Translate

Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2020

THE WAR AGAINST CORONAVIRUS-THE OPPOSITE OF WAR

THE WAR AGAINST CORONAVIRUS-
THE OPPOSITE OF WAR
 At what cost are we trying to save a certain amount of lives?
SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/04/video-war-against-corona-–-opposite-war-frontpagemagcomrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
This new edition of The Glazov Gang is joined by Barak Luriethe author of the new upcoming book, The Rise of the Sex Machines.
Barak discusses War Against Corona: The Opposite of War,  asking: At what cost are we trying to save a certain amount of lives?
Don’t miss it!

Also check out Barak’s 4-Part Series below — in which he unveils How Atheism Kills:

Part 2: Five Wrong Assumptions of Atheists.

Part 3: Godlessness = Abortion, Eugenics and China’s One-Child Policy.

Part 4: Hitler was NO Christian.
Follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

Thursday, December 12, 2019

ARMY TRADEMARK OFFICE ASKS CHRISTIAN COMPANY TO STOP PUTTING SCRIPTURE ON ARMY-THEMED DOG TAGS FOR SOLDIERS FOLLOWING COMPLAINT

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION;
Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)
ARMY TRADEMARK OFFICE ASKS CHRISTIAN COMPANY TO STOP PUTTING SCRIPTURE ON ARMY-THEMED DOG TAGS FOR SOLDIERS FOLLOWING COMPLAINT 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
BEAUMONT, Texas — A Christian jewelry company is at risk of losing permission to use the Army logo on its dog tags after the Army Trademark Licensing Program recently told the company that it can’t include Scripture on its products if it is also going to use the Army emblem.
“You are not authorized to put biblical verses on your Army products. For example, Joshua 1:9. Please remove ALL biblical references from all of your Army products,” Army Trademark Licensing Program director Paul Jensen wrote to Shields of Strength President Kenny Vaughan in August.
According to the Army Times, the matter began when the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), led by Mikey Weinstein, contacted the Army Trademark office to advise that it had received more than 50 complaints about the dog tags.
Weinstein stated that the use of Scripture with the logo violates Department of Defense (DoD) regulations that prohibit Army emblems from being used to promote religion — or nonreligion — as well as specific stances on morality, legislation and sociopolitical efforts.
“DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change,” the rules read, according to a document from 2013.
The Army licenses private entities the right to use the logo, as long as they abide by the regulations. Army tags on the Shields of Strength website include the Army emblem on one side and a personalized version of Joshua 1:9 on the other, reading: “I will be strong and courageous. I will not be afraid. I will not be discouraged.” The Shields of Strength logo is displayed below the Scripture.
“Such craven utilization of American military logos and related symbology by this sectarian Christian group (Shields of Strength) not only viciously violates well established DoD regulatory law but also poisons the Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State,” Weinstein said a statement.
However, First Liberty Institute, which is representing Shields of Strength, disagrees that the tags flout the Constitution as the separation of Church and State would rather prohibit the government from interfering with private religious speech.
Shields of Strength, a Texas-based for-profit corporation, identifies its mission on its website as “to share the love, hope, forgiveness, and power of God’s Word with others and to see people victorious in life’s battles and in a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
“When private entities engage in religious expression, they are fully protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed this fundamental principle repeatedly,” Chief of Staff Mike Berry wrote in a letter to Jensen on Dec. 3.
“Your censorship of SoS’s religious expression amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because your directive to SoS censors or bans only its religious speech, solely because it is religious,” he stated.
Louisiana Rep. Ralph Abraham also recently sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to obtain clarification on the military’s stance on the matter. He told Fox News last week that he views the dog tags as being private — not government — speech as they belong to the soldier, and it should be an individual’s right to wear Scripture on a necklace if they wish.
“These dog tags belong to the individual service member and not allowing Bible verses to be inscribed on them, per their wishes, is an infringement on their personal freedom — the same freedom they fight to protect on our behalf,” Abraham stated.
Similarly, the Conference of Jewish Affairs has asked the Army to reconsider its request, stating, “No soldier is forced to inscribe a biblical verse on his personal dog tag, though the Army has over the years allowed soldiers to do so if they wish. … The Army is not promoting religion, rather allowing soldiers to exercise their personal religious needs.”
As previously reported, Weinstein has a long history of objecting to the promotion of Christianity in the military. In 2013, he asked Department of Defense officials to punish superiors who attempted to proselytize their subordinates.
“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” Weinstein asserted.
He also appeared before Congress a year later, where he was questioned by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., about his hostility toward Christianity.
“On June 16, 2013, you said, ‘Today we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nations armed forces.’ Did you you make that quote?” Forbes asked.
“I did,” Weinstein replied frankly.
In 2015, he wrote a blog post calling for the ousting of Christian chaplains who disagree with same-sex “marriage,” and also demanded that Satan, Allah, Odin and others be added to a “God bless the military” display in Hawaii.
Last year, he unsuccessfully opposed the inclusion of the Bible on a Missing Man table in Okinawa, Japan, stating that the “Christian Bible stands out like a tarantula on a wedding cake.” A similar case made headlines earlier this year regarding the Missing Man table at the Manchester Veterans Medical Center in New Hampshire.

