| Editor: David E Marlett Th.D. | |
| Jan 5, 2002 | Vol III #1 |
[ NewsMax.com ]
Taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (aka National Pinko Radio) is accusing a Christian group of mailing anthrax to liberal senators because the group once circulated a press release critical of the lefties.
Traditional Values Coalition said in statement today:
NPR reporter David Kestenbaum called TVC's Andrea Lafferty Thursday afternoon and asked, "Have you been contacted by the FBI yet?" Mrs. Lafferty said her organization had not and asked why the FBI would contact her. "Because of what's going on in the Congress with anthrax," she said Kestenbaum responded.
Asked why the church group would be suspected of mailing anthrax, Kestenbaum said he had seen a press release in which TVC criticized Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., over their plan to drop the phrase "so help me God" from the oath witnesses take before testifying in a Senate committee. Kestenbaum, according to Mrs. Lafferty, deemed that the press release made TVC and its 43,000 member churches suspect.
"National Public Radio is the broadcast arm of the liberal establishment," said Mrs. Lafferty. "The First Amendment is a one-way street from NPR - their reporters have protection but religious groups like ours are suspect.
"No wonder many in Washington refer to it as National Peoples Radio. It is a taxpayer-funded employment program for left-wing reporters who can't cut it in the big leagues because their bias keeps getting in the way.
"This is a baseless and factless attempt to smear conservative Christians by saying we are the moral equivalent of the Taliban. NPR's radio scripts are being written at the Democratic National Committee."
** Those Intolerant Democrats
As Newsweek reported this week, the Democrats plan to attack conservative Christians as the "American Taliban."
"The theory goes like this," the liberal mag reported. "Our enemy in Afghanistan is religious extremism and intolerance. It's therefore more important than ever to honor the ideals of tolerance - religious, sexual, racial, reproductive - at home. The GOP is out of the mainstream, some Democrats will argue next year [2002], because it's too dependent upon an intolerant 'religious right.'"
TVC noted, "Last week, the New York Times launched the first strike against Christian conservatives by referring to the Taliban as 'the religious right.'"
Well, what can you expect from the anti-religious left?
Charles H. Rice, Sr. -
Pastor Emeritus, Goodman Road Baptist Church, Memphis TN
[ Baptist Bible Trumpet ]
Has there ever been a time when the average American citizen knew so much about so many things and yet understood so little? Is it any wonder that television's Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' are so inordinately popular. Future historians will accurately designate this time in our history as "The TRIVIA Age". Solomon described this generation when he wrote in Proverbs 1:22, "How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?" Surely it's obvious that we love to be ignorant.
Have you noticed that the constitutional rights of American citizens are increasingly being ignored, restricted, or attacked by elected and appointed government officials and employees? Doesn't it seem that these people have little if any knowledge or understanding of our country's founding fathers, or the great instruments upon which our REPUBLIC were founded? Shouldn't they read and become acquainted with the Mayflower Compact of 1620, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Articles of Confederation in 1777, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, etc.? Hasn't Americans' preachers and news media been guaranteed freedom under the first amendment to the Constitution? Then, don't they have the responsibility to courageously preach the truth and the facts without fear or favor?
Aren't liberals always talking about "Hate crimes" and "Gun control" and 'A Woman's right to choose(?)" and "Alternate(?) lifestyles" and "Freedom of expression," i.e. allowing pornography, sexual perversion, filthy language and degradation that is saturating our country via literature and television? Surely we can see that Liberals know how to produce a SMOKE SCREEN.
Would you please ask yourself a few good and pertinent questions? Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than promoting or tolerating sexual perversion with its disastrous results on society? Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than restricting a citizen's Constitutional right to self-protection?
Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than a woman choosing to kill her innocent, unborn baby? Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than polluting our citizens' minds with the filth of pornography and vulgarity? Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than poisoning the minds of our public school children with the unproved, God-denying theory of evolution and calling it science? Is there anything MORE HATEFUL than denying or limiting any American citizen of their God-given, Constitutionally protected liberties through unconstitutional laws, rules, licenses, and regulations? Have you asked yourself why it is necessary for a citizen to obtain a license to do something that our Constitution already guarantees us the liberty to do? Where is the outrage of our preachers, our citizens, and especially our free press and news media?
What's happened is we are getting dumber as we lose our fear of God. Friends, if we think education is expensive, wait till we've tried ignorance a while.
