Over the weekend, Jerry Boykin was interviewed on a radio program out of Bakersfield, California ahead of a scheduled appearance at a local church early next week where he will undoubtedly promote his anti-Islam conspiracy theories.
During the interview, Boykin warned that every serious Muslim was determined to enshrine Sharia wherever they lived and that they were making great progress in establishing it in America. This prompted one of the co-hosts to ask Boykin about Dearborn, Michigan which he claimed was "almost one hundred percent Muslim and operating under Sharia law now," a statement with which Boykin agreed, adding that "if you walk down the streets, you would think you were in Beirut or Damascus":
Just this morning we had a post noting how Eric Metaxas' book "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" had become a favorite of the Religious Right, largely due to parallels they see between Dietrich Bonhoeffer resistance to the Nazi regime and their own opposition to President Obama and his administration.
Now we see that Metaxas and Jennifer Roback Morse of the NOM affiliated Ruth Institute, are featured in a new video from the Acton Institute in which Metaxas declares that, just as Bonhoeffer warned under the Nazis, the time has come for the Church to rise up together against the Obama administration's contraception mandate because it literally represents "a threat to the United States of America" and failure to stop it means "the end of America" because, as Morse ominously notes, if the government can get away with this, then "they're going to squash you like a bug":
Recently, singer Carrie Underwood revealed her support for marriage equality, while Dick and Lynne Cheney publicly supported the marriage of their gay daughter Mary to her partner and even former anti-gay marriage activist David Blankenhorn announced that he had changed his views.
But Janet Mefferd is not impressed, mainly because none of these people have any "reasons" for their views and are unable to provide any "arguments" in favor of them. Instead, Mefferd claims, they are just citing "regurgitated talking points [that are] continually reinforced by an insidious social movement that wants unanimous compliance on its immoral agenda -- an agenda that many more Americans would reject if it were brought into broad daylight, where all its lies, obfuscations and straw men could be exposed."
In fact, Mefferd explains, the "talking points" used to support marriage equality are no different from the talking points used to support the right to choose as gay activists seek to "make "heterosexuals scared to offend homosexuals" and talk about the issue in terms of equality and love while making "no mention of sodomy":
1. Both agendas operate as anti-child cultures of death. Abortion kills children. Homosexual behavior can't create them.
2. Both agendas falsely play on people's unnecessary fear and guilt by focusing on the micro personal story, rather than the macro moral issue. For abortion activists, the question often was framed thusly: "What if your daughter found herself in a crisis pregnancy? Shouldn't she have the right to choose?" The LGBT activist subtly alters his question to this: "What if your daughter announced she's gay? Shouldn't she have the right to choose whom to love?" And, of course, if your answer focuses on deeper questions about the effect on society of embracing abortion on demand or so-called homosexual marriage, rather than personal love for your own flesh and blood, then you look like a jerk. This is why the questions are put the way they are. "This isn't about society. It's about your daughter. Don't you love your daughter?" LGBT activists have gained many a quasi-conservative convert just because that person had a gay daughter, son or friend and couldn't look beyond the love lines. Emphasizing the personal is a very effective tactic, and both lobbies have used it successfully. The abortion lobby did it by making men scared to offend women. The LGBT lobby does it by making heterosexuals scared to offend homosexuals. Same tactic, different objective.
3. Both agendas rely heavily on Orwellian Newspeak. For the abortion activists, the terminology is "a woman's right to choose," "reproductive health decision" or "termination of pregnancy." No mention of babies. For the LGBT activists, the terminology is "equality," "civil rights" and "love." No mention of sodomy.
4. Both agendas count on the media to frame the agenda for the general public, reporting only stories that make the agenda look good and its opposition look bad. From Planned Parenthood to women who have had abortions to abortionists themselves, the media dutifully paints the pro-abortion zealots as selfless heroes who just care about women. One-sided stories are vital to the cause, which is why you'll rarely see more than a token quote from a pro-lifer in any major news report on abortion. And if you're waiting to see an expose on Planned Parenthood or actual pictures of dismembered babies on a nightly TV newscast, keep on waiting.
