Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Part II

Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Reading the comments in social media is alarming to me. It seems to me that many Christians today are traveling the same path that Islamic radicals are traveling they feel they are right and there is no discussion on the matter.

I believe that the Quran contains passages about fighting and I believe that the Bible contains passages about fighting that we would not agree with in 2016. I believe most Muslims today read those passages in  the same way most Christians read stories from Joshua in our Bible about the killing of Canaanite men, women, and children.  Most Muslims and Christians do not see these passages as commands to kill those who do not share their faith. However there are some Islamic extremists that see the Quran’s passages about the rules of engagement in wars from Mohammed’s time and prior as permission for violent activities and there are some Christians extremists (generally those who translate the Bible literally) that see the violence in the Bible towards those that did not believe as they did as a pass to violence today. The Quran and the Bible all contain passages that are not peaceful and passages that are peaceful. It is how we react and interpret those passages that makes the difference in 2016.

The Five Pillars of Islam are: (1) There is only one God – Christians should not have a problem with that; (2) Pray five times a day – it would be helpful if Christians adopted that practice; (3) Give to support the needy – Christians have always believed that; (4) Fast from dawn till sundown during the month of Ramadan – many Christians practice the tradition of fasting and I believe it is a healthy tradition; and (5) If possible make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime – many Christians go to Israel each year and many more would like to make a pilgrimage to Israel.

You see we have many things in common. Why don’t we try and concentrate on those things. Why do we generalize that all Christians and all Islamist are bad? Why are the extremist on both sides determined to prove that the Quran and the Bible is evil from beginning to end?

There are divisions among Christians and there are divisions among Muslims. Muslims and Christians have their own liberals, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and extremists.

ISIS truly believes what it professes: that it is engaged in a conflict to bring about the end times. The primary enemies of ISIS are other Muslims who do not share their beliefs. The Islamic view of end times involves victory in a climactic battle in Syria among all the nations of the world and God’s people.  I would say the majority of Christians believe that there will be a climatic battle in the Middle East among nations and God’s people. Because Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Extremist believe what they are doing is God’s work they are a difficult force to fight. Is it even possible to win over Christians who think God wants all homosexuals dead and when they voice hated for homosexuals they are doing God’s work or Islamist that believe God wants all Christians dead? I honestly do not know. If it is it will take a mighty work of the Holy Spirit to do so.

The division in the U.S.A. now over racism, disdain for the police, riots in the streets, a few rogue police officers, yelling at  one another on Kelly’s show (FOX) and bigoted social media post does not speak well around the world for the U.S.A. or Christianity. I think a  lot of people around the world and in the U.S.A. believe some American’s are acting as extremist. Many of us want to think of ourselves as a Christian Nation so we should act like it.

Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, expresses how we are to wage spiritual war: never avenging ourselves, never repaying evil for evil, overcoming evil with good. Most of us believe it’s wrong to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a relatively small number of extremists within that group. At the same time, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists within our midst have heightened our concerns about future attacks — from Adam Hamilton. I am not saying we should not use military force against ISIS. I am saying we cannot generalize about any group of people and we must be careful to the best of our ability to target ISIS and not all Muslims in general. I certainly do not want to be associated with literal radical Bible interpreters and many Muslims do not want to be associated with I.S.I.S.

We have legitimate fears about attacks by Islamic extremists, but how do we apply our faith in ways that balance those concerns for people’s safety with our belief that it is wrong to judge someone only on the basis of religion or nationality or gender or sexual inclination?

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21). These scriptures are extreme and it  may be impossible to follow all of them, but the harder we try to follow them the better we will be and the world will be.

We are not battling Islam, because there is no such thing as one Islam. One Islam cannot be extracted from the numerous offshoots, branches, and sects that make the world's 1.3 billion Muslims as ideologically, religiously, and politically fractured as the other two monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam or War on Radical Islamic Terrorist." The terrorists of September 11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism.

It rejects the West and much that it has to offer seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran and sharia (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.  Radical Muslims have a history of violence against American, Western, and even Muslim interests. But the movement did not appear spontaneously it has taken 14 centuries to evolve.

Many Muslims adapted to the fast-paced changes common to Western industrialization and modernization, but some Muslims rejected them. Instead, they created a rigid ideology embedded in the traditional values and laws of the Koran. This is the known today as Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism.

Islamism represents a yearning for the "pure" Islam as practiced by the prophet. Not unlike the American Amish, the movement rejects much that is innovative. Islamist, however, take the rejection of modernity a step further. They perceive those who have introduced these innovations as its enemy.

Islamist Radical Muslim Terrorist not only reject the influence of the West, they reject the legitimacy of their own governments in the Arabic world, which they see as subservient to the West. Therefore the overthrow of these regimes has become an important part of their agenda.

The biggest push for this agenda came in 1928, with the founding of the Ikhwan al-Muslim or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This organization became the cornerstone for most of today's Islamist movements, advocating Islamic beliefs and values as expressed by the common Egyptian. The organization rejected western rule and England's secular influence over Egypt. Obama made a grave mistake when he embraced the Muslim Brotherhood over the dictator ruling Egypt for over three decades.

"The earthquake" came in 1979 when Iran became the first modern Islamic republic, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew Iran's secular regime and established a new order in which sharia became law. Suddenly, Islamism was no longer an ideology of movements. It had inspired a state. America's first violent introduction to militant Islam came shortly after Khomeini's Islamic Republic was established in 1979, when Islamic extremists seized the U.S. embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

Given that militant Islam has plagued America for 22 years the attacks of September 11 should not have been surprising. A trend had been established. So, perhaps the biggest shock of that tragic day was the nation's utter surprise. Psychologically, America was completely unprepared for the attacks - why? I think because our government has refused to make it clear who our real enemy is and name them – all for the sake of political correctness and a President Obama that seems to have some need to defend ALL Islam thinking that we are so naive that if we reject some Islam we will reject it all.

Bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God."

Militant Islam has strongholds in Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, to name just a few countries. The challenge now for the western world is finding ways to destroy the radical infrastructure and arrest or kill militants while bolstering the influence of moderate Muslims.  No one in the Obama administration seems to know how we can accomplish this task. We cannot win without the support of moderate Muslims.  Hatred of ALL Muslims is not going to gain the support of moderate Muslims. Americans must come to terms on who are enemy really is and it is not ALL Muslims.

