documents of the United States. They believe that baby is not a human, but a slave of the mother's body. Alan Keyes states "abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century". The killing of a slave in 19th Century America is no more illegal than the murder of a baby in the mother's womb is today. That is what the "Culture of Death" says and that is how they want to keep it.

3. The "Culture of Death" says that a helpless woman of little intelligence left, should be murdered by the State instead of letting her die of natural causes or instead of letting her parents pay to take care of her. The "Culture of Death" says that letting her parents try new medical advances to try to cure the impaired woman is less humane than murdering her.

4. The "Culture of Death" says that mass-murderers deserve to be let free, back into the public, to kill, rape and mutilate more people. They say it is compassionate to give known mass murderers and rapists the oportunity to murder and abuse more people, so more death can occur. The "Culture of Death" values the life of those who continue to kill others and create more death over the life of innocent victims or potential victims who live their days respecting life. Many statistics show that mass murderers are unlikely to break from their pattern of taking life. Forensic psychiatrist Helen Morrison's research shows that "serial killers, in particular, can't be rehabilitated because their underlying condition 'is probably genetic.' She said their problems stem from an interaction of genetics, brain chemistry and the endocrine system". The "Culture of Death" argues that keeping these hardened mass murderers alive to kill more innocent people is worth more than the life of one of those innocent people.

5. The "Culture of Death" says that Dictators, who commit acts of genocide against their own people, slaughtering hundreds/thousands, should live to kill more innocent people. The "Culture of Death" says that life of one person murdering thousands of minorities, is worth more than the thousands of innocent people he kills. Furthermore, all of those people who are not killed by tyrants like this, who know of the atrocities, are "held in slavery by their fear of death" by ruthless Dictators. The "Culture of Death" value those who commit genocide, and enslave people with the fear of genocide, rather than valuing the thousands of minorities who are murdered or enslaved.

6. Human Cloning is another tool of the "Culture of Death". The "Culture of Death" says that it is good to harvest live human bodies for spare parts, even though this kills the donor, who is forced without consent to their will, to give their life, for their body parts. "In Therapeutic Cloning, a cloned human embryo is used for spare parts and is killed".

7. The "Culture of Death" tries to promote that "in-vitro fertilization is the only thing available to infertile couples, yet less than 0.5% of infertile couples in the U.S. are helped by in-vitro fertilization each year". This process is "monstrous and inhumane" and it is a "sacrifice of human beings for the profit of other persons" and "a prenatal massacre". This process of artificial procreation takes multiple eggs from the mother and fertilizes them with multiple sperm of the father. Any resulting babies showing abnormalities are murdered and the one best living embryo is selected for implantation. Those human lives that are not selected, are massacred. If these innocent human lives are not massacred, they are taken as slaves for medical experimentation, called Embryotic Stem Cell research, and will die from medical experiments.

8. The "Culture of Death" only supports Stem Cell research if it kills embryos (innocent babies). Even though "thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells [and], no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells", those who are a part of the "Culture of Death" prefer killing human babies (embryos), rather than using already successful adult stem cells. This is just like the Nazi research done on living people in concentration camps... performing horrific medical experiments on enslaved people, where the experiment ends with the killing of the innocent being (Jew or embryo). Why use embryonic Stem-Cells with no proven success, over successful adult Stem Cells? ...to promote the "Culture of Death" and take more innocent life.

On April 4th the liberal media got their marching orders from those opposed to the Religious Right. The attempt is to pick apart the term "Culture of Life" and pretend that the support for life is either not real or a hypocrisy.

During Scott McClellan's April 4th Press briefing the liberal mainstream media unleashed their new anti-Religious Right assault. They asked Scott McClellan the following about President Bush, "knowing that the President fully supports the death penalty, used the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, 'culture of life,' and still support the death penalty?" They believed they had gotten Scott and he declined to answer. Neil Cavuto was asked this around the same time, as well as Republican Senator Pete Domenici. It appeared to be a concerted effort to attack the "Culture of Life" and discredit it.

The Bible is opposed to the "Culture of Death" and any human being with a conscience should be also. The Bible asks us to protect innocent life, not to kill the weak and needy. The Bible tells us to protect that life from the people who want to kill them. It says: "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4).

I want to respond to this attack on the "Culture of Life" and affirm that supporting the death penalty is not a contradiction to the belief in the "Culture of Life". In fact, the Lord has given the State the power to punish evil-doers in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 to protect the innocent and provide justice, as seen in my Article "Why Would a Christian Ever be Pro-War?".

Those who believe in protecting life must speak out against these atrocities and ask our government to be humane and close the loophole that allows the "Culture of Death" to murder innocent babies. I do not believe that people should mimic the "Culture of Death" by becoming life taking vigalanties, but to be a positive influence on society and to urge our elected representatives to punish evil-doers and to protect the weak and needy.

The Bible concedes that death will reign over the Earth and maybe that is why this "Culture of Death" is so prominent now. The Bible Says:
Romans 5:12-14
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

Jesus beats death Hebrews 2:14-15
"Since the children have flesh and blood, [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

1 Corinthians 15:24-26
"when [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Sadly, according to the Bible, the power of death and the "Culture of Death" will be with us until the end, after Jesus returns, but He will finally destroy it. Until then, join with the Lord to protect the life of those that can't defend themselves. "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4).

Public School Religion (Secular Humanism)

Secular Humanism has created an establishment of Religion in our Public Schools. Who are they? And What do they believe?

Their affirmations (they don't like to call them beliefs) are listed online, here. The history of the establishment of their religion (although they like to say that they are not a religion) is on a "religious movements" website here. Not all of their beliefs are in opposition to Christianity, but many of their followers are opposed to Christianity. In fact, some of the beliefs come from Christianity (which is mentioned in the history of Secular Humanism).

I'm sure like many of the complaints people have against Christianity... I'm not opposed to Secular Humanism... just some of their followers and what they do with their religion (their "affirmations"). I mean overall it sounds very nice.

The problem with teaching sex education and evolution is that you teach morals when you teach those subjects. When you teach certain morals and exclude other morals ("religious" morals vs. religious-movement morals) you are declaring your morals superior and establishing a set of beliefs ("affirmations") by the State (Secular Humanism) and forcing other beliefs (so called "religious" beliefs) out. It's complicated to explain this because Secular Humanism uses the spin that they are not a religion to create a religious monopoly in the school system.

What I'm opposed to is forcing one religion's (or religious movement's) beliefs (affirmations) on everyone. I believe this is creating a State approved religion. The State says that these are the morals which will be taught and all other morals are banned.