DAVID CLOUD: EVANGELICALS & UNIVERSALISM

Evangelicals and Universalism
SEE: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/evangelicals_promoting_universalism.htmlrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
December 12, 2019 (first published October 1, 2013)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, 
fbns@wayoflife.org
In an open letter to a newspaper editor, Pope Francis says that sincere atheists will be accepted by God. Writing to Eugenio Scalfari, founder of La Repubblica, the pope said: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying--and this is the fundamental thing--that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience” (“Pope Francis Assures Atheists,” The Independent, UK, Sept. 11, 2013).

This statement made big news, but there is nothing here that evangelicals have not been saying for decades. In fact, this is yet another way in which Roman Catholics and evangelicals are “coming together.” It is another aspect of the building of the end-time, one-world “church.”

A 1996 book by Zondervan Publishing House featured the writings of various theologians on the subject of whether or not there is salvation in pagan religions. The book, 
More Than One Way? is subtitled "four views on salvation in a pluralistic world."

Three of these views promote some form of inclusivism or universalism. The authors of the views are John Hick, Clark Pinnock, Alister McGrath, R. Douglas Geivett, and W. Gary Phillips. The book is edited by Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips, associate professors of theology at Wheaton College. The various views are divided into four groups: 1) Normative Pluralism, 2) Inclusivism, 3) Agnosticism regarding those who have not heard the Gospel, and 4) Exclusivism - salvation only through personal faith in Christ.

Scholarly evangelicalism has long refused to see doctrine in terms of black and white, right and wrong, truth and heresy. The emerging church is just the most recent twist in evangelicalism’s apostasy.

Scholarly evangelicals typically see things in terms of various shades of gray. Theology is more an intellectual pastime than a matter of life and death, heaven and hell. The evangelical claims that the Bible is his sole authority, but in practice he has no absolute authority, because he is willing to entertain heretical interpretations of Scripture as acceptable “models.”

The editors of 
More Than One Way noted that a large percentage of students in evangelical colleges no longer believe that those outside of Jesus Christ are lost.

"The new willingness to subject revelation to contemporary sensibilities has eroded the theological underpinnings for a missionary faith. Hunter's questionnaire found that only two-thirds of the students in evangelical colleges believe that the sole hope for heaven is through a personal faith in Jesus Christ. Increasingly students in Christian colleges are affronted when hearing the traditional claim that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone" (Editors, 
More Than One Way, p. 11).CLARK PINNOCK
Consider some excerpts from Clark Pinnock's statements:

"When I was a young believer in the 1950s, C.S. Lewis helped me understand the relationship between Christianity and other religions in an inclusivist way. Because I trusted him as an orthodox thinker, I was open to hear him say that he could detect God's presence among other faiths and that he believed people could be saved in other religions because God was at work among them. His view was wonderfully summed up for me in that incident in 
The Last Battle, the last volume of the Narnia cycle, where the pagan soldier Emeth learns to his surprise that Aslan [the lion which represents Jesus Christ] regards his worship of Tash as directed to himself. Anyone who appreciates that incident is on his or her way to inclusivist thinking.