Until we Americans learn to love ourselves and each other we cannot expect the world to love and respect us. If we want to talk about Radical Islamic Recruitment I would imagine showing the division among our people is a great tool to use in their recruiting. One 30 second video of Americans fighting among ourselves in the streets is worth millions of words. It becomes okay to kill homosexuals if you can demonstrate that even your enemies, the Americans, hate homosexuals. It is easy to claim that Americans are out to destroy you if you can demonstrate that Americans are willing to destroy other Americans that do not agree with them. Finally it is easy to demonstrate that Democratic Laws do not work when we take to the streets and riot over injustice in our country rather than engaging in civil conversations about our differences and injustices.  

Obama persecutes Christians with his rhetoric and actions!

Obama persecutes Christians with his rhetoric and actions

If you do not think Obama persecutes Christians then consider the following items. In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration claimed that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings. President Barack Obama commented at the Easter Prayer Breakfast that some Christians are acting "less-than-loving". He cannot say the words “Islamic Terrorist”, but he has no problem being critical of Christianity. Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast compared Islamic terrorism to the Christian Crusades, but fail to mention that Muslims had their own crusades in history. Obama has failed to bring attention to Christian persecution at the hands of the Islamic State. Last year, 2015, was the worse year in modern history for the persecution of Christians. In 2015 over 7000 Christians were murdered simply because they were Christians at the hands of terrorist who share the same Islamic faith. In 2015 over 2400 churches were destroyed simply because they were Christian Churches at the hands of terrorist who share the same Islamic faith.

It is obvious that Obama has been more critical of Christians than Muslims. Why is Obama afraid of Christianity? Is Obama Muslim, Christian or neither? His actions and words lead me to think he is definitely more Muslim than Christian. If he was truly Christian he could accept people who follow the Islamic faith, pray for them, love them, help them, but like me decry in a loud voice those within the Islamic faith that practice horrible, horrendous deeds in the name of God and Islam.  He could call them for what they really are “Islamic Terrorist”.

Obama has a very strange definition of freedom of religion. His definition is not only strange to me it is foreign to me. He believes in freedom of religion as long as you agree with him, but if you disagree with him then he wants to bring all the powers of government against you. Persecution of Christians in the Middle East has gotten worse and spread within America because Obama is sympathetic to Islamic terrorist.

Obama’s views in my opinion are the results of having spent time in Indonesia growing up under the influence of his father and stepfather, both of whom were Muslim. His Christian belief came only because it made it easier for him to advance in the American society and the arena of American politics. His frame of reference is shaped by Islam not Christianity because of his youth. I must be honest and state I personally do not believe Obama believes in anything, but himself.

What do you call it when 12 Christian men are drowned at sea by Muslim men for praying to Jesus? I call it religious persecution, but Obama and Renzi (Italy) say it was not a problem or a clash between religious people of different religion it was just a onetime event that happen among angry men." While the prime minister of Italy and Obama plunged their heads into the sand the Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with "multiple aggravated murders motivated by religious hate.” Obama stood next to Reni and did not appear to be outraged at all by the incident. Obama’s mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually following a public outcry) are few and far between.

You still believe Obama bears no responsibility for Christian persecution around the world - a week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Freedom of religion to Muslim Terrorist means - the Christian community convert to Islam or pay a tax for being Christian. Obama needs to talk more about the “Crusades”, but include the modern day “Crusades” of the Muslim Terrorist who all share the same Islamic faith and supposedly follow the same leader “Mohammad”. 

*POLITICAL NOTE: The pendulum of history swings both ways - with Obama it swung to the far left and with President Ted Cruz it will swing to the far right - we need for the pendulum to stay in the middle.

I opposed the war in Iraq at the time - Did Donald Trump?

Donald Trump is being attack by Republican politician’s for saying he opposed the war in Iraq and thinks it was a mistake.  I know this is probably shocking to many Republicans and some Democrats, but there were Republican voters back then who possessed the foresight to know that the Iraq War was going to be something we would regret for many years to come. We stood on street corners in front of Federal Buildings around the country carrying signs protesting our participation in the Iraq conflict. Those who opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning took no end of abuse for taking that position.  We were booed, threatened and had cigarettes flicked at us by fine upstanding people passing by who believed the lies being told them by politicians. We were often resented by other protesters because we were older, conservative and Republican – we were not one of them.  

It was not difficult for us to figure out that Iraq was about to become our next Iran. We understood that it was a religious dispute among Muslims that had gone on for generations and no outsider was going to fix it or end it. We felt sorry for the weaker Muslims, but were thankful the conflict had not been brought to our shores and knew if we interfered it would cost American lives and accomplish nothing. Saddam Hussein, just as the Shaw of Iran, had not caused us problems the problems in Iraq were internal problems and between Muslims. 

Rightly or wrongly some of us believed the reason for America’s involvement was oil. If that was the reason then China should thank us for getting involved because they benefit from the oil not us. I always believed some politicians feared a return of oil shortages as experienced during the Carter years and the oil corporation’s feared lost profits and assets in Iraq. The oil industry's political donations may have influenced politicians to make bad decisions. 

I agree President Bush was close to gaining a better Iraq, but he or anyone else would have solved the problems within Iraq and outside of Iraq among Muslims. If we would not have gone in to Iraq then Obama would not have had any American troops to bring home. I also agree that Obama made a terrible mistake in withdrawing our troops after we were engaged in the internal conflicts of Iraq. It did not take a Middle East expert to know that Iran would attempt to fill the vacuum when we were gone.

John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all said at one time or another they would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that they would not have withdrawn our troops after we were there as Obama did. Rand Paul said the same thing, but that's no surprise. Jeb Bush has even made statements that the Iraq war was not a good idea. Do you remember the Kelly question to Jeb Bush “… if you knew then what you know now would you have invaded Iraq” – it took five days for Bush to come up with a final answer? Trumps mistake in stating he opposed the Iraq war was he made it a personal attack on President “W” Bush to upset Jeb Bush. That would have worked if Trump was running as a Democrat, but he claims to be running as a conservative (progressive) Republican.

