Justice Bardwell's Illegal Prejudging of the Law

The Washington Times reported that a Louisiana justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refused to issue a nuptial license to an interracial couple ("La. justice won't marry interracial couple," Associated Press, Nation, Oct. 16). He made his decision because of what he claimed was empirical evidence that interracial marriages do not last long coupled with his conclusion that "most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society."

Mr. Bardwell was in clear violation of the law for discriminating against a couple because of his own biased, prejudicial beliefs. Most Americans tend to marry persons of the same race, yet nearly half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce.

The divorce rate is higher for cohabitating couples than for couples who abstain from fornication. Perhaps Mr. Bardwell should refrain from marrying persons who are living together? There are many societal complications that are behind divorce. While race can be a challenge, it can also inspire couples to be more devoted to each other.

It has been argued that most people, black and white, do not accept the idea of interracial relationships. I do not believe this is true. In 2008, millions of Americans of many ethnic backgrounds voted for President Obama. Black Americans overwhelmingly embraced Mr. Obama, and he would not have been elected president had it not been for the support of many white Americans. Quite clearly, America would be a better nation if we focused less on race.

Mr. Bardwell insists that he is not a racist, pointing out that he has done ceremonies for "black couples right here in my house." Only God knows Mr. Bardwell's heart, but he clearly has a mentality of racial separatism. Would he refuse to marry an interracial couple if one person were half-black? What about interracial couples of other ethnic backgrounds?

I believe that Mr. Bardwell is misguided and allowed his own dubious fears, personal experiences and prejudices to enable him to violate the law in preventing an interracial couple from marrying.

The Great Deception: America's Separation of Church and State

America’s founding fathers never intended the establishment of a national church or theocracy. However, historical evidence suggests that the First Amendment was not devised as a means of oppressing religion. Rather, we are guaranteed the distinct freedom of religion as opposed to the freedom from religion. If the First Amendment was intended to build a wall of separation, how do liberals explain that several states still had state churches when the Amendment was initially ratified? The states gradually did abolish them, but this was done voluntarily, not in violation of the First Amendment of which there was agreement upon.

Why do liberals seem to have no “tolerance” for religion, especially Christianity, in public education? Historian Gary DeMar described some of our nation’s religious heritage in his fascinating book, America’s Heritage. These are just a few of many examples. The words “In God We Trust,” also our declared National Motto by Congress in 1956, are “inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.” The Liberty Bell has Leviticus 25:10 displayed on its top. The words, “Praise be to God” are engraved on top of the Washington Monument. The crier who begins every session of the Supreme Court concludes with the words, “God save the United States and the Honorable Court.” The Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public schools (Stone v. Gramm), yet the very same Commandments and even carvings of Moses appear on the Supreme Court building.

Dr. Norman Geissler and coauthor Frank Turek discussed our government’s promotion of religion in Legislating Morality. Such legislation would be unconscionable in the era in which we live. In 1795, “President Washington approved a grant of $1000 to build a church for the Oneida Indians.” In 1803, “Congress and President Jefferson approved a grant of $100 for seven years to a Roman Catholic priest to evangelize the Kaskaskia Indians, and $300 to help build them a church.” As Geissler explains, “the men who wrote the First Amendment didn’t see any constitutional problem in subsidizing religious groups with federal tax dollars!” Ponder the outrage of such proposed legislation today when innocuous prayers are forbidden at graduations and nativity scenes on public property are under attack.

One of our nation’s most important documents that indicate the importance of religion and education is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance states “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Therefore, according to our founders, religion and morality were to be promoted through schooling and not subject to censorship, as has been the case for decades.

