Robertson, Sekulow Claim That Sharia Law Is Headed To The Constitution

Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, which was founded by Pat Robertson, has become a leading anti-Muslim legal outfit despite its supposed commitment to religious liberty. The group, for instance, tried to block the construction of the Park 51 Islamic Center and promotes paranoia over “creeping Sharia.” Today on The 700 Club, Robertson and Sekulow discussed a tragic case in Iran where a Christian pastor faces execution for apostasy. But the conversation quickly turned to panic about the purported use of Sharia law in the United States. Robertson and Sekulow had harsh words for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who referred to the notion of “creeping Sharia” as “crazy.” In fact, Sekulow made the case that Sharia law is well on its way to inclusion in the Constitution:

Alliance Defense Fund To Launch Law School Aimed At Creating "Liberal Chaser" Attorneys

Religious Right leaders are coming together to form yet another law school to train future lawyers of the conservative movement. The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund is helping Louisiana College, a Southern Baptist institution, start the Paul Pressler School of Law, which will join Liberty University, Regent University and others in providing politicized training to the next generation of Religious Right lawyers.

Pressler’s ties to the Alliance Defense Fund will be similar to the Liberty University School of Law’s partnership with Liberty Counsel and the Regent University School of Law’s (originally Oral Roberts University’s Coburn School of Law) alliance with the American Center for Law and Justice. As Sarah Posner notes, such law schools intend to “teach the ‘biblical’ foundations of the law” and create “lawyers unafraid to inject their particular Christian beliefs, not only into the public square, but quite deliberately into legislation, policy, and jurisprudence.”

According to the National Law Journal, the new law school “is named for Paul Pressler III, a former Texas Court of Appeals judge who helped lead the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention during the 1970s.”

The founding dean of the Pressler law school, J. Michael Johnson, was previously senior counsel of the ADF and, according to his Townhall.com bio, has “provided legal representation to organizations such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Toward Tradition, the American Family Association, and Coral Ridge Ministries, and numerous family policy councils and crisis pregnancy centers.” In 2005, Johnson won the “Faith, Family and Freedom” award from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins for his work defending the Louisiana Marriage Protection Amendment, which placed a ban on same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution.

Yesterday on Today’s Issues, Perkins, who is a member of Pressler’s board of reference, spoke to Johnson about the new law school. Johnson said the law school would be “not unlike what our colleagues are doing at the Liberty University School of Law and the Regent University School of Law.” Perkins said, “This law school’s not going to be pumping out ambulance chasers, this is going to be pumping out liberal chasers, I mean we’re gonna track them down, wherever they are and we’re gonna defeat them, and if we can’t defeat them in the policy realm we’re gonna defeat them in the courts.” He added, “This law school is gonna be pumping out God-fearing, American-loving, family-defending attorneys”:

The choice of Louisiana College is no surprise. The school claims it “seeks to view all areas of knowledge from a distinctively Christian perspective and integrate Biblical truth thoroughly with each academic discipline” and believes “academic freedom of a Christian professor is limited by the preeminence of Jesus Christ, the authoritative nature of the Holy Scriptures, and the mission of the institution.”

In 2008 the school barred members of the Christian LGBT group Soul Force from appearing on campus. In his decision to bar the group, the college’s president cited a fake James Madison quote propagated by David Barton, which states that the U.S. government was based on “the Ten Commandments.”

Now David Barton is serving on the board of the law school.

Along with Perkins and Barton, Religious Right leaders on the board include Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Alveda King of Priests for Life, Religious Right luminary Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, Kelly Shackleford of the Liberty Institute and Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese. Republican politicians including Reps. Rodney Alexander and John Fleming, former congressman Bob McEwen, and senatorial candidate and Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz are also on the board.