[ CNSNews.com ]
Many overtly religious words and phrases have become as common as campaign promises in the oratory of America's political leaders since the September 11 terrorist attacks. But what, if any role will religion play in the conservative agenda for 2002?
In his September 15 radio address to the nation, president Bush made at least three direct references to religious themes.
"We are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil [1] of terrorism. And we are determined to see this conflict through. Americans of every faith [2] and background are committed to this goal," Bush said. "In the past week, we have seen the American people at their very best everywhere in America. Citizens have come together to pray [3], to give blood, to fly our country's flag. Americans are coming together to share their grief and gain strength from one another."
Bush and other conservative lawmakers have continually referred to the U.S. and its allies in terms of being "right" and fighting a "righteous" battle, while defining terrorists and their supporters in the Taliban government as the "forces of darkness," and "evildoers."
But Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who has worked for both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), warns that conservatives will not be able to successfully transform a loose affiliation with religious themes into overt conservative religious influence over policy decisions.
"For example ... there's no question that if George Bush nominates an 'anti-choice' nominee to the Supreme Court there is gonna be a major conflict over that and it's a conflict I think that the Republicans will lose," Mellman said. "[Abortion supporters] don't want a small group of so-called 'moral majoritarians' to use the court to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us."
Michael Barone, author of The Almanac of American Politics, says liberals trying to discredit religious influence in politics may be gaining ground by linking the strong beliefs of religious conservatives in the U.S. with the religious-based violence of "Islamists" in Afghanistan.
"The project of informing public policy by strong religious belief may be cast into some doubt," he said, "although it's unfair to compare the American 'religious right' to the Taliban."
Barone believes the power of religious conservatives and other groups to influence legislative content and presidential nominations may be significantly diminished by such tactics.
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, however, believes that religion will continue to play a significant role in America's political discourse.
"You have the President of the United States, who is the most explicitly religious president, certainly since Carter ... who is at 87 percent popularity and talks about 'evildoers,'" he explained. "I would argue that the values issue [and] healthcare are the two most likely 'big' issues for Congress, and for the administration over the next three years, apart from, obviously, the war and the economy."
Mellman, Barone, and Kristol spoke at a Hudson Institute briefing Thursday.
Kristol feels a new moral issue like cloning, on which many voters have not yet developed firmly-entrenched positions, have great potential for volatility.
"There is some sense that something interesting is happening out there and one has to decide about the relation of religion and politics in the context of things like cloning coming up as legislative agenda items," he concluded. "I think you could have a values-driven election in '02, and the history of values-driven elections is that it's very hard to see how they play out."
By Chuck Baldwin
It is a truism that Christians are trusting to a fault. I must acknowledge my own vulnerability to this weakness. The money I have lost and pain I have suffered at the hands of people I trusted are inestimable. When it comes to politicians, however, one would hope for more discernment. Alas, such is not the case. It could even be argued that modern Christians put more trust in their politicians than they do their preachers.
A recent Washington Post article boldly states that President Bush is the "de facto leader" of the Religious Right. It states, "Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence." Former Republican presidential hopeful, Gary Bauer, even declared, "A man of God is in the White House."
Another recent report said, "Conservative Christians say their support for President Bush remains strong, although it's based more on the president's religious beliefs than any of his stands or policies on their top social issues." In other words, it does not make any difference what Bush does; he gives them the talk they want to hear.
Given this foolish infatuation with religious rhetoric, it would appear that conservative Christians owe Jimmy Carter an apology. Remember that Carter won the presidency on the strength of his Christian profession. By the end of his first term, however, conservative Christians enthusiastically supported his opponent, Ronald Reagan. Why? Carter betrayed conservatives on things like gay rights and big government spending. In those days, conservative Christians were more interested in a politician's walk than in his talk. No more.
Today, the president can embrace gay rights, big government spending, and even pagan religion without consternation or criticism. He can ignore the U.S. Constitution and trample the bedrock principles of self-government without even so much as a whimper. He can support embryonic stem cell research, promote unconstitutional trade deals, and call for the creation of a "hemispheric family" and "international order" with Canada and Mexico without the slightest opposition. He can ignore abortion (even partial birth abortion) and even participate in the cover-up of Clinton and Reno's criminal conduct without a peep of protest. As long as he "talks the talk," he remains the darling of the Religious Right.
However, the Religious Right is wrong! Blind loyalty to Bush is causing the Religious Right to lose both its credibility and its clout. It has become just another bought and paid for lackey for the entrenched political establishment. Like the old prophets who had sold their souls to the corrupt kings of Israel, conservative Christians today have sold their souls to the gods and generals of the Republican Party.