The End of The Church Age As We Know It

President of Family Radio Harold Camping is author of an intriguing book, The End of the Church Age…And After. Mr. Camping earnestly believes that God’s “usage of the churches and congregations has come to an end” and he therefore admonishes “each and every believer to leave the church.” Many Christians have rejected Camping’s theology as heretical and would likely label him as an iconoclast. Although I remain uncertain that the Church Era has come to a complete end, I believe that Mr. Camping’s theory is not altogether plausible. Many denominations have departed from the Bible and have developed their own agenda. I will provide a few succinct examples:

Musical Standards: Many mega churches have become places of entertainment with musical standards irreverently tantamount to a rock concert. Traditional hymns have been replaced with overhead projectors flashing verses on a screen, similar to a second-grade handwriting lesson. Congregants may sing, “I am not worthy” or “Your Name is Jesus” four-five times in a row. There seems to be a dearth of substance and creativity. Feminizing and Gender-Neutralizing of Hymnals: I perused a copy of The United Methodist Hymnal (1989) and discovered that many of the words of some of my favorite hymns have been altered. “Good Christian Men Rejoice” is now “Good Christian Friends Rejoice.” The refrain in the hymn, “All Creatures of Our God and King” states, “O praise ye!” rather than “O Praise Him!” and in the third verse one would sing, “O sister water, flowing clear” instead of “Thou flowing water, pure and clear.” The popular hymn, “He Lives” states in the latest version: “I know that he is living, whatever foes may say” and the original wording specified “I know that he is living whatever men may say.” There are directions left from John Wesley in the very first few pages of every United Methodist Hymnal. What would Wesley think of these politically correct adjustments when he states to sing the hymns “exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you have learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can”?

Tolerating the Intolerable:In An Introduction to the Episcopal Church author Joseph Bernardin claims that the “traditional attitude towards sex, based on the Bible, is under strong ethical challenge today.” He then states that “heterosexual intercourse between unmarried persons (fornication), with mutual consent and proper precautions against procreation and disease, is a private matter.” Bernardin directly controverts Scripture again when he contends that “This applies also to homosexual intercourse between mature consentient persons. Homosexuality itself is neither a sin nor a disease, but a condition for which the person himself is in no wise responsible.” The Episcopal Church, the oldest Protestant faith in North America, has been apostate for years. It was not a surprise that the first openly homosexual bishop, (and surely not the last) Gene Robinson, was recently confirmed as Bishop Shelby Spong and other Church leaders have justified the ordination of homosexual priests.

A Myriad of Child-Sex Abuse Cases:The Roman Catholic Church is also in a state of crisis. Over a hundred of people have come forward with egregious childhood tales of sexual abuse over a period of several decades in the Greater Boston area alone. The figure could be over a thousand nationwide. Cardinal Bernard Law and other church officials have been severely criticized for coddling abusive priests and permitting them to surreptitiously molest children again while paying off their victims. Such actions only reflect abysmal, degenerating, and morally bankrupt leadership.

Morally Corrupt Preaching Within: Many pastors are reticent to speak from the pulpit about the polemics of our day such as abortion, homosexuality, fornication, divorce, racism, cohabitation, and other issues. Furthermore, pastors often avoid other subjects like hell and eternal damnation, subjects that make congregants uncomfortable. Rather, there is an over emphasis on refraining from judgment, receiving the love of God, and tithing, as if that is to systematically guarantee financial stability in this transitory life.Church Attendance Down Nationwide:There used to be a time in this great nation where church attendance was deemed essential to good citizenship. Sunday was a day for worship and prayer when families spent time together and did not go grocery shopping or pertain to other picayune duties. Church leaders were bold and would challenge members with incisive and profound preaching. I have read that President Theodore Roosevelt would spend an hour every Sunday evening with his father discussing the sermon that he had learned that morning. I know of Christians who seem to be unable to recall even the content of a sermon as early as Monday morning! Try asking some people who attend church regularly what they learned a day or two afterwards and I believe that the results would be quite appalling.

President Obama at Notre Dame: More Words and the Death Count Rises

The middle to the end of May marks the time of spring graduation for many colleges and universities in the United States. For the institutions with the big name, getting the speaker with a big name is a big deal. As I compose this essay, quite a few institutions have already held their ceremony, including the University of Notre Dame which had President Barack Obama as the guest speaker and also as a recipient of an honorary degree. Even before Obama’s arrival in South Bend, Indiana, the president’s scheduled appearance at Notre Dame on Sunday, 17 May 2009, had generated protests. At issue was whether a Catholic, pro-life institution should extend an invitation to and an honor upon a pro-choice person. An analysis of his speech, as well as a consideration of contemporary realities, shows why there should be controversy.