The LGBT activists enjoy the same treatment. To the media, homosexuals are an honorable and severely oppressed victim class, and they're all born gay -- no exceptions. Consequently, you'll only see media portrayals of Awesome Homosexuals. They're sensitive, good-looking and saintly; they're wonderful friends with brilliant minds, sharp wits and caring personal advice at the ready. And they're everywhere: on TV, in the movies, on the news, in the White House (except the non-Awesome ones who recently got caught flipping off portraits of President Reagan). Which brings up a periodic problem the media has when the storyline doesn't go as planned: you know, like when actress Cynthia Nixon declared that for her, being gay is a choice. Or when singer Melissa Etheridge's partner, Julie Cypher, left her, with this exit line: "I'm not gay." But when Jerry Sandusky or Catholic priests sexually abuse little boys, you won't see any media outlet raise the slightest question about the accused's sexual preferences. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.
5. Both agendas have succeeded by obfuscating the physical death, pain or injury that comes from embracing their agenda. When, again, was the last time you saw a major network broadcast photos of dismembered preborn children? Oh, yes, we already covered that. Never. Similarly, why don't we ever see a major news analysis on the health risks of homosexuality, as reported on the website of the Centers for Disease Control? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
I guess we are all to believe that the moment America's First Gay President repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," all the health risks of homosexuality magically went away. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.
6. Both agendas have thrived by relying on the Saul Alinsky-esque tactics of targeting, freezing, personalizing and polarizing their opponents. There are no reasonable, honest and fair debates with the Abortion Lobby or the LGBT Lobby. It's not how they get stuff done. It's all about making the opposition look bad, in order to skirt the real issue of whether or not their agenda is moral or good for society. So in the agenda-pushing scheme of things, those who support abortion are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness, and those who don't are judgmental, religious zealots. Those who support so-called homosexual marriage also are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness. And those who don't are judgmental, religious zealots. See how easy that was?
7. Both agendas seek "religious cover." It's why you see stories like the recent news report on the Washington, D.C.-based "Christian" obstetrician, who changed his mind on abortion and decided to start killing preborn children out of his great "compassion" for women. Or why the senior religion editor at The Huffington Post breathlessly reported a story over the weekend about religious people "celebrating" LGBT Pride. Again, religious people who embrace abortion or homosexuality -- even if they're violating the very tenets of their own religion by doing so -- are good. But religious people who oppose those practices are evil, bigoted, homophobic and -- let's face it -- probably hiding a secret abortion or same-sex affair.
Eric Metaxas has written two books in recent years that have been widely embraced by the Religious Right, largely because the movement sees parallels between the Metaxas' subjects and their own ideological crusades.
The first book that caught their attention was the book "Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery" which was widely promoted by the Right as a parallel to their fight against abortion.
Then, in 2011, Metaxas released "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy," a biography about German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was put to death by the Nazis for his role in the resistance, and to whom the Religious Right compares itself in opposing the Obama administration and liberals in general.
On Friday's episode of "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events," Rick Joyner saw prophetic significance in the combination of Metaxas two works, revealing that they serve as a warning that "if we don't take the kind of action that Wilberforce took, we're going to end up being martyrs like Bonhoeffer":
It is no secret that we have been vocal critics of David Barton and his brand of pseudo-historical Religious Right activism, but we have not been going it alone as there a variety of individuals who have criticized Barton, ranging from Chris Rodda and Warren Throckmorton who have thoroughly debunked much of Barton's false history to Christian conservatives like Chris Pinto and Brannon Howse who have criticized him from the right.
Today on his radio program, Barton said he expects to be attacked by groups like us and Americans United and Media Matters because we all "hate God" but said he was surprised to get criticism from Christians and attributed that criticism to the fact that these Christians must have gotten their information from secular professors and are now just "parroting what they heard":
Barton: Well one of the things I found really interesting is, certainly with what we do at WallBuilders, we got a lot of opponents, we got a lot of people who hate us. I was telling a group of law students the other day that I know of four law schools who have entire websites going after me. The book we recently did on the Jefferson Lies, there's two professors who came out with a book rebutting it before I'd even released the book! We don't have to read this stuff, we just know it's all false.
Rick Green: Hey, but if you're not taking flak you know you're not over the target, right?
Barton: Exactly. And what we have is a number of Christian colleges now teaching entire courses on how bad I am and so I'm one of these targets out there. And I expect that from the secular guys. I expect that from the the Freedom From Religion Society [sic], I expect that from Americans United, I expect that from People for the American Way and Media Matters ...
Green: ... the people that have worked so hard to move us away from our foundation.
Barton: The guys that hate God. What's been surprising is how many Christians have jumped on board - no, no God had nothing to do with the American founding; America was founded as a wicked nation; all the Founding Fathers were atheists and agnostics ...
