Romans Chapter One

In a previous blog comment about the Bible and Homosexuality this topic came up. In this post I will present my evidence that Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality. In the studies that will follow it I will discuss the Levitical verses, Sodom, etc.

In this rather poor quality video I share the same basic information as appears in the textual portion of this blog. Whatever your views on this topic I invite your comments. My only request is that this discussion remain polite. Please resist to urg to insult people on either side of the debate. Let's have a nice conversation, shall we?

John of AllFaith's
Biblical Questions
Biblical Answers

Correctly Understanding Romans One A Study by Pastor John © 1999 (revised 8-1-2006)

John of AllFaith explains Romans 1:

What does this chapter actually teach? Find out here!

Watch this video, or return to the referenced study at Grace Inclusive

This study can be viewed in my video section as well

---

To begin with, please read Romans chapter 1. I'll be using the Authorized King James Version throughout. As editions do vary, I'd recommend using the KJV now. Later you can check the newer paraphrases if you'd like.

Our CONTEXT begins at 1:15 and 16:

"So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Paul, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, begins the topic by stating that he is talking about the Gospel of Jesus and how it must be preached and practiced, and how those who love God will accept it joyfully. We note, for the purposes of this study, that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) Christians do accept the Gospel both readily and joyfully. This study exists to demonstrate that neither the Bible in general or Romans 1 in particular prohibits this community from accepting and living the Gospel fully.

Verse 18:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven onto those who hold this truth in unrighteousness. We are therefore speaking of people who hold God's spiritual Truth and salvation in unrighteousness, i.e.. we are discussing abuses which are done in the name of religious truth. Devout Christians do not knowingly do this regardless of the sexual orientation.

Verse 19:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

"Because that which may be known of God..." Again, religious truth is the topic, not sexual orientation or even sexual morality. 'That which may be known' of God' is that which has been revealed in the Holy Scriptures and by the Holy Spirit. These things attest to God's righteousness and should be honored.

Verse 20:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

From what is visible we should know the invisible, i.e. God and God's truths are revealed through our senses. We can behold the handiwork of God all around us if we but look and these things confirm the existence of God, hence we have no excuse to deny God's existence.

Verse 21:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

These people being discussed knew God but chose to submit themselves to their "vain imagines" rather than to God. In other words, they invented new forms of religion, forms that satisfied their base urges and ungodly desires. We are still discussing religion here not sexuality.

Verses 22, 23:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

These people claimed to be wise in their spiritual beliefs, and yet they were foolish, rejecting the true God, they worshiped false idols and "changed the glory of God into an image..." and worshiped that rather than the true God. Still, we're talking about religious practices and abuses, not sexuality. The Roman Empire, which would include Jewish Palestine, was filled with such worship. Pagan temples offered everything desirable and blasphemed the Creator of heaven and earth. Paul here condemns such worship.

Verse 24:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

"WHEREFORE..." Wherefore, i.e. because they rejected God and worshiped idols and followed the paths of their vain imaginations rather than worshiping the One True God... FOR THIS REASON God gave these people up to their lusts.

The CONTEXT of these lusts is the unauthorized desire-based religious practices of the day. These have nothing to do with modern day consensual sexual relationships, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

As was common throughout the very religious Roman Empire, such idol worship INCLUDED sexual 'sacrifices' and rites wherein the worshiper engaged in 'sex magic' with temple priests and/or priestesses in the guise of spiritual ecstasy -- AS THOUGH the temple prostitute were the Pagan deity incarnate. THUS, the context here has NOTHING to do with contemporary homosexuality among Christians (or otherwise).

Verse 25:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

"WHO..." i.e. these people engaging in ritual sex magic and worshiping the Pagan idols, who were "exchanging the truth of God for a lie," and who were committing idolatry through their sex rites and thereby serving the created images and their own carnal desires rather than the true God, who alone is blessed for ever.

Verses 26, 27:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

"FOR THIS REASON..." i.e. because these people exchanged the worship of the true God for idols and sex rites, God "gave them up" to their own carnal desires.

The natural use or purpose of sexuality according to the Bible is procreation AND building/sustaining strong marital relationships (comp. I Cor 7:2). These people however were using their sexuality "against nature" by employing it to worship the idols of false gods. Through such sexual activities they sought two basic goals: One was the physical pleasures of sexual congress and the other, perhaps more significant in this context, was the promised spiritual union with their gods and the acquiring of benefits thereof. This is not the goal of sexuality intended by God but as these people willfully rejected God, they were allowed to go their own ways. Again, this was very common at the time throughout the empire.

These worshipers were "working that which is unseemly." The use of the word "working" shows that there was a specific end result in mind, i.e. earning the blessings of the Pagan deities, the normal reason for all idolatry. All they received for their "work" however was venereal diseases "...and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting..." The sex cults throughout the empire were hotbeds of sexual diseases and the worshipers often became infected.

THOSE WHO TWIST these scriptures by saying they refer to HIV in our contemporary culture -- and I know some of you are out there! -- need to consider that this verse is the only one in the Bible that can be TWISTED to include lesbians. Lesbians remain among the lowest at risk for HIV and, after years of education, the gay male community is no longer the highest at-risk group. If this dreadful illness were God's wrath against homosexuals neither would be the case, nor would children be so at risk, nor the disabled, nor those in need of blood transfusions etc..

Verse 28:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge...." The subject is still religious faith; it has not changed. These people did not want to acknowledge the true God's existence. They preferred to worship idols of their own imaginings and trust in dangerous sex rites for their salvation. AGAIN AND STILL the subject matter, the context, is not homosexuality but idolatry coupled with sex rites, heterosexual AND homosexual. FOR THIS REASON, because of their spiritual harlotry, God gave them over to a "reprobate mind" and allowed them to believe that their false worship was approved by God when in reality, they were in direct opposition to God's holy will due to their pseudo-spiritual abuses.