The Religious Right was a powerful force when it stood foursquare on the principles of morality, honesty, and constitutional government. Today it demonstrates none of that. "Where are the Jeremiahs and Ezekiels?" you ask. They are inside the palace lying on the soft bed of compromise. They wanted a seat at the table so badly they were willing to eat the leeks and garlic of political Egypt to get it. As a result, the Religious Right is as weak as a shaven Samson.
[Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service..]
Most books in support of Contemporary Christian Music justify the use of rock music because of Martin Luther's alleged use of secular tavern songs, but this is based on an inaccurate view of Luther's music. In reality, what Luther did is nothing like what Christian rockers are doing today. The following are some of the serious differences between Luther's music and CCM. (A excellent overview of this is found in Measuring the Music by John Makujina, chapter 7.)
(1) LUTHER WAS EXTREMELY CONSCIOUS OF THE DANGER OF USING THE WORLD'S MUSIC AND WARNED THAT MUSIC HAS THE POWER FOR GOOD OR EVIL. Note the following quote: "For whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, or to appease those full of hate . . . what more effective means than music could you find?" (Luther, "Preface to Georg Rhau's Symphoniae Iucundae," in Luther's Works, vol. 53, 323). He warns that music is "a mistress and governess of those human emotions . . . which was masters govern men or more often overwhelm them" (Ibid.). Thus it is obvious that Luther did not hold the CCM philosophy that music is neutral and without inherent moral qualities.
(2) THOUGH LUTHER ADOPTED THINGS FROM SECULAR MUSIC, HE DID SO ONLY WITH EXTREME CAUTION. Luther carefully changed the music to fit the Christian message. Of his 37 chorales, only one came directly from a secular song, and it was later replaced by a new tune he had written himself. "By avoiding dance tunes and 'de-rhythming' other songs, Luther achieved a chorale with a marked rhythm, but without the devices that would remind the people of the secular world. … Luther chose only those tunes which would best lend themselves to sacred themes and avoided the vulgar, 'rollicking drinking songs' and dance tunes. … He carefully tested the melodies he considered, and when necessary molded them into suitability" (Robert Harrell, Martin Luther: His Music, His Message, 1980). "He was not content to accept anything uncritically: he was jealous of congruity between the theme of the verse and the spirit of the music. He carefully tested the propriety for their purpose of the melodies he considered, and where necessary molded them into suitability" (Millar Patrick, The Story of the Church's Song, p. 74). "Rollicking drinking songs were available in the 16th century too. Luther steered clear of them. He never considered music a mere tool that could be employed regardless of its original association but was careful to match text and tune, so that each text would have its own proper tune and so that both would complement each other" (Ulrich Leupold, an authority on Luther, "Learning from Luther?" Journal of Church Music, July-August 1996, p. 5). "It is perhaps in his selectivity of rhythm that we notice the seldom-acknowledged conservatism of Luther. In order for the congregation to sing in unison, a song had to contain some form of rhythm. The plainsong (Gregorian chant), however, lacked the necessary rhythm. On the other hand, dance songs and drinking songs produced a rhythm far too intense and definite for Luther's purposes. Therefore, it is believed that in developing his chorales, Luther managed to discard dance songs altogether and limit the rhythm in other songs" (Makujina, Measuring the Music, p. 192).
(3) THOUGH LUTHER WANTED TO WRITE SPIRITUAL SONGS THAT WERE PLEASING TO YOUNG PEOPLE, HE WAS CAREFUL TO WEAN THEM AWAY FROM FLESHLY MUSIC. "And these songs were arranged in four parts to give the young--who should at any rate be trained in music and other fine arts--something to wean them away from love ballads and carnal songs and to teach them something of value in their place, thus combining the good with the pleasing, as is proper for youth" (emphasis added) (Martin Luther, "Preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal," in Luther's Works, vol. 53, p. 316).
This is certainly not what we see in CCM! Not only does CCM itself develop worldly appetites in music by uncritically adopting the same, but most of the CCM musicians are hooked directly into secular rock music in their daily lives. We have documented this extensively in our book Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight.
To be removed from this mailing list you can unsubscribe
through the homepage
or send your request to
Unsub-tccn@wilderness-cry.net
If this newsletter was forwarded to you and you would like a free subscription simply send an e-mail to subscribe-tccn@wilderness-cry.net