Green: From the Christian community?
Barton: From the Christian community! Now I expect that from the secular guys but the reason it's coming from the Christian community is it goes back to something Jesus said in Luke 6:40 where he said "every student, when he's fully trained, will be like his teacher." now what's happened is all these secular guys have been training students that were Christians, but now these Christian kids have been trained with a secular philosophy, they've become our professors and they're just parroting what they heard. It's not that they went back and check for themselves, they just assumed that their professors were right- they really like their professors, they were nice guys and they were really educated and had three Ph.Ds and they told me all the Founders were atheists. And so now you've to Christians repeating exactly what they've been taught rather than what truth and what history actually is.
You will undoubtly shocked to learn that Barton's claim that the book refuting his "Jefferson Lies" book came out before his book was even released is entirely false. His book was released on April 10 whereas "Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President" was released on May 3.
Also, we hereby challenge Barton to name any of the "four law schools who have entire websites" dedicated to attacking him as well as to name even one of the "number of Christian colleges now teaching entire courses on how bad" he is because, frankly, we have no idea what he is talking about.
Tomorrow, the Pentagon will hold its first ever event honoring LGBT pride month and Linda Harvey is predictably outraged, calling it " yet another low level of ungodliness" reached by the Obama administration and a "sad, sad time for the United States":
The America that we have known and loved is sinking fast, friends. Yet another low level of ungodliness has been reached by the current leadership in Washington. For the first time in history, the Pentagon is observing so-called "gay pride" during the month of June. It's a first because until last year, open homosexual behavior and identity were still prohibited by our armed forces, but not any longer. It's gone from a reason for disgrace to an alleged reason for pride. Well, only one of those two positions is correct in God's eyes and it's not the one honoring sexual deviance. This is a sad, sad time for the United States.
Last month, shortly after President Obama announced his support for marriage equality, Sen. Rand Paul spoke at an Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event where he joked that he "wasn’t sure that [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer."
A few days later, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins was asked about the remark on "Face the Nation" where he mildly rebuked Paul, saying “I don’t think this is something we should joke about. We are talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate.”
Perkins' criticism of Paul has, in turn, angered Peter LaBarbera who told Sandy Rios last week that "we need to be praising Republicans who speak out on homosexual marriage and the gay agenda, we shouldn't be chastising them":
This makes me sad, Sandy. I like Tony Perkins, I like the work he does at Family Research Council but the Left started criticizing Rand Paul for joking about gays and then Tony Perkins was asked about it on "Face The Nation," I think [by] Bob Schieffer," and he criticized Rand Paul and said this is not a joking matter and I just have to disagree you. You just played the tape; Rand Paul didn't do anything wrong. The President's positions on homosexual marriage have been almost comical; he was for homosexual marriage before he was against it now he's for it again. So, and Rand Paul obviously spoke with compassion, he said this is not about hating people so it really troubled me to see Tony Perkins cave in to the liberal media and criticize Rand Paul when, you're absolutely right, we need to be praising Republicans who speak out on homosexual marriage and the gay agenda, we shouldn't be chastising them.
Today's episode of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program featured Steve Crampton and Harry Mihet praising the roundly criticized study by Mark Regnerus on gay parenting, calling it a "blockbuster" that "blows the lid" off of the claims that kids are not damaged by being raised in gay households.
But mainly Crampton and Mihet hailed the study for confirming both common sense and the Bible because, as Crampton said "true science always seems to me to reinforce and strengthen what the Scripture tells us from the start":
As we have noted several times before, Religious Right radio show host Steve Deace has made a habit of inviting openly anti-Mormon activists onto his program to make the case that Christians cannot vote for Mitt Romney purely because of his faith.
Last night, Deace interviewed Stephen Mansfield, author of the forthcoming book "The Mormonizing of America: How the Mormon Religion Became Became a Dominant Force in Politics, Entertainment, and Pop Culture" to discuss the issue of Romey's Mormonism once again, during which Deace complained that whenever he criticizes Romney, he gets accused of being an anti-Mormon bigot.