In sharp contrast with this, LGBT Christian ministries are growing like wild fire, individual independent churches, groups like the Alliance of Christian Churches, the Gay Pentecostal Alliance, The Evangelical Network, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches and so on, are now home to thousands of sincere homosexual followers of Jesus who WANT God in their knowledge, their minds, their hearts and in their lives just as other Christians do. In addition to these ministries, more and more mainline churches and denominations are becoming "reconciling and affirming" of LGBT people. This fact alone demonstrates that these verses are not referring to gay and lesbian Christian people. As with any other community, lesbians and gays vary as to their acceptance and understandings of the Gospel message. A very large percentage of those who are not pro-Jesus have had their hearts hardened by abuses which well meaning Christians have subjected them to. The Church is failing miserably at evangelizing this community and will doubtless be held accountable by the one who said "Whoever comes unto Me I will in no case reject."

Verse 29-31:

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents; without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"

What resulted from their being "given over to a reprobate mind?" As a result of their religious rebellion against God, these developed the various moral weaknesses described in these verses. LGBT Christians, as all other Believers, seek to avoid such traits in their lives.

Verse 32:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

"Who knowing..." i.e. the people being discussed in the previous verses, these idolatrous worshipers who are filled with all unrighteousness etc., "knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death..." That idolatry merited the death penalty for Jews under the Mosaic Law is clear. As I explained elsewhere however, despite the two verses in Leviticus which are sometimes cited, homosexuality is not a capital offense nor even negatively commented upon in the Torah.

CONTEXT IS ESSENTIAL in understanding the Word.God loves YOU
Just as YOU are!

You are visitor number...



Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!

	Grace Inclusive Home Page
	Contact Pastor John

The entire AllFaith.com domain is Copyrighted 1997-2008 by AllFaith.com and John of AllFaith. All are rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form anything on this domain without express written permission. Brief excerpts excepted. You are warmly invited to link to this site.

The First English Translation of U.S.-Iraq Draft Agreement Leaked!

Wage Peace Campaign

AFSC posts first English translation
of U.S.-Iraq draft agreement

Source:http://www.afsc.org/Iraq/

WASHINGTON, DC (Sept. 3) – At the end of 2008, the current U.N. mandate for the United States military presence in Iraq expires. Will the U.S. stay, or will it withdraw its troops?

An Arabic-language version of a draft agreement has appeared in media outlets in Iraq, but has not been reported on in the United States. The American Friends Services Committee today posts the first known public English translation.

Members of the U.S. and Iraq executive branches have worked to define what will happen with the U.S. troops, but. neither government had announced an agreement.

Both the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi parliament have expressed strong resistance to such a measure.

The Iraqi parliament, in particular, opposes establishing such an agreement with an occupying power.

The agreement would have significant implications for the future of the U.S. military presence, permanent bases, and other aspects of continuing U.S. occupation in Iraq.

Raed Jarrar, AFSC Iraq consultant, has translated this draft to better inform U.S. policymakers, media, and interested members of the public.

More Positive News About Sarah Palin: Israel

For More AllFaith Comix Visit My Comix Homepage!

As my readers and friends know, I am firmly committed to Israel and the Jewish people. This latest attempt to discredit Sarah Palin changes nothing.

Christians have always been divided on their views regarding Israel. One group of missionary-minded Christians known as "Jews for Jesus" are almost always on the wrong side of this debate in my opinon. Although this group presents itself as being friends of Israel, what they really are is an anti-Jewish missionary campaign dedicated to converting the Jewish people away from the One God of Israel as revealed in the Holy Torah. For the most part their motives are good, they want to "save them," but the result is the same. They see and seemingly celebrate "God's wrath" every time a leaf drops to the ground. Israel is the "Apple of HaShem's eye" according to the Bible.

Zechariah 2:8: For thus saith HaShem of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you [Israel]: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.

As part of their ongoing missionary endeavors Jews for Jesus often visits Christian churches and dispenses misleading information about Judaism, the Jewish people and the state of Israel... and asks for donations... One such a group visited Sarah Palin's home church in Alaska, Wasilla Bible Church.

I have had several interactions with this group over the years. Those who have questions about the teachings of Jews for Jesus, including why Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, are invited to contact me here, privately or elsewhere with your questions or to contact Jews for Judaism which exists in large part to answer many of the challenges raised by Jews for Jesus.

In their desperate attempt to find dirt of Sarah Palin, some Democrats are trying to manipulate this story to suggest that she is anti-Semitic.

The truth is, Ms Palin's record on Israel is sketchy at best, but then again, as an Alaskan mayor and governor how often would she have been called upon to address the subject?

JTA looked into this issue and, as you will see below, judges it to be a non-issue.

Sarah Palin distanced herself from the Jews for Jesus speakers, who she had no way of knowing would be there according to people who would know.

Thanks to this question being raised however we now have this clear statement about Governor Palin's views:

“Governor Palin does not share the views he expressed, and she and her family would not have been sitting in the pews of this church for the last seven years if his remarks were even remotely typical,” Goldfarb [a party spokesperson] wrote in an e-mail."

