skip to Main Content

Some Things Said… (Dec 05) (3)

Navy Chaplain Told to Stop Praying in the Name of Jesus

Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is facing the end of a 14-year career because his commanding officer wants him to stop using the name of Jesus. He said his commanding officer told a Navy board that, as a chaplain, he overemphasizes his own faith.

“He was talking about my sermons and prayers, Klingenschmitt said. “He specifically cited the chaplain school director who told him that I was an immature chaplain because I pray in Jesus’ name.” A 1998 regulation mandates that Navy Chaplains are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus. But Klingenschmitt says its really a battle over First Amendment rights and religious freedom. –from as submitted by Mark Zaveson.

Polls Show Public Is Ambivalent Over “Merry Christmas

While the “war on Christmas” rages in the public square, on cable news and even in Congress, most Americans say they privately support the holiday but remain apathetic about the debate, according to new polls. –from a news release by Jason Kane at Religion and Ethics Newsweekly found at this site

Here Come the Brides

Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.

On September 23, 2005 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom theyd met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon. –from an article by Stanley Kurtz in The Weekly Standard 12.26.05, Volume 011, Issue 15

The problem with thinking

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. — William Shakespeare

The problem with divorce

When divorces can be summoned to the aid of levity, of vanity, or of avarice, a state of marriage frequently becomes a state of war or stratagem. –James Wilson, 1791 – as found at

What Jesus (and therefore God) had to say about polygamy, homosexual marriage and divorce for any cause…

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”–Matthew 19:3-9

(This single passage of scripture dispenses with all of the false notions concerning divorce for any cause as well as the thought of homosexual marriage or that of polygamy, and is in direct conflict with some of the notions mentioned in three of the excerpts listed this week. RAV)

A Jealous God

“The Galileo prototype of the scientist martyred by religion is now purely a myth. Science long ago won its war against religion, not just traditional religion, but any faith in a power outside the human mind. Now it wants more.”

In A Jealous God , award-winning journalist Pamela R. Winnick exposes some of the more unsavory and dangerous characteristics of the scientific establishment that have contributed to the erosion of human dignity and led to the abuse of individuals for the sake of science. She presents countless examples where unethical and borderline criminal conduct by scientists and researchers has been rationalized and excused away in their zealous pursuit of selfish promotion and personal financial gain. Driven many times by blind ambition and sheer greed, many of these individuals have willingly compromised the sacred status of human life and embraced a perilous relativistic moral stance that establishes a dangerous precedent in science’s pursuit of progress.

Winnick tackles the controversial aspects of abortion head on. She challenges the rationalizations and arguments used by pro-abortionists that claim a fetus is just another appendage of the mothers body and only has “potential” life, not worthy of the same protections afforded to all human life: “The fetus had to be kept down in order to prop up a womans right to abortion. If the fetus is given status as a human, then obviously its intentional destruction could not be permitted any more than the destruction of a fully formed life.”

Amazingly, the book reveals that in a friend-of-the-court brief in Roe v. Wade, more than two hundred doctors from institutions like Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic concluded that “modern obstetrics has discarded as unscientific the concept that the child in the womb is but tissue of the mother. [ …] From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly growing organism…” –excerpted from a review By Chris Banescu of the book A Jealous God by Pamela R. Winnick, at Find this story here


Why after over two centuries of virtually unimpeded expression and celebration, has Christmas come under attack? Its not just secularization since the “60s. Even as the society underwent massive changes, Christmas remained relatively unscathed.

How about radical egalitarianism — the drive to eliminate any kind of inequity in American society? In this view, unless everyone enjoys celebrating Christmas, no one should do so in the public arena. No matter if the overwhelming majority of Americans who celebrate Christmas want to express that celebration with creches and Christmas trees in the town square, or carols and plays in school. If such “offends” one person, we must eliminate them completely — in the name of “fairness.” That is, quite simply, a “tyranny of the minority.”