The speech, considered by many commentators to be erudite and the perfect presentation for an academic setting, lasted just over 30 minutes. To be sure, the speech was filled with mellifluent phrases that inspired the audience to rise many times in standing ovations. However, during the time it took the president to deliver his oration, approximately another sixty-eight babies were aborted. (The tally is derived from the number of abortions [1,200,000] given for 2005 by the Guttmacher Institute and divided by the number of minutes in a year of 365 days and then multiplied by the number of minutes in Obama’s speech.) Talking on and on and on about abortion while about-to-be-born Americans are killed is not a solution; it is tacit acceptance of the slaughter of babies. The president’s pathetic imperceptivity on the matter is seen in this comment: "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away." In effect, those that have been born are encouraged to talk while some that are about to be born are aborted during pregnancy.

Pro-choice persons, like Obama, try to assume some sort of moral high ground by pronouncing the following kind of statement: "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." A second one that is routinely tossed into national dialogue on abortion, and which Obama used at Notre Dame, is: "Let’s…make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women." Amidst vague verbiage through the use of words, like "moral" and "spiritual" and "clear ethics," Obama shifts the entire focus to women as if no one else is involved. For a pregnant woman there is at least one more person involved as she makes her "heart-wrenching decision." That person is the one who is about to be born, but about whom Obama said nothing in his commencement address.

The president closed his speech with references to events in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s. He mentioned "freedom rides" and "lunch counters" and "a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower." Obama used that last item to illustrate his belief that persons of dissimilar views and backgrounds "can…make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth." What Obama did not highlight in his speech is that the federal government used force through federal legislation and the enforcement of laws "to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all God’s children." What many pro-life persons want from the government is a similar use of laws and the enforcement of laws to "to fully realize the dream of" life "for all God’s children." If the federal and several state governments can protect the bald eagle by making it a crime to destroy the egg, it can do at least as much for the human fetus.

According to his own words, delivered at Notre Dame, Obama believes "the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together" is "the Golden Rule," wherein we "treat one another as we wish to be treated." As a general, universal rule people do not want to have their limbs ripped off or a caustic solution poured on their skin or their brain sucked out of their head with a powerful vacuum, but the aforementioned procedures and other horrific methods have been used to abort more than fifty million about-to-be-born Americans since Roe v. Wade was declared by the Supreme Court to be constitutional in 1973.

Finally, in his commencement address on Sunday, May 17, the president urged that Americans "work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term." Again, these mellifluent phrases, even if incomplete in what they should proffer, convey good sentiments. If an Obama Administration and a Congress controlled by the Democrats can contribute hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for the bailouts of mortgages institutions and other corporations, it should be able to provide some assistance to pregnant women and about-to-be-born persons.

George Sochan
Assistant Professor
Bowie State University
26 May 2009

Pro-Abortion Governor Martin O'Malley Marches With Clergy In Opposition to the Death Penalty

by Matthew Pasalic

The media reported that Gov. Martin O'Malley took his campaign against Maryland's death penalty to the streets Wednesday, praying and marching with clergy in opposition to capital punishment ("O' Malley marches against death penalty," The Washington Times, February 26th, 2009). The governor observed that he has 22 Senate votes to repeal the death penalty, but the "Holy Spirit might have 24, so let's give him a shot." The governor correctly identified the masculinity of the Holy Spirit, but I think that he is grossly mistaken to claim that the Holy Spirit is against the death penalty especially since death is the natural curse from God for all of sinful humanity. Death was the outcome for Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). However, if the governor is not interested in wasting “one instant, one day, one cent, one dime, serving death,” he needs to practice his faith as a consistent Catholic and defend the great multitude of babies who are about to be born, but are instead butchered in the name of choice at area abortion clinics. It is hypocritical, irrational, and illogical that Gov. O’Malley, who arrogantly defies basic Catholic theology by supporting abortion on demand, chooses to uphold his Church’s position in opposing the death penalty. Many Christians are cognizant of the notion of a salad bar or buffet style Christianity. This increasingly popular brand of Christianity allows believers to pick and choose what is most appealing to them. Has it ever occurred to liberal Christians that God, who never changes, supports the death penalty as it was His will for the Lord Jesus Christ to die for the sins of humanity? Therefore, had liberals like Gov. O’Malley had his way 2000 years ago, there would be no remission for our sins.