Of course, Deace is not being accused of anti-Mormonism because he is criticizing Romney's inconsistent record or history of flip-flops but rather because he frequently offers air time to people who liken voting for Romney to voting for Satan. And, in fact, during the discussion with Mansfield, Deace openly wondered how voters can justify supporting candidates just because they might be good on some issues despite that fact they also "believe things that are so crazy" like Mormonism:
What I have found is, you know, I can vet every other Republican candidate running for president the last two cycles, I can vet their record. I can talk about I don't like Rick Santorum's endorsement of Arlen Specter and nobody calls me an anti-Catholic bigot. I can vet the record of every other Republican running for ... I can vet Rudy Giuliani's record and nobody calls me a bigot against agnostics. But if I vet Mitt Romney's record, I'm a religious bigot and this continues on to this day.
At some level, when people believe things that are so crazy, does that cancel out where they're at on anything else?
When Deace was "vetting" the other GOP candidates, he never explicitly attacked any of them for their faith, yet he does exactly that to Romney on a regular basis. So if Deace doesn't like being called an anti-Mormon bigot, perhaps he ought to stop offering air time to (and agreeing with) anti-Mormon activists.
As is customary, Bryan Fischer began his radio program yesterday with a discussion of his current reading in the Bible, in this case a passage from the Book of Ephesians pertaining to Satan, demons, and spiritual warfare. The discussion prompted Fischer to declare that Satan's spiritual warfare is always at work in our culture and that Satan is behind everything from gay rights to Planned Parenthood to environmentalism:
Any time you see some kind of agenda that is anti-human being, it's anti-baby, it's anti-humanity, it's anti-population growth, you're looking at something that ultimately comes from Satan himself. He hates human beings. Why? Because we are made in the image of God. We remind Satan of the God that he hates and so he wants to stir up in human beings the same kind of hatred for humanity that he has. And he'll use Planned Parenthood to do it, he will use the pro-abortion movement to do it. He will use the pro-gay movement to do it because you can't get human beings out of the homosexual lifestyle; it's not possible so that's one way to slow population growth. He can get there through the environmental movement which is flatly opposed to population growth and actually proposes abortion policies as a way of reducing pressure on the environment. So anywhere you see that anti-human agenda, you are looking at the work of Satan himself.
Earlier today we posted a video of Frank Gaffney claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood was waging "pre-violent" jihad against America by infiltrating our churches, courtrooms, and capital markets in order to "destroy us from within."
Gaffney's explained that it was the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood to use "pre-violent" jihad in places where outright violence would hinder their efforts to install Sharia. America is just such a place, which is why the Brotherhood is currently working behind the scenes in order to soften us up to the point where it can engage in open violence without fear of resistance.
On yesterday's episode of "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events," Gaffney explained that the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" was evidence to Islamic fundamentalists that "our submission is inevitable" and so they must "redouble the effort to make us feel subdued" which means that they will move from the "pre-violent" phase of the plan "to the phase where violence is not only possible, it's mandatory":
One of the central components of David Barton's entire brand of pseudo-history is the way in which he holds up obscure documents, sermons, and individuals from the Founding Era and presents them as representative of the entire generation.
Barton will cite some textbook with references to God, or some sermon discussing the rights of conscience, or some Founding Father who delivered an impassioned defense of Christianity and declare that at the founding of this nation, everyone knew these things and held these views.
Barton is constantly citing unfamiliar individuals from the Founding Era, discussing how religious they were and then asserting that they were extremely influential in drafting the Constitution and shaping the nation. The fact that nobody today has ever heard of any of them is, for Barton, proof that secularists have been succeeding in erasing our Christian history.
Today, Barton provided some insight into just how his mind works when making these sorts of claims when he hosted Rep. Todd Akin on his "WallBuilders Live" radio program. Barton and co-host Rick Green were discussing how people today might be aware of maybe 20-25 high-profile members of Congress despite the fact that there are more than 500 hundred serving in office. Lots of the lesser known members, Barton said, are dedicated Christians while the better-known members frequently are not, giving the American public a skewed view of just how truly Christian our Congress really is.
Barton and Green held up Akin as proof, explaining that when he speaks to the Pastor's Briefings they regularly host on Washington, DC, the pastors are always blown away by just how deeply religious and biblically knowledgeable he is, prompting Barton and Green to compare Akin to John Witherspoon during the Founding Era:
Green: It's probably like with the Founding Fathers when you start pointing out all these guys that went to a seminary and were pastors and did all that, it changes people's perception of the Founders. I figure Todd Akin, he's like the John Witherspoon, you know Witherspoon was probably quoting a lot of the same stuff that Todd Akin is out there quoting to fellow members of Congress and to these pastors.