---

Palin rejects views of church speaker Ben Harris Source Vice presidential pick Sarah Palin says she doesn't share the views of a Jews for Jesus leader who at her church suggested that violence against Israelis resulted from God's judgment against Jews who have failed to embrace Jesus. Published: 09/03/2008 NEW YORK (JTA) -- Vice presidential pick Sarah Palin says she doesn't share the views of a Jews for Jesus leader who in a speech at her church suggested that violence against Israelis resulted from God's judgment against Jews who have failed to embrace Jesus. David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus, suggested in his Aug. 17 sermon at Wasilla Bible Church that the refusal to accept Jesus was responsible for the long history of devastation visited upon Jerusalem. He also described his group's successful targeting of Israeli Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere. “Judgment is very real, and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television,” said Brickner, according to a transcript posted on the church's Web site. “It’s very real. When [my son] Isaac was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment -- some of that conflict -- when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can’t miss it.” A spokesman for the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfarb, said Palin did not know Brickner would be speaking that day and did not share his views. Church pastor Larry Kroon confirmed that Palin, the governor of Alaska who was chosen last week by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to join his GOP presidential ticket, would have had no way of knowing that Brickner was slated to speak. “Governor Palin does not share the views he expressed, and she and her family would not have been sitting in the pews of this church for the last seven years if his remarks were even remotely typical,” Goldfarb wrote in an e-mail. Following Brickner's sermon, Kroon took up an offering for Jews for Jesus and prayed that Jews would come to accept Jesus. “There is not a one here in this room who would know Jesus and serve him if there had not been a Jew, generations ago, that spoke Jesus’ name to our people,” Kroon said. “Father, that comes full circle and we wish to extend your grace back to your people. And we pray and we ask that as a result of this time here, and as a result of this offering, there will be people among the Jews today who come to say the name 'Jesus' with faith.” Much attention has been focused on Palin's religious views since McCain made her his surprise pick as running mate, a selection the campaign hoped would shore up his standing among social conservatives. But while many religious Republicans have embraced Palin, some liberal commentators are suggesting that her hard-line position on abortion, her evangelical roots and lack of record on Israel may turn off Jewish voters who otherwise might be open to McCain's more moderate image and hawkish foreign policy stance. The Anti-Defamation League, which has been deeply critical of Jews for Jesus and was among the organizations calling for Democratic nominee Barack Obama to distance himself from his controversial pastor during the primaries, said it had no problem with Palin's membership in a church that supported efforts to convert Jews. The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, told JTA that Protestant evangelizing to Jews was entirely different from Catholics praying for Jewish conversion, which the ADL has sharply criticized. “They did not have the Inquisition. They did not go on a Crusade. They did not kill Jews for 2,000 years,” Foxman said. “They have a belief; they're entitled to their belief.” Besides, he said, there is no evidence that Palin shares Brickner’s views. “If you could tell me that she approves of this guy, she invited him, I’m not aware of any of that,” Foxman said. “The fact that she belongs to a church that believes in it, I don’t have a problem.” The ADL has accused Jews for Jesus of “aggressive proselytizing with a deceptive message.” Kroon took issue with that assessment, saying there was no difference between Jewish believers and believers of other backgrounds. “I don't feel it's deceptive,” Kroon told JTA. “Look at Paul and Peter and the others -- they were Jews and believed in Jesus as the messiah. There’s gentile believers and there’s Jewish believers that acknowledge Jesus as messiah. There’s Swedish believers.”

---

Sarah Palin Acceptence Speech

Here is the next Vice President of the United States
Delivering her acceptance speech at the RNC.

Not Perfect, But MUCH Better Than The Alternative

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

Barack Hussein Obama II

John Sidney McCain III

Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.
And
Sarah Louise Heath Palin


All have one thing in common: All four believe they have the right to tell homosexuals who they can and can not marry! All four believe they have the right to deny Americans their Constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing.

Disgusting! Don't you think? Un-American! And they make it sound so logical!


One of the common questions people ask is whether or not homosexuality is a choice. My thought is always, who cares? As Americans we have the right to love and share our lives with whoever we choose! The very question is offensive in my opinion!

And yet, according to most researchers sexual orientation is not a choice, its natural part of ones innate genetic encoding, its written in our DNA.

Is there a point when heterosexuals decide to be attracted to members of the opposite gender? Of course not!
Is there a point when homosexuals decide to be attracted to members of their same gender?
Of course not!
Is there a point when bisexuals decide to be attracted to members of either gender?
Of course not!
Nature simply takes its course.

Following is a great video that I found on my Multiply friend Michael Matthew's Site. Its about 4 minutes long. Whatever your views on this topic I hope you'll watch this with an open mind and then share your views here.

Are You Interested In This Topic?
Join one or both of my LGBT topical Christian E-groups:

A Place For LGBT Christians To Share Prayers

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gay_Christian_Prayer

A Place For Everyone To Politely Discus The Bible And Homosexuality

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/glbtchristians

The Naked Truth: The Difference Between Baptists and Catholics!

I think you'll agree there's a bit of truth in this one!

A little boy was walking down a dirt road after church one Sunday afternoon when he came to a crossroads. There he met a little girl coming from the other direction.

"Hello," said the little boy.

"Hi," replied the little girl.

"Where are you going?" asked the little boy.

"I've been to church this morning and I'm on my way home now," answered the little girl.

"Me too," replied the little boy. "I'm also on my way home from church."

"Which church do you go to?" asked the little boy.

"I go to the Baptist church back down the road," replied the little girl. "What church do you go to?

"I go to the Catholic church on the top of the hill," replied the little boy.

As they were both going the same way they decided to walk together.

In time they came to a low spot in the road. The spring rains had partially flooded the road out so there was no way they could get across without getting wet.

"If I get my new Sunday dress wet my Mom's going to skin me alive," said the little girl.

"My Mom'll tan my hide if I get my new Sunday suit wet too," replied the little boy.

"I tell you what I think I'll do," said the little girl. "I'm gonna take off all my clothes and hold them over my head and wade across."

"That's a great idea," replied the little boy. "I'm going to do the same thing with my suit."

So they both quickly undressed and waded across to the other side without getting their Sunday clothes wet.

