Outraged that right-wing Christian business owners are facing the possibility of fines for refusing to serve gay customers rather than being allowed to freely discriminate in the name of religious freedom, Glenn Beck said on his radio show today that not allowing Christians to engage in discrimination is "the work of Satan."
"I can't change my religious point of view. I can't. Especially by force. I won't by force," Beck said, before declaring that "the Left just doesn't understand religion at all," which is why liberals refuse to admit that radical Islamic terrorism is rooted in religion and won't honor the right of Christians in America to engage in anti-gay discrimination.
"They want to shut Christians down," he said. "What is this, except the work of Satan?"
Ever since the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the American Family Association as an anti-gay "hate group" back in 2010, the AFA has vehemently objected to being designated as such. In addition to regularly attackingthe SPLC, the AFA has also taken a few half-hearted steps to try and distance itself from Bryan Fischer, who was almost single-handedly responsible for getting the AFA placed on the SPLC's hate list in the first place, in an effort to salvage its reputation.
Now, it seems, the AFA has decided to take a page out of the SPLC's playbook by releasing its own "Bigotry Map" which seeks to highlight organizations that it claims "openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith":
These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.
A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states. By threat of lawsuit, they demand prayer removed from schools and city council meetings, Ten Commandments monuments stricken from courthouses and memorial crosses purged from cemeteries and parks.
Because of anti-Christian bigotry, private business owners have been sued and forced to close their business. Families and businesses that express a Christian worldview on social issues often face vicious retaliation from bigoted anti-Christian zealots.
Some members or supporters of these groups have committed violent crimes against Christians and faith-based groups. Physical and profane verbal assaults against Christians are methods frequently exercised in their angry methods of intimidation.
At first glance, the map appears to be pretty heavily populated, but a quick search of the actual groups listed reveals that the AFA basically just listed every atheist, humanist, or freethinker organization it could find, as well as the state chapters of national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, SPLC, the Human Rights Campaign, and GLSEN:
We're honored to see that we here at PFAW also made the map as one of the groups that supposedly "actively engages in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square":
Recently, David Barton sat down for a conversation with Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California, during which he asserted that even Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer knows that the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights came directly out of the Bible and even mentioned this fact in one of his Supreme Court decisions.
"I was reading a Supreme Court case," Barton said, "and in it, Justice Breyer — and no one is going to accuse Justice Breyer of being a religious individual, he'll not be found guilty of that — and he makes the comment that 'of course we all know that all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible.'"
Barton said that Breyer even footnoted this assertion in his ruling, citing Volume 30 of "Federal Practice and Procedure," which Barton claims contains a sixty page explanation of how our system of due process came directly out of the Bible.
"There's Breyer saying 'of course we all know that the due process clauses came out of the Bible,'" Barton said. "We don't know that today":
As is typical when Barton makes these sorts of claims, he doesn't actually provide any information about the ruling in which Breyer supposedly made this assertion, making it all but impossible verify the claim that he has just made.
Our best guess is that Barton is referring to Breyer's 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia (emphasis added):
The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.
You'll note that, contrary to Barton's claim, Breyer is not saying that "all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible," but merely that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, among other places. On top of that, the Bible verse that Breyer cites, Acts 25:16, consists of the Apostle Paul citing his right to confront his accuser according to Roman law:
I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.
Radical anti-gay activist Scott Lively is warning that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, it could literally bring about the end of the world and the rise of the Antichrist by September of this year.
As Lively sees it, if gay marriage becomes legal we can all "expect some sort of severe judgment to fall on America in conjunction with this process" but the "coming calamity will almost certainly be a part of some larger act of God’s punishment on the entire world, most likely the Great Tribulation prophesied by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse," signaling the End Times.
He warns that gay marriage will unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which will take the form "gay theology," war, famine, and a "massive harvest of the grim reaper" of the souls of all who have died in the chaos. That, in turn, will give rise to the Antichrist by late September, which will result in full-scale persecution of Christians and the end of the world:
After weeks or months of global chaos, when the nations are sufficiently broken and the peoples of the world desperate for a return to order, a hero will step upon the world stage to end the crisis. In the human context he will secretly represent the globalist elites who have planned and prepared for this opportunity to impose a new world order: a new global government with a new economic system.
In the spiritual context he will be enacting a Satanic plot to usurp the role and identity of the Messiah and gain the adulation of the world.
Wielding great military power this self-aggrandizing human savior will force an end to war and impose a secular humanist paradigm and religious pluralism as a remedy to the various forms of “discrimination” which he will blame for the world crisis. Everyone will be given the choice (at first) to join the new order and gain immediate integration into its cradle-to-grave socialistic bounty. “Just sign this oath to reject and renounce all divisive and discriminatory beliefs and “supremacist” theologies,” he would say, “and take this mark of membership on your hand to receive free food, housing and medicine and all other benefits under our enlightened new order of tolerance and inclusiveness.”
Who would not rush to accept such relief after such a season of horror? Who would not offer heartfelt fealty to the one who provided it? — Only those willing to choose continued suffering and deprivation rather than to “take the mark” and renounce their faith.
In this speculative scenario of mine, the date on or around which this false messiah would emerge is Yom Kippur, September 23, 2015, the first day of the Jubilee — the day/year of liberation. Just as Christ began His earthy ministry by declaring the Jubilee in Luke 4:17-21, the false messiah would do the same, but in modern terms: “I hereby declare a global Jubilee of all debts, both public and private,” he would proclaim, “We are wiping the slate clean to start over on a foundation of social justice and cooperation.” He would not yet be exposed to the world as the Antichrist, but the Biblically literate would recognize him.