Barton: But the problem is, it's like today, you know I show that slide of the 56 signers of the [Declaration of Independence] and I get kids at really sharp schools, I mean Ivy League schools, and the most they can give me is two of the 56. And I start going through like John Witherspoon ... John Who? Never heard of John Witherspoon. Well, her served on a hundred committees in Congress, he was George Washington's boss, he was on the Board of War during the Revolution to direct the Revolution, he was the President of Princeton. You've never heard of him but he's a really significant Founding Father and, by the way, he is a preacher and a minister and wrote a dozen books of sermons and did two bibles - it's kind of like Todd Akin. If you throw Todd Akin out there, people go "Todd Who? Haven't heard of him." He's like that Witherspoon guy. We know the 20-25 out of Congress, not the 535 so the perception is bad.
This is rather telling because is reveals a bit about how Barton operate because, while Akin is certainly an influential member of Congress, he is probably not a "really significant" figure that future historians will be writing about two hundred years from now ... except, of course, for future Barton-like psuedo-historians who will probably look back on this current generation and hold up somewhat obscure elected officials like Akin as representative not only of the views of this Congress, but of this entire generation.
As we noted the other day, Frank Gaffney is the featured guest all this week on Rick Joyner's "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" programs where he is explaining how the Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in a conspiracy to "keep us stupid" about the way in which Sharia is taking over America.
On Tuesday, Gaffney expanded further on this idea, declaring that the Muslim Brotherhood was waging "pre-violent" jihad against America by systematically infiltrating the nation's churches, courts, and even our capital markets, all as part of a "civilization jihad" which seeks to "use our institutions, to use our government as well, to destroy us from within":
On Monday's program, Bryan Fischer dedicated a segment to reading and discussing a recent Maureen Down column on the Jerry Sandusky trial which prompted Fischer to longingly look back to previous generations when "our entire society said the same thing about homosexual behavior that we still say about pedophilia."
Not too long ago, Fischer said, homosexuality was called "the infamous crime against nature" and everyone looked upon it as we look upon pedophilia today. But, he lamented, that is no longer the case, which is proof that this nation needs to reaffirm the "time-honored moral standards of the Judeo-Christian tradition":
All year, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has been releasing monthly videos laying out "irrefutable proofs that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian!"
Today the CADC released its latest video focusing on Obama's support for gay rights, claiming that he has "recently come out of the closet" in support of marriage equality and thus "has revealed his true anti-Christian colors."
But Cass is particularly upset by the way Obama "invokes Christ to try and justify his anti-Christ position" because "the Bible is very clear about homosexual acts being a very evil thing":
Last night, the Family Research Council hosted a webcast entitled "Two Weeks for Freedom: Catholics and Evangelicals Together for Freedom" that was billed as kicking off "a two week period of nationwide prayer and action in support of religious liberty" by mobilizing conservative Christians to oppose the Obama administration's contraception mandate.
The first guest on the program was Mike Huckabee, who declared that it was become clear that "this administration is not just indifferent to people of faith, it's hostile" and warning that if all Christians don't stand beside the Catholic Church in opposing the mandate, then next the EPA might be telling Baptists that they can no longer use water for their baptism ceremonies:
We have been noticing in recent months that David Barton has developed a new series of talking points claiming not merely that various governmental and social institution were inspired by the Bible, but that specific provisions of the Constitution were taken verbatim from the Bible.
This entire idea hinges on Barton's assertion that the Founding Fathers and their entire generation were so well-versed in the Bible that their writings and speeches were filled with language and imagery that didn't even have to be attributed to the Bible because it was already obvious to everyone what they were quoting.
And this has become a central part of Barton's presentation, as he is going around the country declaring that because the Founding Fathers were so knowledgeable about the Bible, "it is absolutely no surprise that so many of the clauses we find in the Constitution are literal, direct quotations out of the Bible" ... even if they never "put a chapter and verse by it."
Barton claims that if you "check that language of the Constitution against the Bible, you will go 'that is an exact quote!'" and then declares that Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees to every state a Republican form of government, "came directly out of Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1: 13-16, and Deuteronomy 16:18":
We have heard Barton make the bogus claim about Exodus 18:21 before but the Deuteronomy citations are new so, for the record, here are the passages that Barton claims were directly quoted in our Constitution:
Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. And I charged your judges at that time, “Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you.
Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly.
We challenge anyone to find these "literal, direct quotations out of the Bible" printed anywhere in the US Constitution.