This isn't exactly about sex education, but that's an example of Secular Humanist morals that are pushed in a classrom and that's easiest to point out. English class is a huge example of pushing Secular Humanist propaganda books as the reading curriculum in class. The books that are chosen to be read in class all promote morals... Secular Humanistic morals. The Secular Humanists claim that they are not a religion allows them to force other religious morals (besides theirs) out of the classroom thereby infusing their "affirmations" on the masses (especially the poor) without the pluralistic view (ironically against one of their own affirmations, but as long as their in charge it's ok).

This is establishing a State Religion in the classroom and oppressing other "affirmations" (religions). Secular Humanists should get their religion out of the classroom. If they are not willing to get their religion out of schools, at least allow the Freedom of Religion in the classroom and stop oppressing others.

Is Atheism Bad for America?

I certainly do think it's scary that the Constitution has been violated and ignored with regards to our freedoms. I've found the 80's, 90's & beginning of the millennium’s erosion of the 1st amendment ("freedom of religion") by the Judicial branch of the Government very scary. In these decades Secular Humanism and Atheism forced other religions out of schools, creating a state religion of Secular Humanism/Atheism in schools and forcing all other religions out. Saying a prayer during graduation was declared illegal, even if students voted that they wanted a prayer during graduation, it was illegal (which is totally undemocratic, not to mention a violation for the freedoms of speech and religion). Even student led prayers during a football game at a school were declared illegal. Even having a "moment of silence or voluntary prayer" was declared illegal. Secular Humanism joined with the State to eradicate all other religions from schools besides Secular Humanism (or Atheism) (Prayers could have been Muslim, Christian, Hindu, pagan, whatever, but all other religions were kicked out of schools besides the alliance of Secular Humanism and Atheism).

Not only was Atheism and Secular Humanism making it illegal for all other religions to practice their faith in schools, but under Janet Reno (and Clinton's approval) the FBI was used and tanks were deployed in the streets against American citizens inside our country who were in a small religious minority (and not part of the Atheist/Secular Humanist religion). The problem is that no one really knows what happened there in Waco. People know that the FBI and the Justice Department (Janet Reno) screwed up (or planned to annihilate these non-Atheists/non-Secular Humanists) . It certainly made me think we were in the End Times when the Government (Justice Department) sent tanks in the streets to hunt down a religion (which was different than the State religion of Secular Humanism and Atheism) just because the State says their religion is dangerous. The Clinton administration (predominantly Reno) set the precedent to use military force against US citizens that have a religion that the State (or State religion - Secular Humanism or Atheism) says is "dangerous". What's further troubling is that no one has been held accountable for the atrocities of Waco, making it even more suspicious.

Some blame theism or a belief in God for many wars and deaths throughout history. There have been millions of deaths for Atheism (the State is God) since the beginning of the 20th Century. This has helped Russia win many Wars since it turned Communist. Russia's State religion of telling their masses that the State is god (their people must sacrifice all of themselves for the State) has helped them through many Wars.

Atheism is an extremely war-mongering bloodthirsty religion. Marxist-Atheism says that killing is inevitable when the workers rise up (legitimizing murder as a necessary part of evolution). Stalinist-Atheism is extremely murder-happy; anyone who disagrees with the State on any policy (doctrine) must be killed. Chinesse Atheism slaughters Christians and Members of Falun Gong regularly. The religious persecution of Atheists against all other religions around the world, is wrong. I pray that Atheism does not politically take over the US, because they have brought much bloodshed and oppression to every Nation it has become the prominent religion.

The Persecution of the Church

There are multiple assaults on the religion of Christianity. That oppression in the United States comes mostly from Human Secularist exteremists. I certainly don't think it's right to oppress a religious group just because they used to be the majority religion, like how the Human Secularist extremists oppress Christianity. That oppression occuring from Human Secularist exteremists certainly doesn't "transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity", (one of the affirmations of Human Secularism). Instead, it selects a religion and oppresses it. Their goal seems to be to eliminate God, and Christianity specifically, from the mainstream. Since they have seized control of the Democratic Party, they have had the power to start pushing God out of the mainstream by legislative and judicial force.

God, thankfully, is still in the mainstream. I was concerned that He had not remained mainstream in American culture. I do believe he's not mainstream in Blue-State culture. Some of my Blue-State origins have given me the experience that the Human Secularist extemists have been successful there. Secular Humanist extremists are trying to forcefully eliminate God from the mainstream of all of the United States and then the world. Not that Secular Humanists have eliminated God currently from all of our American culture, although many places the Government does have laws prohibiting Freedom of Religion (guaranteed in the First Amendment). I don't believe all Secular Humanists are working to eliminate the ability to express faith in our culture, just the powerful extremist elites. I think the results of the 2004 election proves that God is still relevant in most American's lives and they were tired of the Anti-Christian biases of some of the more extreme Secular Humanist policies the Government has been promoting. I see the results of the 2004 election as a backlash against Secular Humanist extremism.

Some Lawyers have been defending the Freedom of Religion in courts (National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination) from "Activist Judges" who are trying to eliminate God from the mainstream. Many courts from previous years have been stacked with liberal Human Secular extremist Judges. This is why the fight is so strong now in the Senate against Bush-nominated Judges. The balance of power in Judges (Conservative/Liberal) may even out, if Bush's Judges are approved.

I am concerned about Secular Humanist extremists persecuting the Church, like how the Romans persecuted the Church in the old Roman Empire and Hitler's persecution of Christians during WWII. The Bible says that the Church will be persecuted, "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12). Persecution of my Christian brothers and sisters around the world is terrible and sad. Many Governments are Anti-Christian and kill Christians. This website has a World map that you can select different parts of the world that the persecution of Christians is occurring:
http://www.persecution.net/world.htm.

Many Christians are being killed by Atheistic-communist Governments. Since we live in a Democracy, I try to vote in such a way, so that we do not end up being oppressed slaughtered minorities, which is what has happened in many former Christian nations (Russia, most predominantly). Our Secular biased news ignores atrocities that are perpetrated against Christians around the World (or if they show it, it's spun so it doesn't seem like Christians are being persecuted - they make it about race or nationality). In the End Times the Bible says that the Church will be persecuted, which is what makes Anti-Christian legislation in the United States scarier. Jesus prophesies: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me" (Matthew 24:6-9). So although being hated for Jesus isn't so bad, it's the persecution and death part, that I hope isn't in my lifetime. I will vote against Anti-Christian Laws to slow the persecution of the American Church (or maybe exempting the persecution of the American Church) to protect me, my Christian friends and my potential future children.