 With everything that has happened over the last dozen years, including events of just the last year, it's very hard to say that the invasion was a good idea. Iraq has loomed large over every aspect of US politics and foreign policy for more than a decade.

Republican politicians had moved the debate to the 'surge', where they had a much better argument to make. The ‘surge’ created an opening for a political solution, which never ended up happening and I personally never believed would.

 In the 2008 presidential race, the Iraq 'debate' was largely fought over who was right about the surge. Donald Trump has in 2016 brought the debate back into a territory that the Republican establishment does not want to go – should we have invaded in the first place. 

Public opinion has turned decisively against the Iraq war. But political fights recently have largely been fought over ISIS, whether there should have been a full pull-out from Iraq, chaos in Syria, Libya and Yemen and more. Most American I think would agree we have to stop ISIS and other terrorist groups, but Republican politicians and Democrat politicians, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who supported the invasion of Iraq, would like to leave the question if we should have invaded in the first place in the closet never to be revisited again – Donald Trump has opened that closet door.

Would we have the ISIS problem we have today if we had not invaded Iraq – I guess we will never know? The invasion certainly destabilized the Middle East even further. Today we are in such a hellish situation in the Middle East that it is hard to defend the original invasion.  Did the invasion speed up the terror coming to our shores?

I am sorry it is not the ‘hawks’ in Washington that deserve any credit for Iraq it is those politicians who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset. Iraq is a reality and we now must try to make the best of it and unfortunately that probably means leaving troops in the Middle East for many, many years to come – perhaps forever. It means increasing our military presences which means modernizing and increasing our military. It means it is going to be even more difficult to lower our National Debt. But, most of all we must consider Americans may have died and suffered for nothing.

Yes, some Republican voters were arguing at the time against invading Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. imminent enough to justify an invasion. Some Republicans and I was one of them were publicly shouting themselves hoarse, pointing out at the time that, at the very least, there were serious questions about whether Iraq really posed the threat the Bush administration and other politicians claimed it did.

Jeb Bush said, "…the focus needs to be on the future." We should always focus on the future, but we should never forget the past. I do not think we should let the present moment pass without acknowledging that those who were most focused on the future during the run-up to the war in Iraq were the ones working to stop it from happening.  

In closing, I would like to give credit where credit is due Vice President Al Gore and Illinois State Senator Obama and twenty-one other Democrats like Teddy Kennedy opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and publicly stated they did at the time – all politicians that I would have never voted for.  Bernie Sanders an Independent who was in the House at the time was against the invasion. I only know of one Republican who spoke out loud and clear against the invasion and it was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who is now a Democrat. I have no recollection of Donald Trump saying anything whatsoever in public about invading Iraq before the war began, although I am not sure I even knew who Donald Trump was at that time.

It was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading Democrat members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration supported the invasion of Iraq. There is enough blame to go around in both parties.

Should we give up our culture/tradition to appease Muslims?

Some politically correct politicians in Italy made a decision to cover up nude statues from Roman antiquity during a visit by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. Some of Italy’s political leaders were willing to ignore their national identity in order not to offend Rouhani, Iran and the Muslim world.  Many of the citizens of Italy are rightly upset. They also hid the wine! Once again a non-Islamic government gave in to Islam. This is not the first time Italy has done this. During an official Saudi Arabia visit to Italy they covered up all the nude modern art.

The statues, in a corridor leading to a grand hall in Rome’s renowned Capitoline Museums, were covered in tall white boxes ahead of a news conference that Mr. Rouhani held on Monday with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. Rouhani and Renzi say they did not ask for it to be done. The director of the museum says Prime Minister Renzi did request they be covered so as not to offend Rouhani. Some media reports suggested the Iranian delegation had asked Italian officials to hide the statues to avoid Mr. Rouhani any potential embarrassment in Iran.  Maybe they should have held the news conference at McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken – no pork and no nude statues.

One Italian newspaper reported that in the grand hall at the Capitoline where the two leaders spoke, the lectern was moved to the side — not the front — of an equestrian statue of the emperor Marcus Aurelius to avoid having images of the horse’s genitals appear in news photographs.

One of the statues was the “Capitoline Venus,” a Roman copy of a legendary fourth century B.C. work by Praxiteles; some of the other sculptures were of ancient Greek and Roman gods, dressed minimally, if at all. I understand an austere Islamic government that promotes chastity and piety was visiting a country with a largely secular culture that has a reputation for embracing life’s pleasures, but I believe St. Ambrose said in 387 A.D., “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”

On May 13, 2015 a group of Islamic youth bullied, threaten and insulted a Catholic group in Northern Italy. The young Muslim’s were immigrants, not citizens of Italy, and they certainly did not care if Catholics were offended when they interrupted a Catholic procession in honor of the Virgin Mary. No charges were ever filed against the young men. It seems Obama and Prime Minister Renzi is more concerned about not offending Muslims than they are the citizens of their own countries.

Mr. Rouhani, 67, comes from a religious family, but he has a Ph.D. in law from Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland, and is not known as a religious hard-liner. Iran’s politics are extremely complex and religious matters are carefully policed by the theocratic regime that exercises ultimate power in Tehran. The supreme leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Public depictions of nudity are forbidden in Iran, but Mr. Rouhani was not in Iran he was in Rome, Italy. I do not know about you, but it frightens me that some world leaders expect their citizens to adopt Islamic customs, traditions and beliefs while ignoring our own in order not to upset Muslims.

It seems obvious to me some Italian political leaders put economic interests (18 billion dollars in new contracts) ahead of cultural legacy, just as Obama put his presidential legacy ahead of the safety of the American people when he negotiated his secret deal with Iran.

The covered statues were icons of classicism and models of humanism and are the foundation of European and Mediterranean culture and civilization. To cover them in order to satisfy Iran and not offend the Iranian citizens they offended their own Italian citizens. I think they offended most of the world tourist that went to Rome to see the statues and just happen to have made the mistake of traveling to Rome when Mr. Rouhani was there.  

Thank God Pope Francis did not cover the crucifixes when he greeted Rouhani at the Vatican.  I am not ashamed of Western culture. I do not want to bow to Iran’s demand or any other countries demands. If I went to Iran I would follow theirs laws, culture and traditions as long as I did not have to deny my Christian faith. I expect the Iranians not to demand or request I ignore the laws, culture and traditions of my own country when they are guest in my country. Respect for others cultures should not mean denying our own.