"The other influence was Sir Norman Anderson, a scholar of Islamic law and a longtime leader in the InterVarsity Fellowship in Great Britain. In 1970, he wrote a book called 
Christianity and Comparative Religion, which in 1984 was revised and retitled Christianity and World Religions. Anderson taught that people could be saved while being members of other faiths, much the way people were saved in Old Testament times apart from any Christian confession. Both these scholars helped me as a young student avoid the narrow outlook toward other faiths that was otherwise characteristic of evangelicalism" (More Than One Way, p. 107).

"Moving from the parochial and personal to the world stage, the key historical influence for inclusivism is undoubtedly the work of the Second Vatican Council in its articulation of this teaching. The spirit of the whole Council was one of openness to the world and a seeking after the unity of humanity. ... Its standpoint was to view religions as arising from the spiritual dimension of created life and to seek the hidden presence of God in that sphere. ... As an inclusivist, I acknowledge my debt to the Catholic Church for its leadership in this regard, and, as an evangelical, I am concerned that the model be shown to be congruent with the Scriptures. In agreement with the Council, I want the model to be not only theologically coherent, but also exegetically well founded" (
More Than One Way, pp. 108,109).

"God has been at work saving human beings before Jesus was born and does so where Jesus has not been named. ... Faith in Jesus as the Savior of the world leaves room for us to be open and generous to other religious traditions. Scripture encourages us to see the church not so much as the ark, outside of which there is no hope of salvation, but as the vanguard of those who have experienced the fullness of God's grace made available to all people in Jesus Christ. ... I welcome the Saiva Siddhanta literature of Hinduism, which celebrates a personal God of love, and the emphasis on grace that I see in the Japanese Shin-Shu Amida sect. I also respect the Buddha as a righteous man (Matt. 10:41) and Mohammed as a prophet figure in the style of the Old Testament" (
More Than One Way, pp. 110-111).

This is heresy. Pinnock admits that he has been influenced by C.S. Lewis and Roman Catholic Vatican II Council. It is interesting to see how deeply this “evangelical” has drunk from the fountain of Catholicism.
ROB BELL
Rob Bell is another example of “evangelicals” who are teaching a form of universalism. In a 2005 interview with Beliefnet, Bell said “stop thinking about everybody primarily in categories of in or out, saved or not, believer or nonbeliever.” In his influential book 
Velvet Elvis, which is popular with many Southern Baptists, Bell described a wedding that he conducted for two pagan unbelievers who told him that “they didn’t want any Jesus or God or Bible or religion to be talked about,” but they did want him to “make it really spiritual” (p. 76). Bell agreed with this ridiculous request and said that his pagan friends “are resonating with Jesus, whether they acknowledge it or not” (p. 92).

In his 2011 book Love Wins, Bell makes a case for universalism, though he might have left room for 
some folk to wind up for a while in some type of hell. Consider two of many quotes we could offer as evidence:


“This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again. ... The God that Jesus teaches us about doesn’t give up until everything that was lost is found. This God simply doesn’t give up. Ever” (
Love Wins, Kindle location 1259-1287).

“The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God. And so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of Christians who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody” (
Love Wins, location 1339-1365).

Bell even claims that Sodom and Gomorrah will be restored (location 1057-1071, 1071-1082).

Bell has nothing but ridicule for the gospel that Jesus died for man’s sins and that only those who repent and believe will be saved.