It's not so much Secular Humanists I'm against. I'm against Secular Humanist extremists, who want to use the Government to persecute Christians. There will also be a one world religion that arises to persecute the Church in the end times. It could be Secular Humanism that attacks Christians for not being an "open" to the morals of Secular Humanism (with some Anti-Christian morals) or it may be the new Rise of Global Islam. I don't know. Either way, I am not for being oppressed as a National policy and seeing my Religious Freedoms taken away.

Some groups like the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) have been successful in defending religious liberties, but we've had about 40-50 years of Democrats monopolizing the power of the Senate (until 2002) and they've had control over Judicial nominations. With the Secular Humanists guiding the Democrat Party; they've been able to block most, but not all non-liberal God-fearing Judicial nominations at all levels. This leaves the courts to side against religious liberties and increasing the power of the Secular Humanist extremists. Also, many Red-States (like Texas) have had Blue controlled legislatures (until 2002 also). These Presidential Red-States (but Intra-State Blue-legislators) have also wielded their internal Blue-power to keep liberal Judges in the presiding courts (although Texas Judge nominees have a different process).

It no longer looks like we are going down the Secular Humanist trail of Christian persecution that Hitler perpetrated. This precarious situation for Christians seems to be easing up since the last election. It may be that we, who believe in God, will regain some of the religious freedoms we lost in the last couple of decades. And I for one... thank God Almighty.

Separation of Church and State: Good Idea or Unconstitutional Persecution?

You hear the term 'Separation of Church and State' a lot from the Secular Humanist liberal mainstream media. And they promote it as a good thing. In fact some go even as far to say that it is a constitutional principle... guess what? It's not in there. Is it in the Declaration of Independence??? Nope!

Where did the liberal media and the Secular Humanist extremists get their rhetoric from? The term "Separation of Church and State" was never in the Constitution. Where does it come from? It was in a DRAFT letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptist draft letter in entirety said:

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

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson"

An online copy of the Danbury Baptist draft letter is located here.

The context of Jefferson's comment is that the legislators should not establish a state religion or laws that prohibit (oppress) religion (religious groups). In McCollum v. Board of Education District 71 in 1948 was the first time the meaning of this term was changed to remove God from Schools. They removed a class about religious views taught by coalition of Jewish, Roman Catholic & Protestant leaders. This class was not mandatory. This was one of the first assaults on the freedom of religion (people were free to take or not take this course - this was also an assault on the freedom of speech). Some may argue if someone is not comfortable with the separation in school, and wants their values taught in school, they are free to send their child to a private school. This is not true especially for the poor. The poor do not have the choice that rich people do to change Schools. If voucher system the Republicans proposed were implemented, that would be true, but now the Secular Humanist school system holds captive the poor and indoctrinates them with their State religion (Secular Humanism/Atheism). The voucher system for schools would help free the poor from this religious oppression, but the Secular Humanists in the Democrat party have fought hard to oppose the freedom to allow any beliefs besides their own indoctrination. I hope we the people can regain the freedom of religion in schools, as promised in the first amendment.

Some liberals get confused... I'm not trying to force a religion on anyone... right now the rights of students to express freedom of religion and even the choice to attend religious schools is being infringed upon (especially the poor are being infringed upon). I wish that the Government imposed Secular Humanism/Atheism was not forced in schools. I don't see why the typical liberal view of pluralism and highlighting the morals of each religion is so bad. I don't see what's wrong with it except that it breaks up the monopoly the Secular Humanists/Atheists have over the school system.

An example of this tyranny is that in California (of course) a Christian teacher was singled out and barred from handing out collected excerpts of the Declaration of Independence because it referenced "God" in it. This religious oppression in schools has gone too far... to prohibit handing out excerpts of one of our nations founding documents. It's getting absurd now.

The draft of the Danbury Baptist letter (not even the actual letter), where everyone gets the term 'Separation of Church and State' from, was written with the intent to prohibit a State forced religion, but now the Human Secularist extremists use it to give themselves a religious monopoly in the public School system. This letter was written to protect religious freedoms of speech and expression, but now it is being used to oppress religious freedoms in public schools. This is an egregious account of manipulation of original intent. This is an atrocity to the principles this letter was written to defend. Stand up for your freedom America, don't let the secular extremist left steal your liberty!

Texas Redistricting: An End to the Legacy of Slavery

There was a lot of resistance to theTexas Redistricting issue. I was surprised there was so much hub-bub about the ability to redistrict. I guess it's just because I am familiar with my history and others... are not. It may just be that people are rusty on their precedents or their knowledge of US law. The issue was resolved long, long ago.

The Texas Redistricting issue was resolved in 1812 (Wikipedia: Gerrymandering). It's pretty old news. But then again, it's not surprising considering that during the 2002 elections, Republican congress-people broke the 130 year reign of Democratic Controlled Texas Congress ("Republicans gained control of the Texas House of Representatives for the first time in 130 years", PBS Article - "Tussle In Texas". It's easy to see that the Texas Democrats are/were upset that they've lost their 130 year, Government controlled monopoly to some Republican underdogs. The Democrat Congressmen haven't had to compromise their power for over much more than a Century.

I guess that's the emotional reason the ol' ruling Texas Democrat establishment is/was so upset. But, the redistricting process has been initiated whenever congressional power changes hands in all the US States. It's been an American tradition since 1812 (almost 200 years - so the redistricting tradition even dates back 60 years before the Democrats started their 130 year reign of monopolizing the Texas Congress).

Elbridge Gerry, in 1812, was the first to construct a strange shaped district in order to enhance his re-election prospects (Wikipedia: Gerrymandering). He created a district in the shape of, most people thought was, ... a Salamander. People balked and scoffed at him for his newly created Salamander shaped district. When people said it looked like a Salamander, one clever person remarked that it looked like a Gerrymander (using Elbridge's last name and merging it with this strange shaped district). The name immediately stuck. Gerrymandering is now part of the English language. It's Dictionary definition is "to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group" (Merriam-Webster Online: Gerrymander).

There is really only one main restriction on redistricting (Gerrymandering). Federal Standards for protecting Minorities in redistricting (Gerrymandering) were Championed by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to make sure minorities do not get unfairly treated by redistricting. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen lead the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect minorities from their votes being disenfranchised by Redistricting. 94% of the Senate Republicans voted for it, protecting minorities from racially biased redistricting, and 73% of Democrats voted to stop the protection of blacks (Republican Freedom Calander-August 4th, 1965). This protection for minorities that the Republicans championed, was the only provision restricting redistricting (districts must not disenfranchise minorities). There is nothing in our laws suggesting that redistricting (Gerrymandering) must be done during census years.