The French experienced some awkwardness in hosting Mr. Rouhani. In November, during a visit by the Iranian president and Iranian government officials when they refused to attend an official luncheon at the Élysée Palace, reportedly after the Iranians learned wine was to be served to the guest that requested it. Wine with meals is expected in France. The French officials refused to give in to Iran’s demand and served wine.

Italy’s Prime Ministers accommodation to the Iranians should be as embarrassing to the Italians as it was to Americans when Obama bowed to the Saudi King when he first took office. It seems Obama and other world leaders are more concerned over offending Muslims than they are in protecting their own citizens from a repeat of 9/11 or any other attack that these murderous thugs are planning. And yes they are still planning attacks against our country and other countries.

I do not believe what the Prime Minister of Italy did was for accommodation purposes I believe it was an act of submission! It makes no difference if you face reality and utter the politically incorrect words “radical Islamic Muslims” or not the fact is on 9/11 those who killed and destroyed were Muslims and killed in the name of Islam. Yet, the fact that the killers were Muslim and killed in the name of Islam is not only at the center of why we were attacked, but it is the ONLY explanation for the reason we were attacked.

It has become so ingrained in world leaders psyche to not offend Muslims that we cannot mention anything bad about radical Islamic Muslims even if it is true. They are now using it as a weapon against us so called infidels. The fear of offending radical Islamic Muslims has given the terrorists who killed so many in terrorist attacks a victory over our people, our country and the non-Islamic nations of the world. The fear of offending Muslims has in some respects almost crippled our country and as a result has given terrorism a victory over us and our nation.

I will never condone the burning of the Koran, damaging mosque, discriminating against all Muslims or denying them their Constitutional rights.  But, I do not believe our Founders ever intended for the Constitution to be used as a weapon of the politically correct. Those Constitutional rights were never intended to be used as a weapon to condone wrong.

We are so concerned about offending Muslims that we will not call the Islamic radicals who killed on 9/11 “radical Islamic Muslims”, we will cover valuable and beautiful art work that is nude or partially nude, we will not serve wine at meals and we will forgo our own culture and traditions all for the sake of not offending Muslims, but they do not care how much they offend Christianity, Judaism or other religions.  We will either defend our people and our nation against radical Islamic terrorist or we will bend over and let them do whatever they want to us and one day we will live in constant FEAR!  We cannot allow fear of being attack to allow wrong to take over the world.

Fear and intimidation is the tool of terrorism and whether it is done with planes, guns or words or demanding accommodation it has the same affect. It forces those who kowtow to that fear and intimidation into submission and allows the perpetrators of terror to have their way no matter what the consequences are.

Americans know the difference between the Muslim radicals and the moderates. We know the difference between those who follow Islam as a religion and those who use it as a weapon to kill. We do not need to be reminded on a daily basis on how to be tolerant of Muslims. We do not need to be reminded daily that there are Muslims who live in the United States as good citizens and do not follow the ideas of the radicals. We as a nation do not need to bend over and ,”tolerate,” Muslims to the point that we are afraid to even mention the word Muslim or the religion of Islam without fear of offending someone or being accused of being racist.

We are told by Obama that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslim. WHAT ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE FAMILIES AND AMERICANS WHO STILL REMEMBER 9/11 and that in 2014 there were 2999 radical Muslim Islamic attacks in 55 countries, in which 32262 people were killed and 27522 injured?

Grow a full beard and become holy, wise and loved by Muslims.

A senior bishop in the Church of England believes the vicars, or parish priests, should grow full beards as a way of reaching out to the fast-growing Muslim community. What will he want next? I guess Christian women should begin to wear the Hijab and men wear the Kufis. I live in the Philippines where the Muslim community is prominent in the malls and streets. I respect what they wear if that is what they want to wear to tell the world they are followers of Islam. I do not expect them to wear a crucifix simply because the Philippine people are predominantly Catholic.  

The senior bishop thinks we Christians should make ourselves as appealing to Muslims as possible – political correctness really gone amuck. He claims the beards will make their Christian ministers appear to be more holy to the Muslims. I am not interested in my bishops and priest appearing to be holy I am interested in them trying to BE holy.

He said, “In Islam beards are viewed as an adornment and Muslim men are encouraged to wear them to honor the Prophet Mohammed.” That is all the more reason for me not to want to wear Islam garb or grow a full beard. I honor and serve Jesus Christ not the Prophet Mohammed.

He also claims a scripture in Leviticus bans a man from shaving. I believe Leviticus is Old Testament (old covenant) and Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament (new covenant). I find it strange that he would pick one scripture in Leviticus that supports his personal belief about reaching out to Muslims and ignore all the other laws of Leviticus.

 The Rev Adam Atkinson, Vicar of St Peter’s church in Bethnal Green one of the first to start wearing a full beard has said the reason he did so was he saw it as an alternative to getting a tattoo. That sounds real holy to me! He also said he had since been struck by how often it helped him forge new links with teenage boys who might not normally want to talk to a vicar.

Sometimes it is hilarious how church leaders use scripture. One of the scriptures they use for growing full beards is St Paul saying, ‘I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some’, 1 Corinthians 9:19. If this is isolated from the rest of Scripture one can assume that Paul was willing to do anything to reach the lost, including adopting their lifestyle and compromise his ethics, moral and beliefs. This is a doctrine that is popularized among the evangelism crowd today. If we use this logic then one cannot reach a drug addict unless we become one and we cannot reach a drunk unless we drink alcohol. Paul did not mean that.

 Paul taught that believers are to “abstain from any appearance of evil”, 1 Thess. 5:22. Paul would not have done anything contrary to Christ and His ways in his own life and ministry. Remember he rebuked Peter for his compromise of the gospel to the Jewish brethren. Paul was simply saying when speaking to a religious Jew he would use the law to speak to them and when speaking to a gentile he would use his conscience and culture to speak to them.

Remember I wrote earlier what is next. Reverend Atkinson said, “A Muslim friend said to him, ‘I will lend you a hat (kufis) and you can join me on Friday [prayers]. It was done in a jokey way but I felt it was quite affirming.”