Tea Party Nation: "Liberals Love Dictatorships"

Tea Party Nation’s president Judson Phillips warns in an email to members today that if America doesn’t see the “destruction of big government” then the consequences will be grave. “Let us alter government before it becomes destructive of these ends and requires abolition,” we writes. Citing North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue’s hyperbolic suggestion that congressional elections should be “suspended” so congressmen aren’t responsive to partisan politics during the budget debate, Phillips said that Democrats – or, as he calls them, “members of the Party of Treason” – are going to impose a dictatorship because “liberals love dictatorships.” Phillips absurdly claimed that Nazi Germany, Maoist China and the Soviet Union were all based on liberalism, arguing that liberals require dictatorships because their “ideas suck”:

The desperation to impose socialism on America against the will of the American people is now being seen from members of the Party of Treason. They speak openly of the problems of liberty.



Liberals love dictatorships. In a dictatorship, they can just push their crackpot ideas and not have to worry about the little people complaining about a few minor details like, the ideas don’t work. The ideas suck.

Their model has worked so well in the past. History has the precedents of their ideas. Just look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and China under Mao, Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact, Vietnam after 1975, Cambodia and Cuba.



What Bev Perdue and the left do not want is the next election that is going sweep them out of power. This is the moment where they will be the most dangerous. Between the unelected czars and the left’s last desperate gasp, as they try to push socialism down our throats one last time, we face not only the time of greatest peril but also the time of greatest opportunity.

We must find new leaders to replace these bad leaders. The people we select must have as an overriding belief in the idea that big government must be dismantled and we must take steps to ensure that never again is a socialist in the White House.

We need to remember the words our founding fathers put in the Declaration of Independence.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

We must make certain we have new leaders in 2012 to replace the bad leadership we have had. We must make certain that our new leaders are committed to liberty and the destruction of big government. Our government needs much altering. Let us alter government before it becomes destructive of these ends and requires abolition.

Just Say No ... To The Phrase "Gay Christian"

Last year, Chuck Colson announced that he would no longer use the phrase "gay marriage" because "there is no such thing" and even using the phrase undermined the institution of marriage by weakening the definition.

Today, Denny Burk, an associate professor of New Testament at Boyce College - which is the undergraduate arm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - endorses a similar approach by writing in The Baptist Press that Christians ought to stop using the phrase "gay Christian": 

First, the phrase designates an unbiblical identity. Christians are new creations. They are those who have died with Christ and whose lives are hidden with Christ in God (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:19-20; Colossians 3:3). Our primary identity, therefore, is not any sin but Christ. For this reason, Christians never speak of "lying Christians," "adulterer Christians," "fornicating Christians," "murderer Christians," or "thieving Christians" -- even though we know sadly that Christians are capable of all kinds of sins. It's unseemly to create labels that define Christians by sins from which they actively and self-consciously seek deliverance. We can be honest about our sin without speaking of it as if it were our identity. The phrase gay Christian creates an identity category that we would not accept for any other sin.

Second, the descriptive sense of gay Christian is not well-established. The dominant sense of this term is the one denoted by Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and a host of others who have distorted in various ways what it means to be a Christian. Because the normative sense is the most common sense, Bible-believing Christians who use the phrase risk being misunderstood. And in fact, some people who don't want to be pinned down on the issue take refuge in the ambiguity of such expressions. Christians who want to be clear about what the Bible teaches should steer clear of this phrase (2 Corinthians 2:17).

There is no good reason to risk being misunderstood when alternatives are available. At best, gay Christian risks ambiguity. At worst, the phrase might be taken as a wholesale sanction of homosexuality. For these reasons, I would argue that Christians committed to the Bible would be wise to drop the phrase altogether.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: Pressure Begins to Yield Results as Senate Takes Steps to Confirm 10 Judicial Nominees.
  • Towleroad: Anti-Gay Activists Using Child Molestation to Fool People Into Signing Petition Against California LGBT History Bill.
  • Dallas Voice: Group says FW teacher was harassed by student he punished for saying homosexuality is wrong.