In 1967 the Congress passed laws stating that one Representative shall come from one district (as opposed to taking the top two from a larger district), thereby increasing the power of redistricting (Gerrymandering) whenever it is done.

Everyone knows that Texas is a Red-State, but the Texas Congress has not reflected the those views (It's been Democrat controlled). The Texas Congress doesn't reflect the views of the Texas people (everyone knows Texas is more of a Republican State, but Democrats have had the majority in the Congress in 2002), because the old Democrats of the slave days (130 years ago, Texas GOP History) kept redistricting the Republicans out of power every decade for 130 years (PBS Article - "Tussle In Texas"). Since the Democrats controlled the Texas Congress in 2002 (because of the old slavery controversy) and then continued to redistrict Republicans to keep them out of power for 130 years, this caused the Texas Congress of 2002 to be more Democrat. I don't think it's right for the current day Democratic Party to continue to benefit from the pro-slavery stance of their predecessors 130 years ago (especially when everyone knows Texan's views are more Republican).

So as far as my opinion on Texas redistricting. It's been part of our political system for almost 200 years. I guess Texas Democrats thought they were exempt from the political process everyone else in the nation follows (and the process of Gerrymandering in other non-US Democracies). I guess they thought that they were better than these underdogs who were trying to redistrict them. They might have thought 'How dare these people that we've had control over for 130 years, tell US what our future is'.

I think it's sad that the only way that the old Democrat establishment would allow the Republicans to redistrict, is to make them call two special sessions, waste the taxpayer money and then try to illegally run away from the Texas political process by going to other states. I'm sure it's hard to give up power, when you've had it for so long. I suppose I can grant some compassion on them, because it's tough to give up power that you expected you'd always have, when you loose (election of 2002).

Why Would a Christian Ever be Pro-War???

Some people may be surpirsed to know that the Bible itself says that there is a time to kill. That specific verse doesn't explain in detail when that is, just that there IS a time to kill. This verse is Ecclesiastes 3:3.

There is a time that the Bible says that condones killing. There is a specific case that is listed as the right thing to do. Deuteronomy 19:11-13 says: "But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.". This is the law of the Lord. I believe that Christ has come to grant grace and that may overshadow Deuteronomy's command of "Show him no pity", even though it is commanded by God to kill without pity here. This is what God has stated as the right thing to do, for the good of the Nation (not necessarily the individual). This is also commanded in Exodus 21:12, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death" and Leviticus 24:17 "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death".

Jesus himself commanded his disciples to pick up swords and follow him in Luke 22:36-38. Jesus told His disciples if they didn't have a sword, to buy one. When the disciples presented swords to Jesus, Jesus approved.

Some Soldiers came to seek Godly advice about the morality of their occupation. They were not told, not to be soldiers. They were not told to quit. They were not told to not make War. The Bible addresses their moral question with the answer: "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay" (from Luke 3:14). They are told not to take money from people by threat (Thou shalt not steal) or to accuse people falsely (Thou shalt not bear false witness) to beat the innocent. They are not told to not make War. In fact they are told simply after those reiterations of the aforementioned two commandments, to be happy with their pay (which may be translated as... Thou shalt not covet). If the soldiers were commanded to be happy with their pay, then soldiering is certainly not condemned.

Furthermore, I do not believe that God intended the Military to be Godless. I do not believe God intended Armies to not have witnesses for Him planted among soldiers. I don't believe God would prohibit believers from being in the military and therefore not have any witnesses to testify to their fellow soldiers about who God is and the ability of God to save their souls.

Also God specifies in Romans 13:4 that Governments have been given the authority to bring wrath with the sword (what some may call War or others may call capitol punishment). Romans 13:4 says about rulers of Nations "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (or evil-doer). God has given authority to Earthly rulers to bear the sword to punish evil doers.

The confusion here comes from the fact that our Bibles are written in English. The original Hebrew has 4 different words for the 1 English word kill. The Bible says "Thou shall not ratsach". This word does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional killing. For example manslaughter and intentional murder are both ratsach. Deuteronomy 19:4-6 says that if a murder is unintentional (manslaughter) than the killer has a chance to escape to a "City of refuge", this is a right that the intentional murderer does NOT have. Both intentional and unintentional murders are ratsach. And God commands us not to intentionally or unintentionally murder people. The other three Hebrew words are harag, shachat and muwth. What is the difference between these words? Great question.

I'll start with muwth (Translated as die 424 times, dead 130 times, slay 100 times, death 83 times, surely 50 times, kill 31 times, dead man 3 times, dead body 2 times, "in no wise" 2 times and other random words 10 times). This is the term for capitol punishment or the term for the punishment of death, because of poor moral choices or sin. This word means to execute (as in the death penalty). It may also mean that someone kills themselves with a sinful lifestyle (drugs etc.). The Lord did not say in the 10 Commandments "Thou shall not muwth", the Lord said "Thou shall not ratsach". This does not condone revenge or vengeance by an individual ("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", Romans 12:19), but He did grant authority to Governments to punish, by the sword (Romans 13:4), evil doers (those who are wrongdoers). God states this in Exodus 21:12, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death" and Leviticus 24:17 "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death". The Lord did not call punishment by death a sin. That is why muwth (punishment by death sanctioned by the Government) was commanded by God in Deuteronomy 19:11-13, which I listed above. Does God command people to sin? No. God outlawed murder (ratsach), but has commanded his people to execute evil doers (muwth) for the good of society (as in Deuteronomy 19:11-13).

Next is the word shachat, which means to kill/slay an animal. This difference in killing is specified in the Bible. The Bible makes a clear distinction between human life and animal life. God condems murder as a sin ("Thou shall not ratsach"), but commands animal sacrifice (shachat). Shachat, is used 81 times in the Bible (translated as kill 42, slay 36, offer 1, shot out 1, slaughter1). Also the terms zabach (translated as sacrifice 85, offer 39, kill 5, slay 5) and tabach (translated as kill 4, slaughter 4, slay 2, slain 1) are used to describe killing animals. God commands that animals be killed (zabach) in his name wherever He is to be honored. And God will bless those who kill/sacrifice animals in His name. Sometimes zabach/shachat/tabach is used for the murder of a person, but that is only if the killing of people is done in the style of killing an animal; this type of killing is not acceptable to God. When ratsach(murder) is called shachat(butchering-NIV), because of the style of the murder... it is more vicious (not condoned). But the killing of animals (food, sacrifice, clothing, etc.) is seen as acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. In fact God Himself killed an animal for Adam and Eve after they sinned in the Garden of Eden, to sacrifice to cover their sin and to clothe them (David Guzik commentary, section 5, verse 21). Some "animal-rights" extremists try to use "Thou shalt not ratsach" to say that we shouldn't eat/kill animals, but clearly God permits eating animals in Acts 11:7, where God commands Peter "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat". Also God himself killed animals for clothes for Adam and Eve, which the "animal-rights" extremists say is evil/wrong. Again, God is not the author of sin. He would not command us to sin. God commanded His people to kill animals (zabach/shachat/tabach) for sacrifice, food, etc., but commanded us not to murder people ("Thou shall not ratsach").