The other vicar, the Reverend Rogers of All Hallows Bow, said: “One guy approached me about a year and a half ago and said ‘I can respect you because you have got a full beard’. If wearing a full beard made the man respect him then the man must be very shallow. Charles Manson a mass murder wore a full beard. He went on to say the full beard shows wisdom and he added: “I like the idea of being the ‘wild’ priest rather than the gentleman priest.

The Senior Vicar said, “David Beckham is the nearest we have to a popular secular saint, and his flirtation with various styles of beards has stimulated countless imitators.” David Beckham also gets a lot of attention by modeling underwear so I guess priests and vicars should start running around in their underwear. David Beckham is no saint to me.

Growing a beard in Islam is not dictated in the Holy Koran. It's a tradition. It is not a commandment of the Prophet Mohammed it was a suggestion. The prayers of those who shave off their beard are heard just as those with full beards.

Wearing a cross does not make you a Christian and having a full beard does not make you holy or a Muslim. Keep in mind the Hutterites, prevalent in the Canadian Parries and the Amish, prevalent in the Northeastern USA are Trinitarian Christians and have always worn full beards. Orthodox Christian priests and Orthodox Jews wear full beards. I think the fact that Orthodox Jews who wear full beards are hated by radical Muslims proves that having a full beard means little to Muslims/Christian relationships.  

I thought the timing of the beard comments by the Vicar in England was appropriate. His suggestion came two days after the earliest Christian community in Iraq was wiped out by radical Muslims and at a time when militant Islam is harassing, persecuting and murdering Christians – beard or no beard – across three continents. 

Don't fight ISIS - Islamic radical terrorist love them!

I just read an article written by JR Vassar the lead pastor, Church at the Cross, Grapevine, Texas.  He claims, “I am saddened by the tendency of some Christians to call for the sending of missiles upon our nation’s enemies more than to pray for the sending of missionaries to the hardest places.” When is he leaving for Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan? I am capable of praying for both.

He admits, “The Islamic State is a horrific evil and must be stopped. The destruction it is bringing on innocent life and human civilization is heartbreaking and should fill us with righteous indignation. Likely, it will take the international community to defeat the Islamic State, and it will almost certainly mean military conflict.” Who does he expect to volunteer for the military conflict non-Christians?

He is, “… grieved that some influential pastors and Christian leaders eagerly call for the bombing of regions that will inevitably lead to the destruction of human life (innocent image-bearers who suffer as collateral damage), and do so without tears and a broken heart.” I do not know of any Christian leader that would call for the bombing of ISIS if they thought there was another way.  I also do not think any Christian leader has ever called for the destruction of ISIS without having a heavy heart when doing so.

He suggested we, “Pray for our enemies and desire their salvation.” He claims God would want us to show them mercy and give them an opportunity to repent. He knows that is what God would want us Christians to do. If he believes in the literal translation of the Bible he must know that God called for the destruction of innocent women, children and animals of the Israelites enemies. I do not believe in the literal translation of the Bible so I think it was more the men of Israel that wanted their destruction, rather than God, but they may have thought that was what God wanted them to do.  The same as Reverend Vassar thinks he knows what God wants us to do as it pertains to the terrorist. If God wanted the enemies of the Israelites destroyed, but does not want our enemies destroyed does that mean God loved the Israelites more than He loves us?

He went on to write, “Our call is to follow the command and example of Jesus who told us to love our enemies and pray for them, and who himself laid his life down for his enemies, even praying for their forgiveness as they killed him. Again, if we are calling for missiles, but not praying for missionaries, we have lost touch with the heart of God.” I am sorry, but I am not prepared to have my throat cut by the followers of ISIS and honestly I do not think he is either. It is easy for him to write or say the things he does from Grapevine, Texas. I guess if his wife and children were caught in a terrorist situation he would prefer to allow them to be slaughtered than try to kill his enemy.

Jesus was not fighting a foreign enemy He was trying to reform His own people – the Jews. Jesus did not have a military, but he had no problem displaying his anger in the temple turning over the tables of the money changers. King David had a military given to him by God and he certainly used it. If we are going to use Biblical comparison King David and his enemies are more like our enemy ISIS and Muslim terrorist than Jesus and His enemies. If it was Protestants and Catholics (Ireland) fighting over differences I would agree with Reverend Vassar, but it is not. It is good versus evil!  

He admits that as we pray to God we know there will never be peace on this earth, “…we know that ultimately complete peace and justice are a world away, in the new heavens and new earth.”

He says, “We do not need to fear Muslims, but love them, befriend them, and seek to share the good news of Jesus with them.” I do love some Muslims, those that are not trying to kill me, my caregiver is Muslim.

I probably have more experience dealing with Muslims than he does, since I have lived on the Island of Mindanao in the Philippines for the past ten years. I live in Davao, but I am not about to travel to Cotobato or Sula where Muslim terrorist are kidnapping foreigners regularly. I welcome him to come to Southern Mindanao at any time and love the Muslim terrorist and the Communist insurgents to the peace table. The Philippine government has been trying to do it for thirty years and have failed.

 “We are not Americans first, but Christians first. We belong to a kingdom that is not of this world — a kingdom with no boundaries or borders. We may disagree on policy or diplomacy, but infinitely more important is that we agree on Jesus, his rule, and his great love for his people and for this world. We don’t have to be divided by our lesser loyalties when we are united by our greatest loyalty.” This all sounds good, but it is not realistic when it comes to dealing with terrorist in 2015. I do not think God intends for us to let Islamic terrorist cut our heads off, destroy our religion, invade our country and not resist.

I think a diplomatic solution would be impossible with groups like ISIS or other groups of Islamic Muslim Terrorist. Reverend Vassar wrote Jesus faced radicals and He did not try to kill them if I am not mistaken Jesus was killed.  Jesus knew pain, suffering, persecution and terrorism first hand is Reverend Vassar willing to do the same, is he willing to sacrifice his family without a fight, I am not.

If men like Reverend Vassar had reached out to the young men that make up ISIS and other terrorist groups a decade ago maybe we would not be in the mess we are in today. I think Reverend Vassar should consider that perhaps the church failed in reaching out to the Arabs in the Middle East.