Other opponents of capital punishment contend that there is a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. Do we need to satisfy a racial quota for executions in America? There is also a disproportion number of minorities in prison. By using such logic, we should ascertain that our jails are diverse and well-represented demographically. Perhaps we should just abolish prisons altogether as they are likewise expensive and outdated.

Furthermore, when I first heard of the governor aligning himself with religious leaders in Annapolis, I was perplexed as to the overt silence from activist groups such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, and the American Civil Liberties Union. When it comes to championing political causes of the left, it is permissible for government elected officials to invoke their faith and attend marches. These groups aggressively silence and intimidate Christians more so than other faiths with the mendacious notion that there is an impregnable wall of “separation of church and state” in the US Constitution. Many Americans have been deceived into believing that the words appear in the Constitution when the fact is that they do not.

President Obama and Abortion by Guest Columnist

By Dr. George Sochan

One of the most significant documents in world history is the Declaration of Independence, which, when it was penned and signed, was a revolutionary document. The first two paragraphs put forth such principles as limited government and inalienable rights. One inalienable right is that of life, which is guaranteed by the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment and in the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately, today, as in the past, the inalienable right to life has not always been protected by the federal and the state governments. Today the group denied governmental protection of life comprises persons still in the womb who are about to be born. As Barack Obama enters Washington, DC for his inauguration, many Americans have warranted, reasonable concerns that the federal government will lessen its support for the right to life of about-to-be-born citizens.

As usual, abortion did not receive much attention during the campaign; for instance, there was very little discussion of this issue during the debates. However, some statements made by the president-elect at that time and his brief career in the Illinois Senate may provide enough information to indicate what an Obama administration would portend on this matter. On 31 March 2008 at a rally in Jonestown, Pennsylvania, Obama stressed the importance of sex education that includes more than abstinence-training. In an unprepared remark, he stated, "Look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Many members of the Pro-Life Movement were horrified, and even disgusted, that Obama would consider pregnancy a punishment. In whatever way one may view a pregnancy, including one resulting from a rape, it is essential to perceive two lives in this condition. Relieving a woman of a pregnancy by an abortion because the condition is considered some sort of unwanted burden ultimately deprives another person, who is about to be born, of his or her life. Apparently, Obama would continue support for abortions for those persons who assign a negative value to any given pregnancy.

During the summer of the campaign and peaking in August 2008, some interest was generated on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Acts. Such laws were passed by certain state legislatures and Congress during 2000-2003 because, according to testimony given in a House of Representatives’ committee report, "physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous ‘induced abortions’ or ‘live-birth’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die." To countervail a cultural environment in America which has permitted medical staff to allow a born-alive human to die, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in August 2002. This law asserts that a "member of the species homo sapiens" includes "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development…regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." Being defined as a human who has been born alive in the United States would afford such a living being of citizenship and, hence, protection under federal and state laws. At the same time that the federal government passed its version of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama, as a state senator, repeatedly opposed a similar law in Illinois because he claimed that the Illinois law would have undermined Roe v. Wade, which, until President Bush had signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, had included the killing of infants who have been almost completely extracted from the mother.