The most complex one, is the term harag. The word harag is used 167 times in the Bible (translated as... slay 100, slain 31, kill 27, murderer 2, destroyed 1, murder 1, out of hand 1, made(slaughter)1, put (to death)1, slayer 1, surely(kill)1). This means to slay or slaughter wholesale and without pity, as in a War. It can be also in an individual way to denote a viciousness of the perpetrator, like how Cain slaughtered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). This was a sinful act of Cain to slaughter/kill his own brother (to War against his own brother - and partly against God). In Ezekiel 9:6 God commanded "Slaughter [harag] old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary". That's a time God commanded to His people to kill/slaughter. It's a time God commanded to War against people. In the book of Ester, the King, because of Ester's Godly intervention, permitted the Jews to War against (kill) his Nation's armies in self-defense ("The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies" - Ester 8:11), to save the Jewish race. God willed this law and the Hebrews slaughtered their enemies, with God's help, protecting the Jewish people and allowing Jesus, the savior, to be born hundreds of years later. God Himself has slaughtered (harag) many Kings and Nations (Psalm 135:10). God gave a prophecy about the Nation of Tyre, in Ezekiel 26:6, that Tyre's settlements "will be ravaged by the sword [harag]. Then they will know that I am the LORD". Exodus 32:27 says "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing [harag] his brother and friend and neighbor'". So there are times that harag is sin and there are times that harag was commanded by God. That is EXACTLY what Ecclesiastes 3:3 says. Ecclesiastes 3:3 says there is "a time to kill [harag]". There is never a time to murder ("Thou shall not ratsach"), but the Bible tells us that there is "a time to kill [harag]". Is harag always acceptable to the Lord? No! Cain's action was sin. Many other times when people were slaughtered, it was because of sin... and it was evil. Can we conclude that all harag sin? No. God did command certain times that harag is the right thing to do. God has in His holy scriptures that there is "a time to harag". There are times that God commanded His people to slaughter other peoples or to defend their Nation from attacks. How do we know when it is right to defend one's family and people? How do we know when it is right to War against someone? When is War justified? This leads us to the concept of a "Just War", to describe when harag (War) is sinful and when it is the right thing to do.

What is a "Just War"? What are the conditions necessary to conduct a "Just War"? The "Just War" doctrine was created by Bishop Augustine of Hippo, a famous Theologian in the 4th Century. Some secularists attribute the Just War theory origins to Cicero in the 1st Century B.C.. This idea was further developed by the theologan Thomas Aquinas is the 13th Century. Others have followed in carrying on the idea of promoting a "Just War" ("Just War" origins & history from Wikipedia).

First and foremost in this doctrine is that God has given Government and States the sovereignty to wield the sword. As I mentioned above, Romans 13:4 says about rulers of Nations "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (or evil-doer). Furthermore 1 Peter 2:13-14 says "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right". This authority does not specify wrongdoers or evil doers inside the Nation. God has given "the sword" to the state to protect it's people and to punish evil doers (which may include both muwth and harag). Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority." It must be a legitimate authority that wadges war. "The sovereign power of the state is usually considered to be legitimate authority. This means that citizens at their own will cannot attack another country without the permission of the sovereign" ("Just War" Wikipedia). For an individual "to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to 'take the sword,' but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment" (from Newadvent). In other words, an individuals actions of harag are accounted to the state and are not counted against them (they do not violate the command "Thou shall not ratsach"). Although citizen's can only wadge War under legitimate authority, under the "Just War" theory, there may be broader definitions of who is legitimate authority, such as NGO's (non-Government Organizations), like the PLO (Palistinian Liberation Organization) (they do not have a State), Al-Quada (they do not have a soveriegn State), Africans in the Darfur region of the Sudan (defending themselves against the Arab-Sudanesse Government assaults on them and selling them as slaves for profit), Godfathers (heads of Gangs, crime syndicates) or Eco-terrorists (ELF - Environmental Liberation Front). The definition might be more stringent than a soveriegn State, like no State has the right to declare war (even in self-defense); only the UN can legitimately approve of a war. But in general, a state is considered legitimate authority.

The second tennent of the "Just War" Doctrine is that the war must be fought for a just cause and right intention. Usually this Just Cause is self-defense, like how the Jews defended themselves, with the King's approval (because of Ester) against the armies/people trying to kill them ( "The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies" - Ester 8:11). "[S]ometimes it is necessary. When it swings open the doors of the stinking concentration camps, when it liberates the slaves, broken and exhausted, when it frees those who are about to be tortured and murdered by the hundreds or thousands or millions, when it makes freedom possible where before existed only gulag, it is a good, not an evil" (Adventis Today, "Sometimes War is Moral"). The example of Ester is not the only place where a just cause is mentioned (the Ester example of a Just Cause of self-defense). The Bible also commands us to "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4). Some may use that verse to say that the US Civil War was a Just War, because it fought to end slavery and the oppression of a people. On a BBC website they mention 9 reasons that may be used as Just Cause for a war. These reasons are: Self-Defense (invasion, assassination of a prominent person, attack on honnor[bombing an embassy], attack on the state religion, economic attack), Assisting a Friendly Nation who was Invaded, Human Rights Violations or To Punish an Act of Aggression. Augustine says "(Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war" (from Newadvent). Augustine also comments that "(Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): 'True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.' For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention" (from Newadvent). Augustine here specifies that Empire Building (aggrandizement) and hatred of a people (cruelty) are evil. But Augustine also mentions virtuous reasons for War such as securing peace and punishing evil doers, as noble things to fight for. It should also be done with right intentions like creating a just peace, righting a wrong and assisting the innocent (Psalm 82:4) (and as long as other "Just War" conditions are met). Augustine also says that "(Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace" (from Newadvent).