“What happens when a fifteen-year-old atheist dies? Was there a three-year window when he could have made a decision to change his eternal destiny? Did he miss his chance? ... What exactly would have had to happen in that three-year window to change his future? ... Some believe he would have had to say a specific prayer. Christians don’t agree on exactly what this prayer is, but for many the essential idea is that the only way to get into heaven is to pray at some point in your life, asking God to forgive you and telling God that you accept Jesus, you believe Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for your sins, and you want to go to heaven when you die. Some call this ‘accepting Christ,’ others all it the ‘sinner’s prayer,’ and still others call it ‘getting saved,’ being ‘born again,’ or being ‘converted’” (
Love Wins, location 129-143).
Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, told USA Today that “Rob Bell’s Love Wins is a fine book and that I basically agree with his theology” (“The Orthodoxy of Rob Bell,” Christian Post, Mar. 20, 2011). This tells us just how terribly far Fuller Seminary has fallen from its roots in Charles Fuller’s “only through the blood” evangelistic ministry. Mouw agrees with Bell that it is wrong to say, “Accept Jesus right now, because if ten minutes from now you die without accepting this offer God will punish you forever in the fires of hell.” Mouw comments, “What kind of God are we presenting to the person?” The answer is the God of the Bible and the God that was preached by the founders of Fuller Theological Seminary. It is Bell and Mouw who have the new god. Mouw says that after a rabbi friend of his died, he “held out the hope that when he saw Jesus he would acknowledge that it was Him all along, and that Jesus would welcome him into the heavenly realm.” I’ve never read anything like that in the Bible, but C.S. Lewis taught this very thing. Mouw says that those who question Mother Teresa’s salvation just because she believed a false gospel should be ashamed of themselves. Mouw implies that Bell’s critics just want to keep people out of heaven, which is patently ridiculous and slanderous. Mouw would have us believe that he is more compassionate than Jesus, who stated very bluntly, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:35).

Both Bell and Mouw complain about their “critics,” but they don’t draw back from lashing out pretty fiercely at “fundamentalists.” Bell calls hellfire preaching “lethal,” “toxic,” “unloving,” “creepy,” a “cheap view of God.” No judgmental criticism there! Nothing but compassionate, tolerant dialogue!

BILLY GRAHAM
Some “conservative” evangelicals criticized Rob Bell. John Piper tweeted, “Good bye, Rob Bell.” Albert Mohler, Jr. of Southern Baptist Seminary described Bell’s view as “Velvet hell.” But why haven’t these men criticized Billy Graham?

For decades he said that it is possible for someone to be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ, but there has been no outcry from evangelicalism, including from Graham’s own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

In an interview with 
McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said: “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost—were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God.” In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, July 22, 1985). In 1993, Graham repeated this doctrine in an interview with David Frost. “And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. … I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (The Charlotte Observer, Feb. 16, 1993). In an interview with Robert Schuller in May 1997, Graham again said that he believes people in other religions can be saved without consciously believing in Jesus Christ. “[God’s] calling people out of the world for His name, WHETHER THEY COME FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD, OR THE BUDDHIST WORLD, OR THE CHRISTIAN WORLD OR THE NON-BELIEVING WORLD, THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN CALLED BY GOD. THEY MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THE NAME OF JESUS but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven” (television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller, broadcast in southern California, Saturday, May 31, 1997).C.S. LEWIS’S INFLUENCE ON THE EVANGELICAL DOWNGRADE OF HELL

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) has been called a “Superstar” by 
Christianity Today. A 1998 CT poll rated Lewis the most influential evangelical writer, and in light of the wretched spiritual-doctrinal-moral condition of “evangelicalism” today, that is a very telling statistic and certainly no praise for C.S. Lewis.

One of the ways that Lewis has influenced evangelicalism is in the fundamental issues of hell and the exclusiveness of salvation through the name of Christ. Lewis said that it would not be very wrong to pray to Apollo, because to do so would be to “address Christ 
sub specie Apollonius” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378).

Lewis claimed that sincere followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ (C.S. Lewis, 
Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 64, 208, 209). In the popular Chronicles of Narnia series, which has influenced countless children, Lewis taught that those who sincerely serve the devil (called Tash) are actually serving Christ (Aslan) and will eventually be accepted by God. “But I said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.’ ... Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him’” (The Last Battle, chapter 15, “Further Up and Further In”).

Lewis also denied the finality of one’s destiny at death. He taught the possibility of repentance beyond this life. This is the theme of 
The Great Divorce. “Is judgment not final? Is there really a way out of Hell into Heaven? ‘It depends on the way ye’re using the words. If they leave that grey town behind it will not have been hell. To any that leaves it, it is Purgatory. And perhaps ye had better not call this country Heaven. Not Deep Heaven, ye understand’” (The Great Divorce).

In this book, Lewis taught that questions such as the finality of men’s destiny and purgatory and eternal destinies cannot be understood in this present life and we should not fret about them.

“Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions. ‘Because they are too terrible, Sir?’ ‘No. Because all answers deceive” (The Great Divorce, Kindle location 140-150).

In light of these views, it is not surprising that Lewis has been cited as a major influence by evangelicals who are soft on hell and near-universalists.

Clark Pinnock said, “When I was a young believer in the 1950s, C.S. Lewis helped me understand the relationship between Christianity and other religions in an inclusivist way” (
More Than One Way? Zondervan, 1996, p. 107).

Richard Mouw says, “If I were given the assignment of writing a careful theological essay on ‘The Eschatology of Rob Bell,’ I would begin by laying out the basics of C.S. Lewis’s perspective on heaven and hell” (“The Orthodoxy of Rob Bell,” 
Christian Post, March 20, 2011).

In the acknowledgements section of 
Love Wins, Rob Bell writes, “... to my parents, Rob and Helen, for suggesting when I was in high school that I read C.S. Lewis.” Beware of C.S. Lewis. That he is loved with equal fervor by “conservative evangelicals,” hell-denying emergents, Christian rockers, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and even some atheists is a fact that speaks volumes to those who have ears to hear.
There is really nothing that Rob Bell is teaching today that was not first taught by C.S. Lewis.

THE CONDITION OF THE UNBELIEVER ACCORDING TO EPHESIANS --
Ephesians chapter 2 leaves no doubt about the condition of those outside of Jesus Christ.

“And you 
hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. ... That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:1-3,12,13).

This is a description of every individual who has not been made alive in Christ. He is --

1. Spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1)
2. Under Satan’s control (Eph. 2:2)
3. Children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2)
4. Dominated by the flesh (Eph. 2:3)
5. Children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)
6. Without Christ (Eph. 2:12)
7. Aliens and strangers from God’s covenants (Eph. 2:12)
8. Having no hope (Eph. 2:12)
9. Without God (Eph. 2:12)
10. Far off from God (Eph. 2:13)

Nowhere does Scripture teach that those outside of Jesus Christ can be saved apart from the knowledge of the Gospel and personal repentance and faith.

This is what has motivated genuine Christian missionary enterprises throughout the centuries. Paul preached Christ to the heathen because he believed they were lost and on their way to eternal hell. He believed that the gospel of Jesus Christ alone is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

UNIVERSALISM DENIES WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT: (1) Man's lost condition (Rom. 3:10-18; Ephesians 2). (2) The necessity of the new birth (Jn. 3:16). (3) Christ’s warning about hell (e.g., Mk. 9:43-48). (4) The Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). (5) The necessity of gospel preaching (Mk. 16:1516).

Modernists and many evangelicals mock this position as simplistic and non-intellectual. They are correct. Sound Bible doctrine IS simple in contrast to “intellectualism.” I praise God that it is so, and that a man does not have to be a "scholar" to understand the truth.

Sound biblical education is important, but “scholarolatry” is damnable.

Monday, November 25, 2019

NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER SEPARATES STUDENTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD – MOCKS THEIR FAITH



NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER SEPARATES STUDENTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD;
MOCKS THEIR FAITH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Christian persecution in the public school classroom has struck again.
In the latest stunning sign of the war against the Christian faith in public school classrooms, a North Carolina teacher has been suspended for dividing her classroom by faith to ridicule the children who believed in God. This outrageous, bigoted action serves as just the most recent evidence of the hostility towards Christianity that is being expressed in public schools all over America.

A MIDDLE SCHOOL ANTI-CHRISTIAN INQUISITION

Rather than teaching her students Spanish, Julia Lopp opted to single out believers in God.
According to reports:
“A North Carolina teacher was suspended for allegedly segregating her students based on their religious beliefs, as well as their stances on abortion and gay marriage, according to a new report.
Julia Lopp, who teaches Spanish at South Johnston High School, first grouped the students based on their religious beliefs, and then questioned them about whether they supported or opposed abortion rights, WTVD reported.
She then she asked them where they stood on LGBTQ rights and beliefs, according to The Johnston County Report.
She’s accused of verbally ridiculing students who said they believed in God, according to the report.
Lopp also allegedly warned her students that if they reported her actions, she would “not recommend them for a job or even entrance to college,” WTVD reported.
As the school district investigated, Lopp, who was hired as a Spanish teacher in August, was suspended with pay, according to the report.
“This is an unfortunate incident and one I wish had not happened,” Superintendent Dr. Jim Causby said in a statement. “It is never appropriate for a teacher to segregate students based on religious, political or personal beliefs. In fact, it is not appropriate for a teacher to even ask a student what their beliefs are.” (source).