Right Wing Leftovers

Scott Lively: Homosexuality Is Inherently Morally Wrong

Today we came across of video of anti-gay activist Scott Lively speaking Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Association's Constitution Day event held at the Massachusetts State House.  And though Lively dedicated most of his speech to making the case that our Constitution and form of government only work because we, as a nation, recognize the sovereignty of God, it just wouldn't be a Lively speech if he didn't work his anti-gay agenda into the mix. 

And that is exactly what he did at the end of his remarks when he declared that God's objective moral authority which underpins our Constitution is the same moral authority that tells us that slavery, murder, pedophilia, and homosexuality are all inherently morally wrong:

I was on a radio show in Washington DC with Les Kinsolving - he's know a correspondent with WorldNetDaily, this was years ago - and I was dealing with the homosexual on the radio and in called a lesbian attorney who started going after me, boom, boom - she must have been a prosecutor, she was good - bam, bam, bam, hitting me with every kind of argument. And finally I had to stop her, I said "wait, wait, it's my turn."

And I just turned back to her and I said "don't you acknowledge that there are some things that are just inherently morally wrong?" I said "isn't it just inherently morally wrong for an adult to have sex with a child? Isn't it inherently morally wrong to kill an innocent person? Isn't it inherently morally wrong to hold another human being as a chattel slave?"

And she said "yes, of course." And I said "where do you get the authority for that?" And she said "that's just my opinion."

I said "see, I don't have that problem because the very same source of authority that tells me that pedophilia is wrong and slavery is wrong and murder is wrong also tells me that homosexuality is wrong. And I can rest on that authority and no one can change that - it's the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Robertson: Christians Shouldn't Celebrate Halloween Because "It's The Night For The Devil"

Today on The 700 Club, Pat Robertson faced a question from a viewer who wondered about the ethicality of his church’s haunted house event, which uses Halloween to reach the “unsaved community.” Robertson condemned the church and said that Christians shouldn’t celebrate the holiday because “Halloween is Satan’s night, it’s the night for the devil.”

This wouldn’t be the first time the Christian Broadcasting Network targeted Halloween. Apostle Kimberly Daniels, who now serves on the Jacksonville City Council, wrote a long screed on the CBN website condemning the holiday for its “occult roots.” She claims that demonic curses from witches are passed through Halloween candy and that traditional activities include “sex with demons,” “orgies” and “sacrificing babies,” among others.

Watch:

Meeuwsen: This is Ken, he says ‘Pat, it may sound odd, but Halloween is one of the biggest events at my church. Every year, we host one of the area’s largest haunted houses. They say it’s a great outreach to the unsaved community, but it’s starting to irk me. I feel really unsettled by the fact that our church has a Haunted House. What are your thoughts?’

Robertson: I agree with you, we need the power of God not some kind of ersatz entertainment. We don’t believe in haunted, we don’t believe in ghosts, we don’t believe in all this business.

Meeuwsen: You don’t celebrate it.

Robertson: Halloween is Satan’s night, it’s the night for the devil. It’s All Hallow’s Eve but its time when witches and goblins—

Meeuwsen: Ok that’s evident in the kinds of things that are for sale.

Robertson: Of course, it’s out there. Its skeletons and all this, like the dead rising. Churches shouldn’t do that, you should do something else besides having a haunted house. I’m sure it’s popular, it is probably a big deal, people come to get scared, you’ve got spiders and cobwebs and all that. But—you can bob for apples, you can do all kind of different things and have a big party.

Meeuwsen: Most churches have actually an alternative evening for families.

Robertson: That’s what you need but not a haunted house, I agree with you. You’re feeling badly? You should.