As they were standing there in the sun waiting to drip dry before putting their clothes back on the little boy looked the little girl and said, "You know, I never realized just how much difference there really is between Baptists and Catholics."

---

	Feel Like A Good laugh?
	AllFaith.com: Humor Home Page
	John Not-The-Apostle's Shroud
	The Nekkid Truth!
	AllFaith.com: Main Home Page
	Contact me

US Terrorists Invade Pakistan!

US Terrorists Invade Pakistan, Kill 15

US confirms raid inside Pakistan

Source

By PAUL ALEXANDER, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - American forces launched a raid inside Pakistan Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known U.S. ground assault in Pakistan against a suspected Taliban haven. The government condemned the attack, saying it killed at least 15 people.

The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village in the country's wild tribal belt. A Pakistan army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent foreign missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.

The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.

"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.

Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.

But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.

Some administration officials have been pressing President Bush to direct U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be more aggressive in pursuing militants into Pakistan on foot as part of a proposed radical shift in regional counterterrorism strategy, the AP learned. The debate was the subject of a late July meeting at the White House of some of Bush's top national security advisers.

Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to pursue militants across the border into Pakistan when they are attacked.

However, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said hot pursuit wasn't an issue, adding that the attack "was completely unprovoked." He said Pakistani troops were near the village and saw and heard nothing to suggest the U.S. forces were pursuing insurgents.

The raid comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Pakistan government which is trying to overcome political divisions and choose a new president on the one hand, while the army is battling the militants on the other.

In other signs of Pakistan's precarious stability three days before legislators elect a successor to Pervez Musharraf as president, snipers shot at the prime minister's limousine near Islamabad and government troops killed two dozen militants in another area of the restive northwest.

Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.

The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."

Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan — both commanded by American generals — were responsible. A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement.

The army's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.

He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.

"We cannot afford a huge uprising at the level of tribe," Abbas said. "That would be completely counterproductive and doesn't help the cause of fighting terrorism in the area."

The Pakistani anger threatens to upset efforts by American commanders to draw Pakistan's military into the U.S. strategy of dealing harshly with the militants.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met last week with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief. Mullen said he came away encouraged that Pakistanis were becoming more focused on the problem of militants using the country as a safe haven.

However, Abbas, the army spokesman, said Wednesday that cross-border commando operations were not discussed and he reiterated Pakistan's position that its forces should be exclusively responsible for operations on its territory.

Pakistani officials say the U.S. and NATO should share intelligence and allow Pakistani troops to execute any raids needed inside Pakistan. However, Washington has accused rogue elements in Pakistan's main intelligence service of leaking sensitive information to militants.

American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden.

But there has been debate in Washington over how far the U.S. can go on its own.

Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there.

He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account.

There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.

Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire.

"Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians.

Near Islamabad, meanwhile, snipers fired at a motorcade near the capital as it headed to the airport to pick up the prime minister, hitting the window of his car at least twice, officials said. Neither Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani nor his staff were in the vehicles.

Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the banned militant organization Tahrik-e-Taliban, claimed responsibility and pledged more attacks in retaliation for army operations in tribal areas and the Swat Valley along the border with Afghanistan.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined to comment on the claimed cross-border raid, but she said the U.S. would continue to work with Gilani's government.

"I am relieved, of course, that the incident aimed at the Pakistani prime minister did not succeed," Rice said.

"We're going to be in continued contact with the Pakistanis as we both try to help them to build a strong economic foundation, to build a strong democratic foundation and to fight the terrorists who are a threat not just to the United States and to Afghanistan but to Pakistan as well."

Who Are The Baptists?

John of AllFaith's
Christianity Pages

Who Are The Baptists? A Study by John of AllFaith © 9.03.08

Who Are The Baptists?

In my opinion, if one takes the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, reads the words on the page, and accepts those words as the literal Word of God without question, one will, with a couple of exceptions, find essential Baptist doctrine presented. The main area where Baptist doctrine does not line up with the Bible in my opinion is on the matter of the biblically mandated Sabbath. Like most Christians, most Baptists fail to obey the Fourth of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath Commandment. But again, there are Seventh Day Baptists!

Does this mean that Baptist doctrine is "true" and that all other teachings are "false?" Does it mean that Baptists hold to the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples? Many Baptists believe so...

But in my my opinion, no, this does not necessarily follow. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth also requires sincere students to consider others factors. I present a different understanding of this in my Noahide Nazarene Web Site.

However for those who wish to take a biblically literalistic approach to Christianity, the Baptists have a lot to offer.

The Origin of the Baptist Faith.

Surprisingly there is no certain answer to this question accepted by all Baptists. There are three primary views held by Baptists as to their origins.

1. Baptists as the Disciples of John the Baptist:

Some Baptists believe they are the remnant and lineage of John the Baptist and his followers. They believe that John's followers accepted Jesus first and that the name Baptist was kept as a tribute to their founder. They find confirmation for this view in the following verse:

Matt 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

These Baptists believe that their denomination is the true and original version of the Christian faith. They further teach that through John the promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were passed over to the Gentile Church.

In my opinion this view is lacking in both historicity and textual support.

2. Baptists as the Disciples of Paul:

John the Baptist is viewed by these Baptists as the last of the "Old Testament" prophets also. The next major teacher after John the Baptist, not counting Jesus of course, is Paul and they consider his teachings to be the foundation of their faith.

These Baptists believe themselves to be the defenders of Paul's teachings and religion. They teach that Paul's inspired writings provide the religious link between the Judaism of the "Old Testament" and the Christian doctrines of the New Testament. They consider his teachings to be the source of Christian practice and faith.