THE BIBLE ON END TIMES PERSECUTION

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” – John 15:18-20 The Lord Jesus Christ predicted that Christians will be despised for their faith by the unbelieving world. What Ms. Lopp did is a prime example. As a Spanish teacher, questioning the faith of students, their stance on abortion and LGBT issues is not only unethical, it is completely irrelevant to learning the language of Spanish. Beginning And End has detailed many of the incidents in which teachers either challenged the faith of students, bullied those that expressed Christian views and even promoted Satan. Among the examples:
  • An Indiana elementary school teacher sent a letter home to parents ordering them to forbid their kids from discussing God during their free time in her classroom.
  • A North Carolina elementary school forced a student to remove the word “God” from a Veterans’ Day poem about her grandfather who served in the Vietnam war. (source).
  • A 10-year old elementary student wrote about Jesus for an essay with the open question: “Who do you look up to?” Her teacher not only refused to accept the essay she told the girl the poem could not remain on school property. (source).
  • A state college professor in Florida told students to write the name of Jesus on piece of paper and stomp on it as part of a required class assignment. (source).
  • A public school Vice Principal in Pennsylvania bullied, cursed and threatened two teenagers on camera because they were holding up signs opposing abortion on a public street corner near his high school. (source).

BE VIGILANT AND CONTEND FOR THE FAITH

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” – Jude 1:3 Christians and parents especially need to be vigilant about the many anti-Christian incidents, assignments and teachings being done in public schools all over the United States and in other countries. Now more than ever, teachers are taking liberty to go well beyond the curriculum, school rules and decency to overtly challenge, discredit and blaspheme the Christian faith. Even if it means suppressing the First Amendment rights kids have in public school to express their religious beliefs at class-appropriate times.  Do not take it for granted that you know what your children’s school is or is not doing. Inquire and speak with other Christian parents to stay vigilant. The hearts and minds of our children are at sta

Thursday, October 31, 2019

A MAJORITY OF WHITE DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME NON-CHRISTIAN