The fifth stage of the end-time chronology is persecution of the believers (Matthew 24:9), who, in this scenario, would be characterized as “black marketers” who refuse to support the new economic system and are thus blamed for its many inadequacies and hated by its adherents. Even as the rest of the world lauds its “savior” and embraces his government, the Christian believers (and Torah-faithful Jews) would be increasingly reviled and hunted.
Under the Antichrist kingdom, Jerusalem (the center of the universe for prophecy study) is described in Revelation 11:8 as “mystically called Sodom and Eqypt,” implying in part that both homosexuality and pantheism (religious pluralism) define its culture.
I don’t think there is any question, Biblically, that the cultural celebration of “gay marriage” portends judgment from God. The only real question in my mind is whether it truly signals the imminent “beginning of sorrows” or is just another step in the path leading to God’s wrath at a later time. God is long-suffering, even to the most wicked of societies and He does not act until their iniquity is “full” (Genesis 15:16).
If we are on the verge of “birth pangs” we will likely know it by Passover, but in either case we should brace for serious judgment on the United States in the form of natural and/or man-made disaster if the Supreme Court established sodomy as a basis for marriage under our constitution.
Stuart Shepard explains
that Christianity is the guardrail that keeps society from driving into the ditch and that "if everybody drove according
to Christian principles, we wouldn't need guardrails."
James Robison's new
website is desperately needed today because "the prince of
the power of the air and, in too many instances, also the power of the air waves, has drowned out wisdom’s voice,
ignored it, or misrepresented it."
Scott Walker was granted a meeting with Donald Trump
Laurie Roth says that "Obama has made it most clear whose side he is on
and it isn’t America, God or freedom."
Grover Norquist calls Frank Gaffney's allegations that he is a secret Islamist "lies, crap, and garbage."
Finally, Paul Hair warns that President Obama is meeting with Muslim leaders in order to coordinate attacks on
A few weeks ago, we noted that David Barton had reportedly won a million-dollar defamation lawsuit against two Democratic candidates who ran for the Texas Education Board in 2010 after they produced a campaign video that asserted that Barton was "known for speaking at white supremacist rallies." At the same time, Barton also filed suit against an online writer who had called him an "admitted liar," though that writer disappeared after being sued and never responded to any of Barton's legal filings.
In the wake of this court decision, Barton immediately went to work trying to portray his very narrow legal victory as a complete validation of his widely-criticized scholarship, asserting that his work had now been vindicated in a court of law when, in reality, the case revolved only around allegations that he had ties to white supremacists.
Now it seems that Barton is pressing ahead with his effort to portray his legal win as a wholesale vindication of his body of work, as his WallBuilders organization sent out an email to activists today calling up them to take to Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or anywhere else that they might see Barton and his work being criticized and post links to an article about his legal victory in order to defend Barton and prove that "the critics’ claims are false":
A few weeks ago, news broke about David Barton winning a major defamation lawsuit. (Thank you for all of your emails and calls of support and encouragement!)
The more publicized of the two defamation lawsuits we won was the one where David was labeled an anti-Semite, racist, and white supremacist. But the second lawsuit we won addressed the false claims that David's works are widely discredited, that he is an admitted liar, that he makes up his history, etc. (Makes up history? How ridiculous is this claim when WallBuilders owns one of America's largest private collections of original Founding Era documents -- more than 100,000 originals or copies of original documents from before 1812. In fact, we even footnote our historical email blasts!)
David's best-selling works have been viewed by literally millions of Americans, and such numbers represent a sizeable segment of the American population. Detractors don't want these readers -- and especially any additional ones -- to know the important role that religion and morality historically played in America. The reason is simple. For Americans to tolerate and support our current secularist progressive policies, they must be divorced from our religious, moral, and constitutional history.
The critics are very aggressive, very well-organized, and very well-funded. (In fact, many of the groups attacking David receive funding from atheist billionaire George Soros.) They often select seemingly religious mouthpieces (often secular progressives from the Religious Left) to deliver their attacks over the internet, in articles, and on blogs.
This is where we need your help!
When you see attacks against WallBuilders and David on Facebook, Twitter, in articles, comments, and so forth, please take a few minutes to enter your own rebuttal comments, even linking to the national articles reporting that the critics’ claims are false (e.g., David Barton Wins Million-Dollar Defamation Suit).
The Bible tells us in Proverbs 18:17 that one side sounds good until facts from the other side are presented. So far, the critics have often been the only voice – or at least the loudest. We need your help to present the other side. As Song of Solomon 8:13 reminds us, your friends listen to your voice -- so speak! Your voice on Facebook, Twitter, in articles, on Amazon book reviews, and in web comment sections will help beat back the false claims and thus help millions of Americans be open, and even eager to learn the truth about America's Godly constitutional heritage!
Glenn Beck kicked off today's radio broadcast by not only defending Rudy Giuliani's recent statement that President Obama doesn't love America, but taking it a step further by declaring that Obama is fundamentally incapable of loving America, at least in the same way that real Americans like Glenn Beck love this country.
"I differ from Rudy Giuliani," Beck said. "I don't think that [Obama] can love America the way we love America because of his upbringing ... I don't think he loves America. I think he likes America."
Beck went on to argue that Obama loves America in the same way that Beck "loves" Great Britain, by which he meant that while he likes Great Britain, he does not "have that deep, stirring love" for it that he does for America.
"I have a deep love for the heritage of this nation," Beck said. "This president doesn't have that deep love of the heritage of our nation":