The third point of a "Just War" is that it must only be wadged if there is a reasonable chance of success. Going to War with the odds stacked against you may seen noble, but it is unethical. It is unethical to kill and have a great loss of life for something that is inevidable. "[I]t would be unethical for a state to sacrifice the lives of its people (and the lives of its enemy's people) in a futile gesture that would not change anything". This makes "The Alamo" an unethical unjust battle, whose ends do not justify it's means. Some do argue however that a weaker power may break the resolve of a stronger power (like the 13 Colonies broke the resolve of the United Kingdom in the War for Independence or like Al-Quada boke the U.S.'s resolve to fight them in Mogadishu). That makes this more complex, but for the traditional "Just War", you do not fight a War you can not win. That is immorally sending people to their death.

The fourth point of a "Just War" is that it must be a last resort. On a web-site said it best, when it said: "Of course the non-violent, non-war solutions are always preferable, if they exist. Every one of them must be tried first if there is the slightest chance of success. Nobody is arguing that war is ever the first preferable alternative. It is the last. But sometimes it is necessary. When it swings open the doors of the stinking concentration camps, when it liberates the slaves, broken and exhausted, when it frees those who are about to be tortured and murdered by the hundreds or thousands or millions, when it makes freedom possible where before existed only gulag, it is a good, not an evil" (Adventis Today, "Sometimes War is Moral"). What are these alternatives that should be tried before War is initiated? These preferable alternatives are "diplomacy, economic sanctions, political pressure from other nations, withdrawal of financial aid, condemnation in the United Nations, and so on. These alternatives should be tried exhaustively and sincerely before violence is used." (BBC "Just War" - Last Resort). On the other hand, "Some writers don't think that 'last' in last resort refers to the sequence of time. They argue that last resort means that the use of force is ethical only when it is really necessary and when no reasonable alternative is left. They say that that war should be the least preferred course of action, but not necessarily the course of action that isn't tried until afterevery other course of action has failed.They argue that sometimes it will be morally better to go to war sooner rather than later. This might be because waiting too long would allow the enemy to do much more damage, or kill more people than an early war would have done; or may allow the enemy to become so established in another country's territory than far greater force will have to be used to remove him than would have been needed earlier" (BBC "Just War" - Last Resort).

These previous four are the criteria which must be met in order to fight a "Just War". This is called the Jus Ad Bellum criteria. The way in which the War is wadged must also be just in order for the War to be just. The actions of the participants in the War must follow the "Just War" Doctrine. The prescription of action during a "Just War" is called Jus In Bello.

First rule of fighting a "Just War" is that the killing (harag) must be directed at combatants and not at innocent non-participants. There sometimes is confusion over who is a combatant and who isn't, especially in the fog of War. Combantants are: "members of military forces, members of guerrilla forces (even though not in uniform, and anyone who takes up arms in the conflict, other than in direct self-defence", but they may be "soldiers who have been wounded or who have surrendered - this hasn't always been so - armies used to make a point of butchering enemy wounded or those who surrendered - although soldiers who surrender shouldn't be killed, it's quite legitimate to make them prisoners so that they can't attack you again, military personnel clearly identified as having specifically non-combatant roles such as medical staff and chaplains - such personnel are often injured or killed because their job takes them into the most dangerous parts of the battle" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). Also there are people which MAY be considered "combatants" even though they don't have weapons (because they are not "innocent"); the people would be "civilians who are helping the war effort - these are people working to supply the troops and to provide them with weapons or helping in other ways. They aren't combatants in the sense of bearing arms, but they are an essential part of the war machine and constitute a threat to the other side" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). People that are killed, who's deaths would certainly be considered ratsach (murder) are: "all citizens of neutral countries, unless they do something incompatible with their neutral status - like fighting for one of the armies involved in the conflict as a mercenary soldier, the old and the sick, children [although, children were historically used as combatants, e.g. the 'powder monkeys' in warships in the days of sail AND child soldiers are becoming more common in terrorist conflicts and third world armies, NOT TO MENTION THAT International conventions specify that countries should not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). The Bible says this in Proverbs 6:16-17, "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood". This verse have many believe that using any WMD's (like nuclear or chemical weapons) are immoral, because they do not kill only combatants, but innocent people as well, making the user of WMD's guilty of manslaughter (involentary murder - ratsach), which is far beyond a just death (a harag by justice - death by a "Just War").

The second rule of fighting a "Just War" is torture of combatants is forbidden. I don't think this is supposed to include Psychological Warfare, but I don't know. Psyops or Psychological Warfare may be called "torture" in the sense of how the US played Barney & Seasame Street Music really loud in Iraq which caused people to surrender. Yes Amnesty International filed a complaint that the US using Barney songs on Iraqi's was "torture". I'm not sure where the "torture" line is, but Psyops seems to be a gray area in a "Just War". (The advantage is that combatants may surrender without bloodshed, but is Psyops considered torturous means and therefore an unjust warfare tactic?)

I'm going to wrap this up quick... the next rules in a "Just War" are to treat POW's respectfully (not like Abu Ghraib), the force should be proportional to the offense and that drafting is unjust.

These are the times, that many argue that the Bible says that one may kill (harag), but it would not be murder (ratsach). These times are listed in Ecclesiastes 3:3, where the Bible says that there is "a time to kill [harag]". Why would Christians be pro-war? Sometimes War is more just then to allow evil (Nazi's, etc.) to continue it's oppression and murder.

The Rise of the Godless Religion

There are many articles about the Religious Right, but founding fathers of liberal and conservative beliefs were both God fearing people. Television had shows where people were free to mention God. Now Political Correctness has pushed God out of Television and seeing 50's TV shows that mention God are refreshing, but shocking.

Were Democrats never religious? Did Democrats never believe in God. They once did. JFK a Democrat President said "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter". Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter said "You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I've never detected any conflict between God's will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other". So the real story is not religion forcing its way into the right-wing, but godlessness that entered the Democrat party.

How did the Democrats loose their Christian roots? When did they forsake Christianity? When a new religion of Secular Humanism forced its way onto the scene and usurped control of the Democrat Party is when they left Christianity.

The Secular Humanists now control much of the Democrat Party. Who are these people? And what do they really believe? The Secular Humanist religion has a list of affirmations (they don't like to call them beliefs), which are listed online, here. The history of the establishment of their religion (although they like to say that they are not a religion) is on a "religious movements" website here.

How did these Secular Humanists get so powerful? This is really a one word answer... lawyers. I guess maybe Judges too... so lawyers and Judges (who are just glorified lawyers anyway). Lawyers started cashing in on suing the people of the United States (they sued the government, who would raise citizen's taxes to pay for it) for prayer and the mention of God in school. Lawyers initially started suing on behalf of Atheists and Secular Humanists. Once they saw how much money they could make off of attacking God... lawyers were SOLD!