A MAJORITY OF WHITE DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME NON-CHRISTIAN 
And what that means for America
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
In Obama's first year in office, 68% of white Democrats described themselves as Christians, 7% claimed to be members of other faiths, and 24% said that they had no religious affiliation.
A decade later, only 47% of white Democrats call themselves Christians. 10% are members of other faiths, and 42% have no religion.
A majority of white Democrats have ceased to be Christian.
The Obama era transformed the country and the party. It’s often observed that the Democrats of the JFK era are not the Democrats of today. But forget 1961, an era that is receding into the shadows of history. The Democrats of 2019 are not the Democrats of 2009. We are a different nation because of it.
The results of the Pew survey are startling and yet unsurprising. They explain why the Democrat debate stage included a cult leader and a call to go after churches and synagogues that don’t back gay marriage.  
Not even Obama would have proposed such a thing in 2009. But much has changed since then.
Obama was born in 1961. 67% of Generation X was Christian. Millennials are now a quarter of the electorate and they are evenly divided between Christians and non-Christians. Generation Z represents another 9% of the electorate and it’s been described as the least religious generation ever. 
Beto O’Rourke’s proposals to confiscate guns or go after the tax-exempt status of traditional religious organizations only seem radical to older voters. They’re not radical to the younger voters he’s courting.
O’Rourke, Sanders, and Buttigieg all endorsed abortion until the moment of birth. As has been noted, this position is far more radical than the one Obama ran on. But so is the 2019 Democrat electorate.
While Buttigieg and Booker try to tap into lefty pseudo-religious politics, O’Rourke dispenses with the phony religion by appealing to the new rising demographics of the Democrats. And, despite the headline, those demographics are not only white. The decline among minority Democrats has not been as dramatic as among white Democrats, but the number of black Democrats who describe themselves as Christian still fell from 84% to 74% from 2009 to 2018-2019. Hispanic Christian identification among Democrats declined from 82% to 71%. Among Democrats as a whole, only 55% identify as Christian.
That’s down from 72% in 2009.
Generational shifts will see older, more religious Democrats making way for a new generation. Before long a majority of all Democrats will no longer identify as Christians or as religious believers.
The Democrats have not only adopted values that are fundamentally hostile to traditional religious believers, but the demographics show that they are living out those values. And, as Beto O’Rourke demonstrated, see less reason to hide them or to pay lip service to religiosity in an irreligious party.
At current rates, Catholics will form a larger share of the GOP than of the Democrats. Protestants, who made up 46% of the Democrats in 2009, have declined to 35%, falling from nearly half to a little over a third. 1 in 5 Democrats have never attended religious services.
Republicans and Democrats are no longer divided by their approach to religion, but by religion itself.
And this loss of any common set of values has tremendous implications for the conflicts tearing the country apart. Democrats and Republicans have less in common than they ever did before, including during the conflict that tore apart the country and left 620,000 men lying on the nation’s battlefields.
What were once debates over issues increasingly became cultural divides, generation gaps, racial conflicts, and now, religious divides, that are becoming impossible to bridge. Americans find it harder than ever to compromise on the issues or to even care about the issues, because their differences and divisions have become the real issue. Everything else is becoming a mere marker of the divisions.
The changing Democrats demographics did not come out of nowhere, but the swiftness of the sea change within a decade is also a forerunner of the changes that will transform politics as we know it.
Republicans will increasingly face a Democrat opposition that does not have a different vision of religion, but that treats it at best as an odd superstition, and, at worst, a destructive and evil set of beliefs.
The First Amendment, already under assault, will face the same attacks that were visited on the Second.
The Second Amendment is under siege because a sizable percentage of the country, primarily living in urban and suburban areas, sees no legitimate reason why anyone would want to own a gun. That is the essence of the gun control argument. Everything else is propaganda, narrative, and meaningless noise.
The Democrats are on track to becoming a political party whose base sees freedom of religion as an equally outmoded historical relic envisioned by old, dead white slave owners who had strange beliefs. They don’t and won’t see why anyone should have the right to have hateful beliefs or read hateful texts.
What will religious freedom look like when the average Democrat views religion the way that he does firearms?
We are about to find out.
America is not entering uncharted territory. It’s following in the footsteps of Europe. In the UK, only 3% of 18-24 year olds identify as Anglicans, and only 5% as Catholics, among 25-34 year olds, 5% identify as Anglicans and 9% as Catholics. 64% of 18-24 year olds say that they have no religion, as do 57% of 25-34 year olds, and 60% of 35-44 year olds.
Freedom of religion cannot survive under these conditions. And indeed, that is the case in the UK.
People have to believe in something and being convinced that their children will die because people won’t stop using plastic bags and straws is a belief. It’s the sort of belief that leads to genocide. As is the conviction that religion, nationality, and every non-approved identity must be stamped out for equality.
The decline of religion is not leading us to a more tolerant world. Instead, it’s intolerance that’s rising.
And that’s inevitable.
Tolerance for differing beliefs originated from religious differences. America has freedom of conscience because it was founded by settlers and colonists fleeing religious persecution who then had to determine how to deal with religious dissent in their own ranks. The ideological fanatics driving the Democrats come from a leftist radicalism that has never learned to cope with political differences.
It lacks the toolset of tolerance. And does not even recognize that it applies to political enemies.
The Democrats have embraced a new idea of diversity that applies to every possible variety of skin color and sexual combination, as long as its members unwaveringly share their beliefs on every single issue. Their politics embraces everything, and as everything is politicized, the only remaining dissents allowed are on matters so trivial, or obscure, that they cannot be politicized. This is the new tolerance.
In a decade, the Democrats were almost incomprehensibly transformed. And the country with them.
To understand why America is being torn apart, why its political norms are shattering, and talk of civil war is in the air, we must begin with the fundamental transformation, not of the government, but of us.