Like the previous group, these Christians believe their predecessors maintained an unbroken lineage from the first century to the present day. Faithful Baptists, they teach, were forced underground at various times in their history and so were not always mentioned, but they managed to avoid absorption into Roman Catholicism with the rest of the Church. They existed as a secretive substratum of true Believers.

These Baptists teach that within the core of Baptist doctrine the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples survives intact. They often say that those who read the Bible and accept it as it is without interpretation will inevitably embrace Baptist understandings. Such Baptists place great stress on the inerrancy of the Bible. In support of their biblical religious views they often point to these verses:

I Cor:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

That which is perfect, they believe, is the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. This is partly why Baptists are among the staunchest supports of the KJV and among the most adamant rejectors of the New Age versions like the NIV (New International Version). I discuss the NIV and other New World Order bibles here.

3. Baptists as Protestants:

The term Protestant refers to those members of the Roman Catholic Church like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and others who protested and later left Papal religion. For this reason many Baptists do not consider themselves to be "Protestants" at all. The Reformers and their followers founded several denominations like Lutheranism.

The most likely origins of the Baptist denomination are through the Anabaptist movements inspired by Protestants like Ulrich Zwingli however many Baptists, as discussed above, maintain that Baptists have always existed as independent Bible-based Christians. Historically however Protestantism is the most likely origin.

The most historically verifiable understanding is that following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE Christianity existed in many often contradictory sects. In time the Roman emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church as the only legally recognized Christian sect. All others were outlawed. Certainly there existed individuals Catholics who maintained differing beliefs but not as organized bodies. I discuss this period of Church history in some detail elsewhere. The Bible itself and all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith were developed by the Vatican during this period. The Protestant Reformers, including the Baptists, sought to restore the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples based on the books and basic doctrines they had inherited from the Catholic Church.

In my opinion then, Baptists are Protestants who developed doctrines that are closer to the literal reading of the Vatican established Bible than most others. This does not necessarily mean they are closer to the teachings of Jesus.

Like other Protestants, those Christians who came to be known as Baptists agreed with the ninety five treatises of Martin Luther and were committed to establishing biblical Christianity. They were especially concerned about issues of salvation. According to Roman Catholicism ones salvation rests in the hands of the Papal authorities. Catholic priests and other Church officials wielded this power over the people and many people had concluded that only the blessings of the Papacy mattered. Even the most repentant would receive salvation if they were rich enough and has the right Vatican views. An essential element of these Protestants beliefs centered around biblical teachings of salvation and authority. This conviction led to standard Baptist belief known as the Priesthood of all Believers.

According to Baptists, salvation is granted directly by God to any sincere penitent without the intervention of priests, financial considerations etc. This conviction excluded infant salvation as one must be old enough to be repentant. Likewise, baptism by full-body immersion as an act of obedience to God signifying that one has received divine forgiveness and mercy. This Baptist view is basically the same as the Jewish use of mikvah that preceded it.

These Christians specifically opposed the Roman Catholic practice of infant baptism and baptism by sprinkling rather than full water immersion. Among other things, Baptists stress the biblical practice of full-immersion water baptism as a post salvation evidence of repentant Believers in Jesus. The other distinctive Baptist dogma is the Priesthood of all Believers, which is to say, that each Baptist stands or falls before God on his/her own and that only Jesus is the moderator between God and man.

The name Baptist is directly associated with and descended from the earlier group known as the Anabaptists. These 16th century Believers became the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ, and, in Germany, the Baptists.

Under the persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries many of these post-Anabaptists eventually found their way to England and came to be known as the English Dissenters. They opposed the Church of England, stressing the importance of the Church remaining unfettered from all government. They rallied around the cry: "No bishop, no king!" In time they came to be known simply as Baptists.

In 1639, Roger Williams planted a Baptist church in Providence, Rhode Island, and John Clarke began one in Newport, Rhode Island. These are the first known Baptist churches in the US.

In time the Baptist Faith spread like wildfire throughout the New World where the church gradually divided into various sects (Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptist, Independent Baptists, Missionary Baptists and so on.

"The Baptists number over 110 million worldwide in more than 220,000 congregations, and are considered the largest world communion of evangelical Protestants, with an estimated 38 million members in North America. Large populations of Baptists also exist in Asia, Africa and Latin America, notably in India (2.4 million), Nigeria (2.5 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (1.9 million), and Brazil (1.7 million).

"According to a poll in the 1990s, about one in five Christians in the United States claims to be a Baptist. U.S. Baptists are represented in more than fifty separate groups. Ninety-two percent of Baptists are found in five of those bodies — the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC); National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. (NBC); National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.; (NBCA); American Baptist Churches in the USA (ABC); and Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI).



You are visitor number...

Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!

	Welcome to John of AllFaith's AllFaith.com
	AllFaith.com: Home Page
	AllFaith Comix
	SriJagannatha.com: The Bhagavad Gita and More
	AllFaith.com: AllFaith Spirituality
	John of AllFaith's Multiply Blog
	John of AllFaith's Y! 360 Blog
	Ask a Question or Read My Answers! (in association with Allexperts.com)
	AllFaith.com: Religious Studies
	AllFaith.com: Noahide Nazarene Way
	AllFaith.com: Hindu Studies
	AllFaith.com: Sikh Studies
	AllFaith.com: Christian Studies
	AllFaith.com: GLBT Christian Studies
	AllFaith.com: Jewish Studies
	AllFaith.com: Islamic Studies
	AllFaith.com: Buddhist Studies
	AllFaith.com: Pagan Studies
	AllFaith.com: Humor Pages
	Contact John of AllFaith

Devotional Paganism, Sexism in Gaudiya Vaisnavism: Hare Krsna

One of my dear Blog friends wrote asking for my views about sexism in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. He currently follows a Path he calls "Devotional Paganism." Here's my reply.
What are your thoughts?