Joyner Claims The Founding Fathers Were Dominionists...But He Isn't One

Rick Joyner of The Oak Initiative and MorningStar Ministries dedicated yesterday’s edition of Prophetic Perspectives to distancing himself from dominion theology while discussing the ties between presidential candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann to avowed dominionists. Joyner said he agreed with much of the dominionist objective of having fundamentalist Christians influence — if not control — government and society at large, but noted that he does not share dominionists’ belief that such ‘dominion’ will usher in the End Times and the Second Coming of Christ. “I just don’t believe His dominion can come to the earth until He comes,” Joyner said, “and that’s the one defining point of a dominonist to me.”

As Sarah Leslie of the Discernment Research Group points out, Joyner once said that the “Kingdom of God” he hopes to build “may seem like totalitarianism” at first because “the kingdom will start out necessarily authoritative in many ways, or in many areas, but will move toward increasing liberty” once the culture is radically changed.

But Joyner pointed to one group who he claims did subscribe to dominion theology: the Founding Fathers. According to Joyner, the Founders would have been known as dominionists because they wanted to “establish a government that was built on biblical principles” and “really thought they were building the Kingdom of God.” He went on to blame dominion theology for Manifest Destiny and other “really foul things” in U.S. history. Joyner mentioned that secular reporters are increasingly studying dominionism and are “terrified by it and they’re wondering if this presidential candidate is influenced by this kind of thinking,” adding, “as a Christian, I would be alarmed by some of that.”

Watch:

To a large degree our nation, America, was built on or by those whole held to dominion theology. Most of the Founding Fathers were devoted Christians, this is really you would have to call them dominionists. Now it drove them to try to build and establish a government that was built on biblical principles because they really thought they were building the Kingdom of God here. Now I don’t believe America is the Kingdom of God and I don’t believe it ever will be, it’s not the New Jerusalem, but I believe we have a purpose like many nations do. We have a specific purpose and especially one in helping prepare the way for the Lord, I just don’t believe His dominion can come to the earth until He comes. I have always believed that and I hold to that, and that’s the one defining point of a dominonist to me.

You can cross over into some areas that are not good and not have good results. And I think some of the things that manifested later through our government, in America, some of the really foul things that happened had their roots in the false teaching that was included in the dominion theology, the wrong teachings that really went awry. I’m talking about some aspects of the Manifest Destiny that was used to almost try to eradicate the Native Americans, some of that was rooted in dominion theology, and there are some secular people, secular reporters who studied this and looked at that and they see the connection and they’re terrified by it and they’re wondering if this presidential candidate is influenced by this kind of thinking, is this what we’re going to get? Listen, as a Christian, I would be alarmed by some of that.

Eagle Forum Wants Phyllis Schlafly On A Stamp

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum today republished a blog post by Elwood Sanders of Virginia Right calling for an effort to put Schlafly on a U.S. postage stamp. Sanders’ proposal is in response to a new campaign by the U.S. Postal Service, which is soliciting suggestions for living people to put on postage stamps. Schlafly was instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and even today continues her role as a leading anti-feminist and ultraconservative activist. Michele Bachmann recently hailed Schlafly as “my heroine and my example” and “the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.” Sanders says Schlafly deserves “the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp” because she stopped “social engineering by liberals”:

Apparently in a furtive effort to save the Postal Service, they have removed the restriction on living persons being on postage stamps. I suppose I should protest – more opportunity for nonsense if we remove the ban: Kim and Khloe on a stamp in all their curvy glory? (On second thought, that might indeed save the USPS but the crowd of preteen and teenage boys might overwhelm the ability of the post offices to serve!) Of course Kim and Khloe might be preferable to the notorious communist Paul Robeson being placed on a postage stamp!

So I hereby suggest we nominate the great heroine of the social conservative movement: Phyllis Schlafly.

When I was a teenager, it looked like the ERA would become the law of the land. Do you remember, readers who are close to my age:

• Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United   States or by any state on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


Need I say more how pernicious that language would have been in our Constitution? Social Engineering by liberals and courts would have been the law of the land.



I would when the time comes formally nominate Schlafly for the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp. She clearly deserves it. I’ll have to get a sheet of her stamps!
Syndicate content