Paul was once a terrorist killing Christians just at ISIS is doing today and he came to accept Christ as his Savior so there is hope. But, who is willing to go today and try to convert ISIS members. Is Reverend Vassar willing, if not he should not be so asking someone else to.

Jesus’ way of putting His enemies in their place was by shaming them. How does Reverend Vassar propose that we shame ISIS?

Christian leaders should have taken more seriously education reform, business opportunities, economic reforms and employment opportunities in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Africa and Afghanistan and maybe there would be no ISIS today. Was Reverend Vassar pushing for those reforms prior to now?

I am not Reverend Pat Robertson and I do not say, “Convert or die”. I would like to see them convert to Christianity, but that is not a requirement for me to have peace. But, I do not think it is possible for us now to love the members of ISIS to a negotiated peace. I say that because they are telling us, “Convert or die”.

The Iraqi Christians since 2003 until about 2014 were known for being passive. They finally realized they could no longer be passive and stay alive. Unfortunately they began to stand up for their religious liberty and their freedom too late. Are Americans being ask to do the same by religious leaders like Reverend Vassar? Are we going to wait for ISIS to tell us to convert, pay a tax or die as they did the Christians in Mosul? Did not Obama take the passive role and allow ISIS to grow stronger, accomplish more evil and kill more Christians?

I am not for the destruction of ISIS only because they are killing Christians. I am for the destruction of ISIS because I am against any group of people that practice genocide against a weaker group of people.

ISIS is nothing more than a gang like those in any large city in the United States that kill people in order to expand their territory.  They both are criminals (terrorists) who are determined to murder people in order to gain control. They must be stopped and I truly believe God condemns their actions.

I do not believe God expects us to only pray and take no defensive action against them. Most of us do not sit back and refuse to work and expect God to feed us. Most of us do not refuse to take preventive action to maintain our health simply because we believe God can heal us. Most of us would not sit down on the couch and watch while a robber took our belongings and possibly raped our wife and do nothing but pray. Why do some Christians expect us to only pray and take no military action to protect our families, neighbors, country and us?

I believe in prayer and I have no doubt that pray is powerful, but I also believe God expects us to take action along with prayer. Why don’t we just stop being charitable and pray to God to take care of the poor, orphans and widows?  

More Hillary Clinton B.S. to win an election!

In an interview Sunday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton (of course she is the front-runner she has no Democrat competition) defended herself against critics of her words against radical Islamists and her actions immediately after the Benghazi attacks. Only Obama and Clinton could find a way to defend incompetency and blame someone else.

Clinton was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, a former staffer to her husband, President Bill Clinton, a close friend to both Bill and Hillary, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and served on the board of the Clinton Foundation until he embarrassed himself and thought it was in his best interest to resign if he wanted to continue to have a media career.

Stephanopoulos pressed Clinton on a common Republican criticism, that she refuses to say the United States is fighting "radical Islam." He pressed her as much as any best friend who wants to see her elected would press.

Clinton claimed she says radical Islamists all the time. Really! I do not think I have heard her or Obama make those types of comments.

She did add, “Using the term "radical Islam sounds like the United States is going after an entire religion, ignoring the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Also, she said, it helps create the notion of a "class of civilizations" that actually aids Islamic State (ISIS) recruiting.” According to her and Obama they do not call it what it is in order not to aid the terrorist.

No one denies that there are more Muslims not waging terrorist attacks than Muslims that are. I think she is trying to buy Muslim and Liberal votes by being politically correct. I do not think we are fighting Islam the religion or all Muslims if I did I would not have a Muslim caregiver. We are fighting “RADICAL ISLAM MUSLIMS”. How can you fix a problem if you cannot or will name it?

When asked if the United States is winning the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, "I can say today that we have a new set of threats.” You had better watch your back Obama, Mama is turning against you to win an election! It was interesting to me that she in no way implied that we were losing the fight against ISIS – which we are.

Clinton attacked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for suggesting we should "carpet bomb" ISIS, She mocked him by saying; "He's never had any responsibility for trying to figure out who the bad guys are and who innocent civilians are." As if she has! Civilian casualties are the cost of war and quite frankly I prefer civilian casualties in Syria and Iraq than in the United States. If we are not willing to risk causing civilian casualties abroad we should get out and bring our people and equipment home and wait until we are fighting on our own soil, risking the lives of American citizens.

She said current and retired military leaders should come together to rebuild the Sunnis and Kurds to fight on the ground in Iraq against ISIS. I am all for that, but it was Obama and Mama Clinton that prior to her campaigning were not willing to take the advice of military leaders to do just that. What a difference how ones greed to be President can alter their thinking.

She said people are within their rights to buy and carry guns after the San Bernardino attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton the Constitution gave us that right before and after the San Bernardino attack. It is a shame it took San Bernardino to make you realize that.

She addressed charges she lied to family members of the four Americans killed in Benghazi by blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video: she said, "I understand the continuing of the grief of the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. … This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war." She does not and cannot understand what the parents are going through because she has never experienced that kind of loss. She did lie to not only the parents of those murdered she lied to the world. Fast moving – if she would have misspoken within hours of the event and corrected herself the next morning I could cut her some slack, but she, Obama and all the rest of his administration continued to lie for WEEKS after the event.

She talked about how Americans see her as untrustworthy: "Obviously, I don't like hearing that, George, but I think people who have worked with me, people who voted for me twice in New York, people I've had a very long relationship with and working on their behalf, are going to know what I do and when I say I'll do it, I'll move everything I can to get it done." The people that work with her are as dishonest as she is or they could not work with her. As far as her winning elections - that is the result of her being a good politician capable of saying what the people want to hear in order to get votes. Americans all know she lies and covers up and the majority may elect her President in 2016 even knowing those facts.

She said the U.S. should not declare war on ISIS because it is a "legal term" and only Congress has the authority to declare war. CONGRESS should declare war or not risk the lives of American soldiers. Anytime we send our troops to foreign soil to fight or advise we should be willing to do whatever is needed to WIN!!!!!

I am sorry Mrs. Clinton I am one that did not buy your campaign spill.

 

 

Many people think they are a Christian, but are they?

If you conducted an informal opinion poll near where you live, and asked ten people to explain what it takes to make someone a real Christian. You might get ten different answers. Ask yourself, "Am I a real Christian.