The killing of a born-alive infant and even the killing of a baby that is in the process of being born, as in being partially extracted from the mother’s body, should be considered murder. Such an obvious ethical determination should be so obvious that, as the website Religious Tolerance suggests, "One wonders who could possibly be against it." Apparently, based on his record of non-accomplishments in the protection of life for certain persons, Barack Obama is against "it." He seems to be like millions and millions of Americans who live their lives day by day without more than a rhetorical concern for the thousands of defenseless, about-to-be-born Americans that are slaughtered in abortion centers day after day. After noon on January 20, 2009 the difference between Obama and most Americans is that he will have a powerful position in the government. As president, Obama will be in a position to affect some change, whether for good or ill, on the protection of life for the about-to-be-born Americans. A negative change from the little that had been achieved during the Bush years would obfuscate even further the supposedly self-evident truth that the right to life for all humans is inalienable in the United States and protected by the government.

George Sochan
Assistant Professor
Bowie State University

Beware of So-Called Inclusive Churches

by Matthew Pasalic

I recently received an invitational flier through the mail from Immanuel United Church of Christ in Catonsville, an “open and affirming congregation.” I read the brochure in its entirety and I would like to take this opportunity to provide some discerning analysis and reflective questions in response to what this church is affirming.

The emphatic question, “Are you looking for an inclusive church?” appeared in bold print followed by four declarative statements about the church. The first assertion indicated that the church welcomes and honors the “participation of all folks regardless of race, gender, economic status, and sexual orientation.” This is another unfortunate example of sexual orientation being amalgamated with the identity of race, gender, or economics. Perhaps this is a surreptitious invitation to homosexual offenders in the name of inclusion. Would this congregation eagerly extend the same invitation to persons of even more licentious lifestyles to include people who practice pedophilia and bestiality? What about persons who willingly engage in extramarital copulation or fornication? I certainly would not want to leave my children under the “child care” of any of the aforementioned individuals. The Apostle Paul exhorts believers not to associate with others who profess Christianity but willingly live in sexual immorality among other unrepentant sins (1 Corinthians 5). The fact that an increasing number of churches encourage people to come and be accepted for their sexual perversion sans true conversion is most repugnant to orthodox Christianity.

The second statement on the flier states that “we teach that the Bible is God’s holy, living Word that need not be taken literally in order to be taken seriously.” While I do not believe that every single word written in the Bible is to be interpreted literally, it should be understood that the very way it was written is how it should be deciphered. The Bible contains many parables, allegories, and metaphors and while this does not undermine the authenticity of the Word of God, it actually serves to strengthen it. Therefore, my response to the statement from the Immanuel United Church of Christ is: How can Scripture be taken seriously if none of it is to be taken literally?

“We think that good, faithful people can have honest differences with each other and still be united in Christ’s love” is the third tenet. This statement has some truth to it if it is referring to Christian people, however, denominations continue to develop and increase over differences in the faith regarding numerous, challenging issues. There has to agreement among Christians regarding the imperative doctrines of the faith to maintain unity. I do not fathom how Christians can disagree about an issue such as the ordination of homosexual clergy and still be “united in Christ’s love.”

The fourth statement declares that “we know that the church is not a perfect place, but we strive to practice God’s language of love in worship, service, and speech.” Many of the progressive churches of our era talk so much more about God’s unconditional love and compassion while conveniently forgetting about His wrath (Romans 5:9) from which His people are saved. A careful study of Romans 9 reveals that God chooses to have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy. He loved Jacob, but He did hate Esau. It is disillusioning that some professing Christians have the notion that God’s love is omnipresent and unchangeable, accepting everyone for who they are without any consequences for wrongdoing.
The brochure further indicates that “informal worship begins at 10:30” and that “dress is casual.” If the worship is informal, why have an official time to begin the service? Tragically, the liberationist movement has de-emphasized the necessity of formal worship. I prefer to dress properly out of respect and dignity when I attend church regardless if it is increasingly unpopular in America.

Finally, the flier contains the church’s contact information, including the female pastor’s name, who was surprisingly identified by the formal title of reverend. The ordination of women serves as another rebellion to God’s authoritative Word, the Bible ( 1 Timothy 2:12). In summary, I thank Immanuel United Church of Catonsville for the informative invitation to their inclusive church, but I tend to believe that my view of traditional Christianity would not be openly affirmed nor would I want to think of myself as included.