Lawyers have traditionally aligned themselves with the Democrat party. Leftists would say that it is because they side with the common man against the big business interests. I've heard that the way that Lawyers find suing God so lucrative is one of the loopholes in Title 42 of the United States Code (which seems to be supported by section 405(2)(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this says "the Commissioner shall take into consideration the amount available for grants under this section"). Through this, lawyers can get paid by the Government grants (charging the US taxpayer) anytime they bring a lawsuit in the name of "non-Establishment of Religion clause" (where the lawyers get paid for attacking God references in public arenas and further promoting the government establishment of Atheism/Secular Humanism). Whether the plaintiff wins or looses... the government pays (the taxpayer is charged), for providing a service for the "public good" (where the "public good" means removing God from the Declaration of Independence). This is a systemically discriminatory Federally subsidized assault on God, at the expense of the taxpayer. Our government policy further promotes Atheism/Secular Humanism as the Establishment through this public funded anti-God assault on the Freedom of Religion (1st Amendment).

Furthermore leftist allies in the press have also contributed to the rise of Secular Humanism. A reporter from beleifnet, in April of 2003, describes the ascension of the atheists/Secular Humanists in politics and the media:

"journalists' parochialism blinds them to one of the biggest stories in American politics: how the Democratic Party has become a stronghold of fervent secularists, and how secularism ‘is just as powerful a determinant of social attitudes and voting behavior as is a religiously traditional outlook.’

Among political journalists, what you might call the "official story" holds that religious conservatives bullied their way onto the American political scene with the election of Ronald Reagan, and rudely brought into the political arena the culture war that had been raging since the 1960s.

That’s exactly wrong, say Bolce and De Maio, who attribute the "true origins of this conflict" to "the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic Party, and the party’s resulting antagonism toward traditional values."

Until relatively recently, both major parties were of similar mind on issues of personal morality. Then came the 1972 Democratic Convention, at which secularists--defined as agnostics, atheists, and those who seldom or never attend religious services--seized control and nominated George McGovern. Prior to that year, neither party had many secularists among its delegates. Democratic delegates were split between religious and moral traditionalists on one side, and secularists on the other. They fought over moral issues: abortion, women’s rights, homosexuality, the family.

But in what Bolce and De Maio call a "secularist putsch," the non-believers triumphed, giving us what Richard Nixon mocked as the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion," and instigating--with help from the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973--the long march of religious and moral conservatives to the GOP, which became the party of traditionalists by default.

By 1992, the parties had become thoroughly polarized around religious orientation. Only 20 percent of white Democratic delegates (N.B., this secular-religious antagonism is a white voter phenomenon, the authors say) went to religious services at least once a month, while over three times that number of white Republican delegates did.

But while the media have thoroughly reported the key role religious conservatives play in Republican Party politics, they’ve ignored the role militant secularists play in setting the Democratic Party's agenda. "Secularism," say Bolce and De Maio, "is no less powerful a determinant of attitudes on the contentious cultural issues than is religious traditionalism." Indeed, Republican traditionalists have not polarized politics by becoming more conservative, as conventional wisdom would have it. Instead, secularists (and to a lesser extent religious moderates) have become more liberal.

The divide has become so stark that the authors have discerned a new kind of voter: the "anti-fundamentalist." Twenty-five percent of white respondents in a survey called the American National Election Study expressed serious hostility towards religious conservatives, as opposed to only one percent who felt this strongly against Jews, and 2.5 percent who disliked blacks and Catholics to a strong degree. (Ironically, these are people who say they "‘strongly agree’ that one should be tolerant of persons whose moral standards are different from one’s own.") Eighty percent of these voters picked Bill Clinton in 1996, with 70 percent choosing Al Gore in 2000.

In other words, if the country's first Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith, ran for president today, his enemies wouldn’t be the Bible Belt anti-Catholics rustics he faced in 1920, but today’s urbane anti-Christian bigots of liberal coastal cities.

This could be the most important development in American party politics of the past 20 years, say Bolce and De Maio—and America’s two leading newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have both completely missed it. In a search of the Lexis-Nexis database of domestic political news stories, op-eds, and editorials those papers published from 1990 to 2000, the authors found only 14 stories that mentioned the religious gap between the two parties.

During this same time span, the Times and Post published 392 articles on the gender gap—which represented a 9 percent differential in favor of the Democrats. The average religious gap in these same elections was 42 percentage points."

But their most striking finding was the near total lack of editorial and news coverage devoted to the increased importance of secularists to the Democratic Party. The numbers are mind-boggling: 43 stories on secularist Democrats, 682 stories on traditionalist Republicans. In 1992, the Times alone published nearly twice the number of stories about Evangelicals in the GOP than both papers did about secularists among the Democrats for the entire decade.

The bias is even worse among television journalists, who filled the airwaves with stories about the "Religious Right" and the Republican Party, but who didn’t file a single story about the Secular Left’s relationship to the Democrats.

I suspect that most reporters, editors, and producers would be shocked by these findings. They really do think of themselves as, to pinch a phrase, "fair and balanced." Yet Bolce and De Maio cite a poll showing that a majority of TV news directors and newspaper editors felt that Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians "have too much power." Fully one-third considered these believers to be "a threat to democracy." The same survey found that only four percent thought nonbelievers had too much influence, and the number of media professionals who perceived secularists as a threat was … zero.

America is a far different place from its newsrooms. Belief in God is, for most Americans, a sign of character. According to a March 2002 national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than half of those polled thought negatively of "nonbelievers." Only half that number had a low opinion of the "Christian conservative movement."

Bolce and De Maio wonder if the media elite consciously do the Democrats a favor by not pointing out what, for all intents and purposes, they are: the Godless Party. 'Perhaps it is for this reason more than any other,' they write, 'that we do not hear in election-night analyses and postmortems that Democratic candidates have shorn up their base among the unchurched, atheists, and agnostics, in addition to the ritualistic accounts and warnings about how well Republicans are doing with evangelicals of the Christian Right.'" (Beliefnet - Are the Democrats Anti-Religion?)