I've removed his name as the question came via a personal note.

Here's his question:1

Dear Jaganath Prakash,

HARE KRISHNA! I feel honored to have you as a friend because you are open-minded about religion.I run away from all religious intolerance.I consider myself an OM-PAGAN because I have such a problem with the anti-Feminism of Gaudiaya Vaishnavism.I came within a fraction of an inch of marrying an extremely intelligent Vaisnavi [ie a female member of Vaisnavism] about 25 years ago.I backed out because she shattered my Myth of male superiority.For that I'm deeply greatful.I believe from the core of my heartthat worshipping the Divine is both the End and the Means but I m deeply disturbed by the negativity of GV.1.Anti-Female 2. Anti-college 3. Anti- marriage [Hetrosexual] 3. anti-job 4. anti-world.

Of course only a mad person would think the world will go on forever as we know it but I believe in facing Life with Positivity.I find that in what I call Devotional Paganism or OM-PAGANISM.I m try to be in a constant state of prayer/chanting but I do not hate women.I see no benefit in it.Of course sex desire is a big problem that we all have to face and I openly admitt that I m overwhelmed BUT I do not see HATING women and MARRIAGE [Hetrosexual] as the answer.I see Paganism as a positive religion.

If you want to respond to my blasphemy please send to

.......@gmail.com

I find that the best way to attain detachment is to LOVE the world not HATE the world!

My reply:

Namaskar .... prabhu,

Dandavats my friend.

I hate to disappoint, but I agree with you in the main ;-) This is a big problem with ISKCON (which I assume is the Gaudiya Vaisnava group you are referring to). ISKCON today is much more open to the role of women than it was in the 70's by the way.

The reason I practice what I call AllFaith Spirituality is that I have not found an organized religion that I can fully believe in. I wish I could. Conversely, I have seen much good in all religions, including Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Gaudiya Vaisnavism, as most forms of Hinduism, stresses the importance of maintaining tradition. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur often said that one should parrot the teachings of ones guru in order to maintain the purity of the teachings. That makes complete sense... but also has some obvious pitfalls.

My diksa gurudeva, Abhay Charanaravinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, one of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's (the founder of modern Gaudiya Vaisnavism) disciples, followed this tradition as do most of the self-proclaimed leaders of ISKCON (although they ignored Swami Bhaktivedanta's clear instructions on ISKCON leadership after his disappearance -- death... a topic for a different conversation..).

Another of my gurudevas, His Divine Grace Srila Bhakti Bibudha Bodhayan Maharaja, acarya and spiritual master of the Sri Gopinath Gaudiya Math and successor to Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami Maharaj, who was the senior disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and senior godbrother of my Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami -- agrees with this parroting view.

In other words, this parroting tradition is a common feature of all Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradayas (schools), as in the rest of Hinduism and other religions. This particular teaching on gender (in)equality stems from a time when virtually everywhere on earth including India, Europa and Africa, women were regarded as chattel. This view is presented in the Vedic Scriptures etc. The rationale for this is tied to the teachings of samsara (reincarnation/transmigration). According to Gaudiya Vaisnavism, the purpose of human life is not "equality" but for the inequalities that leads the jiva (soul) gradually back Home to submission to God. To this end, all souls, when contrasted to Sri Krsna (The Godhead) are considered female. Human society is hence a reflection of the spiritual society. This is the view of Gaudiya Vaisnavas. The intention is not to be "sexist" but to parrot the teachings as handed down from antiquity.

Its worth noting that in 15th century Srila Caitantya Mahaprabhu, like Sikhism' first master Guru Nanak, laid the foundation for gender equality within Indian culture and religion.

However the only constant in this life is change. Balancing tradition with the eternally turning of the wheel is not easy. Modern society is moving into the new paradigm of gender equality and the religious traditions are gradually adapting, including Gaudiya Vaisnaism.

SOMETIMES the old ways are better. SOMETIMES the new ways are better. Understand that the notion that the lack of gender equality is even a problem to be addressed is a fairly recent view however. The gender hierarchy has existed for all of recorded history in the vast majority of human cultures. Gaudiya Vaisnavism merely reflects this ancient reality. Do we need to move beyond sexism? Undoubtedly, but it takes time and patience.

In ancient India women were often denied access to the mandirs or kept completely apart from males. Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada allowed women and men to have much closer relations than his predecessors. He accepted female disciples and even allowed them to live in his mandirs and ashrams. That was revolutionary. Did he go far enough? Most would say no. I would say no. However he did take great strides in the right direction.

Understand also that the term "Pagan" is even broader than the term "Hindu." MANY traditional Pagans have been "sexist," many Pagans were downright misogynists.

Lord Caitanya, the founder of Bengali (Gaudiya) Vaisnavism was, in my opinion, an enlightened master whose presentation of acintya bheda abheda tattva was truly inspired, the presence of various negatives in Indian culture aside.

I try to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

My approach is to seek the good in the various religions and apply those to my own AllFaith sadhana (practice). I only accept as truth what Ek Devata (the One God) impresses on my heart and mind. I'm not therefore a practicing Gaudiya Vaisnava now, although I maintain ties with this wonderful religious path. In my opinion, however conceived, God is More. Always More.

Ek Devata is utterly imminent and simultaneously completely transcendent.
Ek Devata is neither male nor female.
We are nether male nor female.
We are eternal jivatman dancing the Dance of Life with our Beloved.

There's a common saying in India, "The lotus grows in the mire."
I accept this.

As for the rest, Lord Caitanya taught a Path of devotionalism that stresses the importance of spirituality and enlightenment and de-values material attainment and accomplishment. Gaudiya Vaisnavas have traditionally viewed personal wealth, education, fame, etc. as distractions from what really matters: spiritual enlightenment.