Maybe you were raised in a Catholic or Protestant home. No matter what your background, I encourage you to take an honest look beyond the myths about what makes someone a Christian.

Let's explore what some say makes us a real Christian:

1.    I've been a Christian all my life; I was born in a Christian home. But since when does where you're born determine what you are? Someone may have been born in a stable, but that doesn't make him a horse. Nor does being born in an airport make someone an airplane. Grace Poe who is running for President of the Philippines in 2016 was born in the Philippines, but some say that does not make her a Filipino. Those same people may say they are a Catholic Christian because they were born in a Catholic Nation. Be thankful for where you were born and for the family and church in which you were raised, but don't assume that automatically makes you a Christian.

2.    A Christian may know that he or she is valuable in God's eyes because He made us and loves us, but you could develop a certain sense of well-being and self-worth apart from knowing what the Bible teaches us about thinking right in an un-right world. So thinking positively about life in general and about yourself in particular doesn't automatically make you a Christian.  Living a clean and moral life doesn't make anyone a Christian. Many atheists live a decent, straight life.

3.    Last Sunday four out of ten Americans went to church. But does that mean that all these people are Christians? Of course not. Even some thieves go to church. Some people go to church because it's a social habit. Others attend because their family makes them go. Some Catholics go to Mass on Sunday out of an obligation. It is true that Christians go to church and take an active part in church life, but attending church doesn't make you a Christian.

4.    Many of us were taught since childhood to give a portion of our income to charity or to the church. Whether rich or poor, we feel it's our "Christian" duty. But that's not what makes somebody a Christian. Yes, Christians give to others more than anyone else. They help the needy and less fortunate. But you can give away everything you own and still not be a Christian.

5.    Maybe you were baptized as a child or young adult. That doesn't necessarily mean you're a Christian. Many violent inmates in penitentiaries were baptized years ago, but few people would automatically consider these inmates Christians. Maybe you take Communion every Sunday if you're a Christian, that's great! But, both baptism and Communion are Biblical and God commands Christians to observe both. But, receiving either one won't make you a Christian.

6.    Eight out of ten people in America say they believe God exists. But are they all Christians? You can be a Muslim and believe in God, but "believing in God" does not make you a Christian. Belief, on its own, makes no difference. That is why belief, by itself, doesn't make someone a Christian.

7.    Many people talk about Jesus Christ and even speak well of Him. They may be teachers, ministers, church leaders, or "just plain folk." But, they may not even believe that the Bible's message about Jesus is true. Are these people truly Christians?

8.    Someone can pray and still not be a Christian. Hindus pray all the time. Muslims pray five times a day. Praying in itself doesn't make someone a Christian.

9.    Christians love the Bible. Some of us read it daily. But just reading the Bible doesn't mean you are a Christian. Karl Marx read the Bible even though he eventually rejected the Bible's authority, and during his adult life called himself an atheist, a communist--anything but a Christian. Nikita Khrushchev, the former premier of the USSR, read the Bible. Yet later he made it his ambition to bury the church. Just reading the Bible won't make you a Christian.

If thinking positively, living morally, going to church, giving to others, receiving a sacrament, believing in God, talking about Jesus, praying, and reading the Bible doesn't make you a Christian, then what does? What is a real Christian?

Being a Christian is believing in Jesus Christ as your savior and making every effort to live a Christian life – the life Jesus Christ called us to live. If you are knowingly fooling around with sin; if you are playing with immorality; if you are not being truthful in your business; if you are dishonest in your school, in your work, in your play, in your home -- then you are not trying to live the life Jesus Christ called Christian to live.

When you come to Christ, He forgives your sins and purifies your heart. That doesn’t mean you suddenly become holier than everyone else. On the contrary, you become more conscious of your shortcomings. But, God makes you righteous and gives you the power to live a more righteous life.

The way of life in Christ is also the way of love. Today, the word love has been robbed of meaning. It's used to describe a person exploiting the emotions of another for his own satisfaction and selfishness. But that is not love. True love wants the very best for someone no matter what it may cost us.

The way of life is also the way of obedience to God. I have written in the past that I do not believe perfection is possible, but Christians make an effort to be obedient to God in all things.  Christians give God authority over their lives. We will go wherever He wants us to go, do whatever He wants us to do and we do not care what it may cost in terms of comfort or reputation.

Life with Christ was not only God's original design for us; it is the way God intends for us to live today. A real Christian knows without a doubt he or she has eternal life. A real Christian knows without a doubt that they are a child of God. A real Christian believes God created everything - Christians may disagree how that creation came about, but we do not deny God is the creationist of all. A real Christian must have a spiritual birth. This happens when we repent of our sins and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

I again encourage you to take an honest look beyond the myths about what makes someone a Christian, re-evaluate your Christian life today.

Is artificial birth control a sin?

‘Responsible breeding or rabbit breeding’

Classic church doctrine since the time of Saint Augustine and before has condemned contraceptive practices as sinful.  Is contraception really a sin, and if not, what types of birth control are acceptable for the Christian?  This debate has taken on even greater significance with the recent controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic denunciation of contraceptives in poverty-stricken Africa and Philippine, which some fear contributes to overpopulation, sexually transmitted disease, and perennially poor families. 

By far the most common Biblical story used to support the anti-contraceptive mantra is the account of Onan in the book of Genesis.  According to the account: Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your dead brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing an offspring for his brother.  What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” [Genesis 38:1-10]. 

Does this verse really demonstrate that contraceptives are wrong and sinful?  It seems to me Onan’s sin was deliberately refusing to birth a son for his dead brother and his brother’s wife.  It is important to realize the cultural context in which this story took place.  This story may seem strange to us in modern society, we would be shocked at the idea that we should have sex with our brother’s wife if she was without a child.  But in ancient times, maintaining a family line was essential for survival; children took care of their parents in old age.  It is quite clear to me that Onan’s sin was refusing to birth a son for his deceased brother.  It remains possible that contraceptive practices are sinful, but the story of Onan certainly doesn’t prove it. 

The act that Jewish law required Onan to perform would nowadays be regarded as rape, since the widow's consent was not required and this makes the story a very flimsy foundation for moral argument on birth control.