In summary, rich elitist lawyers sued the taxpayer to use Federal Funds (taxpayers money) to forcefully eliminate God from the mainstream. This assault first focused on the school systems to eliminate all religions besides Atheism and Secular Humanism from Schools. Then it seems that through section 404 of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Secular Humanists used taxpayer money to propagandize the teachers into compliance with the Secular Humanist agenda. Section 404 says, "The Commissioner is authorized to arrange, through grants or contracts, with institutions of higher education for the operation of short-term or regular session institutes for special training designed to improve the ability of teachers, supervisors, counselors, and other elementary or secondary school personnel to deal effectively with special educational problems". This shows how the lawyers could proselytize public school teachers in the Secular Humanist religion at the expense of the taxpayer. (Preparing the groundwork to popularize this view to generate further profit for themselves at the taxpayers expense)

With the teachers fully proselytized and the rich lawyers promoting the Secular Humanist cause with federal public grants (taxpayers money), the Teachers Unions and the rich Lawyers imposed the Secular Humanist view upon the unsuspecting Democrat party in 1972, as the above article states. The media allies of the Unions and Lawyers promoted the Secular Humanist agenda. The media spun the events of the late 70's and 80's into the Religious Right bringing religious issues into politics. Which in reality, it was the Secular Humanist agenda which had a new alternative religious view already 'been brought' in 1972! (and those who believe in traditional religious Freedoms - had to align with the Republican party to have a voice).

There is difficulty in repealing this law. Repealing this law would also repeal public funding to prevent minorities from being discriminated against. If the Secular Humanists/Atheists continue to oppress religions, besides themselves, through the misuse (using it exactly to the opposite of it's intention) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious groups may be forced into a corner to repeal parts of the Act, leaving minorities vulnerable, just to get some relief from religious oppression. I pray that it doesn't have to come to that.

Proof of Mainstream Media Left-wing Bias

Many people talk about the liberal bias of the mainstream media, but frequently it's mentioned with no proof or subjective evidence on story slants. Just from listening/watching the mainstream media, I think that their left-wing bias is hard to ignore, but many contend that it's not a slant towards Democrats, but a bias for sensationalism. I'm tired of the accusations and I am willing to offer objective proof that the corporations support a more left-wing ideology and it knowingly or unknowingly makes the mainstream media biased. The mainstream media is biased towards the left and the the mainstream media is the liberal media.

This list with links below shows the political bias of most the media organizations:
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp

All of their political donations are split, but the splits show their political Bias

New York Times 94% of their donations are to Democrats

Discovery Communications (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, Travel Channel, BBC America) 90% of their donations are to Democrats

Viacom (CBS, MTV, VH1, BET, CMT, Commedy Central, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Paramount Pictures, Infinity Radio Broadcasting) 81% to Democrats

USA Interactive (Home Shopping Network, Expedia, TicketMaster, CitySearch, Evite) 80% of their donations are to Democrats

NBC (CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Telemundo, Bravo, Sci-Fi Channel, Universal Studios) 77% of their political donations are to Democrats

CNN 71% of their donations for more than the last 5 years are to Democrats

Hearst (ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, Oprah's Magazine, Redbook, Seventeen, Town&Country, SmartMoney, Local Broadcasting) 68% of their donations are to Democrats

Sony (Sony Pictures, Columbia Records, Epic Records, Legacy Records, Playstation, Electronics, Individual TV Shows: Seinfeld, Mad About You, Jepoardy, Wheel-of-Fortune, etc.) 67% of their donations are to Democrats

AOL Time Warner (Warner Brothers, Time Magazine, AOL, New Line Cinema, HBO, Turner Broadcasting) 63% of their donations are to Democrats

Cablevision (Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, NY Knicks, NY Rangers, Local Programming) 59% of all their political donations go to Democrats

Liberty Media (QVC, Starz Encore, Court TV, Game Show Network) 57%of all their political donations go to Democrats (from the top link)

Disney (ABC, Disney Movies) 55% of all their political donations go to Democrats

(Of course Clear Channel is 75% donations to Republicans)

Aside from the liberal mainstream media, there are many other Corporations that are "Blue Corporations". Someone started a myth that Corporations are Republican. It may be based on the fact that out of all Corporations in general, more money from Corporate donors go to Republicans, but many Corporations fund Democrats, the Democratic Party and Liberal Organizations. Corporations fund both Democrats and Republicans, although admittedly Republicans slightly more. Corporations who supported Kerry were Time-Warner, Microsoft, Viacom (CBS/MTV), Boston Capital, International Data Group, Mintz-Levin-Cohn-Ferris-Glovski-and-Popeo (Law Firm), Hale & Dorr and Skadden-Arps-Slate-Meagher&Flom (Law Firm), just to name a few (BBC News - Companies Donate for Access, PublicIntegrity.org, CommonDreams.org).

Corporations who funded last years' Democratic National Convention are Microsoft, American International Group, Fidelity Investments, John Hancock Financial Services, New Balance Shoes, Gillette, Liberty Mutual, Raytheon Corp, AT&T (the last 8 at $1million or more each), Nextel, Merck (these between $500,000 and $1Million each), Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis (the previous 4 being all big pharmaceutical companies that Kerry has spoken out against, but Kerry has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from them), Bristol Meyers Squibb (another Drug Company), the Boston Red Sox, Coca-Cola, Chrysler and others.

Tom Daschle was/is under investigation for being illegally funded by Corporations Microsoft, Qwest, AT&T and others. “Daschle himself is a master at collecting corporate cash. His top donor… is Northwest Airlines, where his wife is a top lobbyist”. In return, Tom Daschle signed for the Airline Industry bail out (Corporate Welfare) after 9/11.

Terry McAuliffe, the previous head of the DNC, brought much corporate money into the Democrat Party.
“In the early 90s, really big money began to pour into the DNC. McAuliffe recruited robust donations from Arco and Chevron, Entergy and Enron, Phillip Morris and Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, Citibank and Weyerhaeuser. Many of these corporations had all but abandoned the Democrats during the Reagan era. McAuliffe lured them back with promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations. This was the mulch bed from which the Clinton presidency took root." (from Counterpunch.org)

The companies listed above are liberal corporate donors (as well as a little background info on McAuliffe and Clinton). Most notably, the liberal media stands out as a large block. Law firms also stand out in general as "Blue Corps". I hope that's helpful information. I think it's fascinating!

This corporate sponsorship of Democrats is hidden from us by the Democrats allies and funders in the mainstream media. The mainstream media pretends that corporations only fund Republicans and that Democrats are "for the people". Who perpatrates this propaganda? The mainstream liberal media who give their money to get Democrats elected.

The deception of class warfare is generated by the liberal media, who pretend that Democrats are for the little guy and against corporate interests is a lie. The false impression about who the Democrats really represent is spread by the liberal media.

Next time you think the mainstream news is being objective think about the newsperson, editor and reporter's paycheck and ask yourself... how much of their personal money is going to a Democrat? Then tell me how they can be 100% objective when they spend so much to get one party elected.