This teaching is in sharp contrast with the "Protestant Work Ethic" that West largely subscribes to.

This path is not for everyone, but personally I hold Lord Caitanya to have been one of the most enlightened religious innovators and thinkers of all time.

As you doubtless know Sanatana Dharma philosophy can be divided into six orthodox (āstika) schools of thought, or darshanas (literally, "views"):

1. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter.
2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya
3. Nyaya or logics
4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism
5. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy
6. Vedanta, opposing Vedic ritualism in favour of mysticism. Vedanta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period.

Srila Caitanya's acintya bheda abheda [ie inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and diversity] teachings, in my opinion, expands on and explains these traditional views and presents a clear picture of reality and our place therein. I fully accept this doctrine.

It is primarily the Gaudiya Vaisnavas who hold to Caitanya's teachings on this. Through the efforts of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas this wisdom is gradually finding a footing within the greater Hindu religion and into Western thought as well.

Just my thoughts,

~ Jagannatha Prakasa

Amy Goodman Arrested and Released!

Arrest Of Amy Goodman and DN! Producers

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on Monday afternoon.

Read more…

Monday, September 1 11:57 pm EDT

As many of you know who read my early Y! 360 Blogs, I used to reference Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! fairy often as a good source of alternitive news and information. She still covers a lot of news you wont find elsewhere (even on Alex Jones' Infowars) and while I've largely stopped watching her, she remains a thorn in the side of the Elite. Amy leans to the Left as Alex leans to the Right. I'm neither.

Unfortunately during the debates over Jimmy Carter's antiSemitic book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid Amy allowed herself to be co opted by the antiSemites of The International Answer Palestinian front group Al-Awda and similar hate groups (like The World Can't Wait etc). For a while her reporting became quite slanted against Israel and too biased towards the Democratic side of the one party junta that rules the US. Frankly I don't know if she has corrected this or not. She is however a courageous voice with an important message and so, in an attempt to silence her, the Elite arrested Amy yesterday at the RNC and charged with Felony Riot Charges.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 1, 2008
Source

Contact:
Mike Burke: mike@democracynow.org

**UPDATE**

Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar
Released After Illegal Arrest at RNC

Goodman Charged with Obstruction; Felony Riot Charges Pending Against
Kouddous and Salazar

ST. PAUL--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel
Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody
in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on
Monday afternoon.

All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel
Kouddous was slammed against a wall and the ground, leaving his arms
scraped and bloodied. He sustained other injuries to his chest and
back.
Salazar's violent arrest by baton-wielding officers, during which she
was slammed to the ground while yelling, "I'm Press! Press!," resulted
in her nose bleeding, as well as causing facial pain. Goodman's arm was
violently yanked by police as she was arrested.

On Tuesday, Democracy Now! will broadcast video of these arrests, as
well as the broader police action. These will also be available on:
www.democracynow.org

Goodman was arrested while questioning police about the unlawful
detention of Kouddous and Salazar who were arrested while they carried
out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the
Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been
defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous
and
Salazar were arrested on suspicion of rioting, a felony. While the
three
have been released, they all still face charges stemming from their
unlawful arrest. Kouddous and Salazar face pending charges of suspicion
of felony riot, while Goodman has been officially charged with
obstruction of a legal process and interference with a "peace officer."

Democracy Now! forcefully rejects all of these charges as false and an
attempt at intimidation of these journalists. We demand that the
charges
be immediately and completely dropped.

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns
this
action by Twin Cities' law enforcement as a clear violation of the
freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these
journalists.

During the demonstration in which the Democracy Now! team was arrested,
law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion
grenades and excessive force against protesters and journalists.
Several
dozen demonstrators were also arrested during this action, including a
photographer for the Associated Press.

Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected
journalists
in the United States. She has received journalism's top honors for her
reporting and has a distinguished reputation of bravery and courage.
The
arrest of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and the subsequent criminal
charges and threat of charges are a transparent attempt to intimidate
journalists.

Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated public TV and radio program
that airs on over 700 radio and TV stations across the US and the
globe.

Video of Amy Goodman's Arrest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Obama's Global Poverty Act

Obama's Global Poverty Act

For more AllFaith Comix Go Here.

Obama has already entered his Global Poverty Act (S.2433, based on H.R. 1302, passed by the House September 25, 2007). As president he would be free to pursue this goal of taking money from American worker and sending to abroad.

As I and others have sought to explain for many years, the goal is the establishment of the One World Government (Novus Ordo Seclorum). In order to do this the playing fields must be leveled. This bill is an important step in that direction for the Elite.

Poverty is a crushing weight on much of the world. There is no question about this... and this is just fine with the Elite! They have no desire to elevate the poor! They couldn't care less about them! However to ensure their control of the planet and to minimize opposition the distinctions between rich and poor must be reduced. Their goal therefore is the establishment of a global proletariat in which they, as semi-divine beings (Mer-people), rule supreme. It sounds like science fiction or fantasy, but its reality.

In order to balance the conditions of the global proletariat wealthy countries like the US must have our standards of living drastically lowered. This is the main reason our jobs are being outsourced and our gas prices have gotten so high. This is all happening according to the plans of the Bilderberg Groups' Millennium Assembly and Summit and their "Millennium Development Goal" that Obama's Global Poverty Act is seeking to achieve.

As for the Youth Brigade Obama plans to impliment, I discuss it in some detail Here and Here.



The following is one knowledgeable persons presentation of the situation this Obama plan is creating.

---

Obama's Global Poverty Act

by Edward Cline (April 3, 2008)
Source

I rarely write commentary from anger, preferring a properly objective, psuedo-dispassionate approach to a subject deserving my attention. But news of the details, nature and scope of pending legislation in the U.S. Senate has caused me to make an exception to that rule.