Some will argue that the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ found in Genesis 1:28 argues against the use of contraceptives.  However, at best I believe these scriptures demonstrate that we have an obligation to have children; it does not prove that we should have as many kids as possible or that we should never use contraceptives.  This verse proves nothing regarding the use of contraceptives to me.  I remain skeptical that the Bible clearly states contraceptive are wrong and I definitely am skeptical that using contraceptives are a sin. 

Some people say that contraceptive use means a couple does not believe children are blessing from God.  Not so!  Some parents decide to use birth control to stop from having more kids for the time being due to a financial situation or some other factors.  I believe the parents that make decisions like this are being responsible and wanting to protect the children they have.  Wanting to protect the children they have tells me they are inclined to believe their children are a blessing. 

One of the most common arguments against birth control is that the Church has almost unanimously condemned it throughout history.  However, this point is only valid for Catholics who believe that church tradition is authoritative.  Without such a prior commitment to church tradition, the opposition to contraceptives is not valid.

There are claims that birth control is bad for society.  They will say, it increases abortion frequency, encourages premarital sex, leads to the spread of STDs, etc.  I believe the effect of using contraceptives would do just the opposite.   I believe birth control is acceptable if it does not involve abortion. The fact that contraceptives have been misused does not prove that contraceptives are wrong.

Many claim that we should not use birth control because we should let God decide when and how many children we should have.  Sounds good for a Christians to say, but look around you and you and you will see that does not work.  Maybe God is looking down from Heaven and saying I gave them a brain and instead of using it they breed like rabbits, let them suffer the consequences.  Some actually believe God will provide for their financial and emotional needs even when they do not act responsibly.  Responsible people do not  wait around at home believing that God will provide them with the amount of food they need- they go to work, get a pay check, and buy enough food to survive.   God gives us the ability to make responsible choices for ourselves. 

I fine no evidence in the Bible that gives direct support for birth control.  I find no support in the Bible that states sexual pleasure and reproduction should be separated.  I believe God intended sex to be enjoyed.   I do find that the Bible supports some acts of sex as being wrong. 

The Bible never explicitly approves of contraception.  However, there are a number of passages where the Bible appears to accept that sex should be enjoyed for other reasons than the production of children, and some people argue that this implies that no wrong is done if a married couple has sex with the intention of not having children.

“The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband.  In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” [1 Corinthians 7:3-5].

This verse clearly demonstrates that the purpose of marriage is not only for procreation.  Paul tells us that we should not withhold sex from our spouses.  It is not merely ok to have sex within marriage for pleasure, it is actually mandatory.

The Song of Solomon argues against the idea that procreation is the only purpose of sex.  I don’t think one could read the book and conclude that God only gave us the gift of sex so that we can produce children. 

There is another major problem with claiming that it is sinful to separate procreation from marital sex- what about couples who are infertile, either by old age or physical limitations?  Is it wrong for people who are infertile to have sex?  Is it wrong for old people to have sex?  Almost everyone would admit that there is nothing morally wrong with infertile sex; in fact, most would think it morally repulsive to claim that such people should never have sex.  This would also conflict with Paul’s teaching about fulfilling marital duties.

Sometimes there are very good moral reasons for using birth control.  A couple may want to limit the number of children they have because they can’t support more, either for financial reasons or because they want to be able to spend enough individual time with each child they already have . Doing otherwise could harm the family.  For those couples who can’t support more children, contraceptive use may be morally justified and even morally good.

I believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, any birth control methods which involves abortion of any kind is immoral.  Yet, there are several responsible forms of birth control that can be reasonably used. Couples should feel free to decide for themselves whether, and when, use of contraceptives is appropriate and desirable. 

Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, the Bible has little to say about the subject.  Their teachings on birth control are often based on different Christian interpretations, traditions and culture regarding the meaning of marriage, sex and the family.  

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th century.  I think it is wrong for us Catholics to say the denominations that adopted and approved contraception or definitely wrong – maybe they found the error in the teaching and allowed the Holy Spirit to enlighten them. 

The Roman Catholic Church allows only ‘natural birth control’, which means only having sex during the infertile period of a woman's monthly cycle. Artificial methods of contraception are banned.  When Catholics practice natural birth control are their goals not the same as those who practice artificial birth control?   They all wish to control the birth of a child.  

Many Catholics have decided to disobey church teaching on birth control creating a breach between laity and the Church establishment.  I cannot help but thing birth control often leads to stronger families and better marriages, churches should let believers decide birth control on their own.  Married couples know best what they can and cannot afford and it is a known fact finances is the biggest cause of divorce. 

The Catholic Church teaches that using artificial contraception is wrong because:

•it is against 'natural law'

•it breaks the natural connection between the procreative and the purposes of sex

•it turns sex into a non-marital act

•it gives human beings the power to decide when a new life should begin and that power belongs only to God

•it leads to widespread immorality

•it damages the institution of marriage

•it reduces male respect for women

•it gives human beings the idea that they can have complete power over the body

•it allows the implementation of eugenic programs

The Catholic Church also says the Church does not condemn things like the pill or condoms in themselves.  What is morally wrong is using such things with the intention of preventing conception.  Using them for other purposes is fine - for example, using the pill to regulate the periods of a woman who is not in a sexual relationship is not wrong.  It is not the product used that is wrong it is the purpose for the product being used.  Makes sense I guess.

I believe the real problem for the Catholic Church is the leaders cannot accept that the physical expression of love between husband and wife in sexual intercourse can be separated from the reproductive act.  The Catholic Church says nothing evil can be done even if in the end good comes from it – I would agree with that.  I just do not see the evil in using artificial contraception if it is in no way connected to abortion.

I Timothy 5:8 tells us that parents must provide for their children.  This includes properly caring for and supporting their children until they reach maturity.  Couples should not have children unless and until they are able to do this.  If they are unable to properly care for them, they should consider some form of controlling pregnancies.  I do not think God prefers homeless hungry children over artificial birth control. 

The issue of birth control is now becoming an issue in Islam.  One Muslim doctor that I know of is working to dispel the myths that fuel the resistance to family planning.  For over ten years he has been presenting evidence to persuade clerics that Islam supports family planning methods, contrary to the views of many clerics. 

Some of the clerics, especially in northern Nigeria use the same arguments that the Catholic leadership uses to denounce artificial birth control.