As though Americans were not already burdened with:
• Extortionate and confiscatory taxes wherever they turn on virtually everything they earn, purchase, or do, from the local level on up to the federal level;
• Myriad regulations, controls and arbitrary rules that hamper or obstruct their productivity and their lives;
• Footing the endless bills of earmarked pork barrel projects at home in the amount of billions;
• Footing the bill in the amount of the billions for bottomless altruist and "humanitarian" pork barrel projects abroad;
• Footing the bill for an ever-expanding and ever more costly welfare state to subsidize the ill, the retired, the aged, the young, etc.
• Being held hostage by, say, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other hostile "oil-producing" countries, because our government has decided that snail darters, sea cows, and caribou have a greater right to live than have human beings;
• Paying more for food because mandated ethanol, which reports prove costs more in oil to produce than it "saves," in the gas they buy is taking more crop acreage out of production;

Congress is proposing, in Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act (S.2433, based on H.R. 1302, passed by the House September 25, 2007), that Americans be delivered into a state of indentured servitude as laborers for the United Nations. Perhaps "indentured servitude" is too kind a term, for as horrendous a condition as it is, there is usually a time limit to such servitude. Slavery would be the more accurate term in this instance, for what Congress is considering is servitude by Americans in perpetuity, in exchange for nothing but the privilege of laboring to "save" the world without thanks or reward, of filling the alleged needs of others, of performing unlimited "community service" for the offense of merely existing.

The not-so-peculiar and odd thing about H.R. 1302 was that it passed the House by voice vote. This is a stratagem adopted by legislators who fear that a bill is so outrageous that it is better that no record be kept of those who endorsed it. S.2433 was passed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the same manner - by voice vote, without public hearings, to protect the identities of the guilty. It will probably be introduced to the Senate for a similar, anonymous voice vote -- by Harry Reid.
There is a double irony in this behavior. First, S.2433 is a bipartisan-sponsored bill. This underscores the fact that there is no fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Second, it is a piece of legislation which, given the altruist, collectivist premises behind it, one would have thought its creators should have trumpeted boastfully. But it is being handled by corrupt, guilty, fearful sneaks who haven't the courage of their own malice.

It reminds one of the scene in Atlas Shrugged, when James Taggart pulls down a window blind to obliterate the sight of the Washington Monument, just as he and government officials decide to decree a moratorium on brains. The proper American response to this evil and to its sponsors and supporters, in Congress and in the U.N., should be Dagny Taggart's when she learns of it: "I won't work as a slave or as a slave-driver." The bill's co-sponsor is Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Its other co-sponsors are Senators Joseph Biden, Maria Cantwell, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Hagel, and Robert Mendez, all Democrats.

The bill was the subject of a strong editorial in Investor's Business Daily of February 28, 2008, "Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass from Senate Republicans." According to IBD, the bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
The "Millennium Development Goal" refers to a United Nations declaration adopted by the U.N. Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 that calls for "the eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." The IBD reports that "The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005 he presented then-U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists. "Sachs' document criticized the U.S. for giving only $16.5 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year in order to reach the 0.7% target that the U.N. set for the U.S. in 2000....Sachs said that the only way to force the U.S. to commit that much
money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels [oil, coal, natural gas]." The tax would be imposed not only on their production, but on their use, as well. Among other consequences, Americans would be impoverished for the purpose of reducing poverty abroad by 0.7 percent of the U.S.'s gross domestic product.

The Millennium declaration, reports IBD, also calls for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production - oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

The U.N. has assumed that it governs the earth, and wishes to penalize the most productive country on it for, well, being the most productive. If you never quite understood the nature and purpose of the "unification" and "global amity" plans described by Rand in Atlas Shrugged, this plan is its real world counterpart. In practical terms, the Millennium declaration is a prescription for not only perpetuating the "global poverty" it purports to eradicate, but also for impoverishing everyone, and for perpetuating that condition, as well.

But the Obama bill does more than allow the U.N. to tax American citizens. It is more than a matter of legality or illegality. For all practical purposes, it surrenders U.S. political sovereignty and independence to the U.N., an organization most of whose members are actively hostile to the U.S. Has the U.S. ever approved a tax on its citizens imposed by the U.N.? If it has, by what authority? Note that the wording of the Obama bill would require "the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy" -- which assumes that the office of president is just another mode of tyranny or arbitrary power, no different from the "presidency" of any random tin pot dictatorship or regime.

There is some logic to their premise. After all, the U.S. has withheld moral judgment of every one of those countries. Long, long ago, the U.S. should have won World War II, but not participated in the formation of an organization that admitted dictatorships and other tyrannical regimes for the purpose of "peace." Long ago, the U.S. should have withdrawn from that organization, and evicted its headquarters from this country's soil.

But it maintains its sanction of that organization, and has paid the price for it every since. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

It would be interesting to see if this definition could be applied to the actions of Senators Obama, Lugar, Reid and the rest of the supporters of S. 2433 (and also the sponsors and supporters of H.R. 1302). Given that the U.N. has never disguised its hostility for the U.S., and that the enemies of the U.S. are legion in the U.N.'s membership, would passage of this bill by Congress constitute giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies, and "adhering" to their purposes and ends? For that is what the bill amounts to: giving our enemies the right to conquer, loot, and subjugate this country and its citizens.

Are we not already burdened by our own lords and masters of "social policy" and "redistribution" in Washington and in every state capital, without inviting the depredations of a clique of international thugs and looters? I urge those reading this to call or email his senator and urge that Barack Obama's S. 2433 be roundly defeated by a recorded roll call. If possible, communicate your outrage with the same moral indignation as Dagny Taggart's.

---