Throw in the ACLU, attempting to browbeat Americans into believing that public celebrations establish a “state religion” — and are thus unconstitutional. Attempting to make everybody “equally miserable” is more like it. –from an article by Arnold Ahlert at

Father Knows best…

The fact is that most fathers are not incestuous rapists. Likewise, most parents are not unhinged throwbacks who simply cannot handle juvenile pregnancies. Indeed, parents know a lot more about their children than do abortion advocates or judges. They have the history and connection with their kids to help them get through the trauma of such a pregnancy. Even in the most caring families, though, children often try to hide misconduct rather than face recrimination or embarrassment. The law should not reinforce those inclinations by allowing minors to bar parental knowledge or consent. What these groups fail to recognize is that the rights of speech, association and religion mean little if parents cannot teach and reinforce moral choices within their families. Family values and integrity are not the enemies of the right to privacy but the very things that privacy is meant to protect. –Jonathan Turley from The Patriot Brief 05-50 12.12.05

The marriage of many

“Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle.” So goes the motto of a Christian pro-polygamy organization that has been watching the battle over homosexual “marriage” rights with keen interest.

“Were coming. We are next. Theres no doubt about it, we are next,” says Mark Henkel, founder of

Traditional values groups often argue that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is a “slippery slope” — that if marriage is redefined to allow homosexuals to “wed,” it will be further redefined to allow other unions, including polygamous ones.

Homosexual rights leaders and their allies insist that the “slippery slope” argument is a rhetorical dodge. It’s a “scare tactic,” says Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson…

South Dakota lawmakers this year proposed the first constitutional marriage amendment that specifically outlaws unions of “two or more” persons. The measures author, South Dakota state Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, said the ban on polygamy is intentional. After Canada legalized same-sex “marriage,” its government “launched a study to look at the ramifications of polygamy,” Mrs. Kraus said. “Once you open the marriage door to anyone other than one man or one woman, you havent begun to slide down the slippery slope. Youve already hit rock bottom.”
Voters will decide on the measure next November…

Polygamy has been outlawed in the United States since Colonial days, and despite the notable detour of Americas home-grown Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems likely to remain so. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected polygamy in its 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States, which said government can enforce anti-polygamy laws even if they run counter to peoples religious beliefs.

Utahs Constitution outlaws polygamy “forever” and, in 2001, the states anti-polygamy laws were upheld when Thomas Green, a fundamentalist Mormon man with five wives, was sent to prison for bigamy and related crimes.

In recent years, the federal government and 40 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in that state, says “the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of ones choice.”

Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. “[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?” Mr. Krauthammer has asked.

However, many conservatives say legalized polygamy is a serious threat but not an imminent one. “I think right now probably the courts would not go for polygamy,” says Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla., who fights for traditional marriage in lawsuits and supports a federal marriage amendment…

However, conservatives say, legalized same-sex “marriage” was unthinkable just a few years ago and they think a battle over polygamy legalization can’t be very far off. “We’ve got some judicial activists all over the country, especially on the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals], who would probably be ready, willing and able to include polygamy as a constitutional right,” Mrs. LaRue says…

Pro-polygamy activists are counting on time being on their side. “Polygamy would make sense” if people didnt have knee-jerk reactions based on stereotypical information and instead thought about it intelligently,” Mr. Henkel says.

Two polygamous families associated with Mr. Henkels organization agreed to speak by telephone with The Washington Times on the condition that they wouldnt reveal their names or whereabouts. They all said their marriage choices were logical, biblical, normal and worthy of legal recognition…

“Hes always had more love than I could absorb,” Momma says. Good polygamous men, she adds, “are not trying to create a collection [of wives]. Theyre trying to make sure this [single] woman has a support mechanism for her and her children.” And religiously speaking, they have no doubt they are living Gods will. “Biblically, it stands that marriage has always been more than one wife,” Momma says. “It says right in the Scriptures that youve got men throughout the ages who have always taken care of more than one wife.” Says Poppa: “Polygamy is family. Its us. Its a unity and identity of a family group. … It is the ultrafamily.”

The second polygamous family also rejected characterizations of their lives as abnormal, sex-focused or prone to child abuse…

The goal, therefore, is to convince conservatives, especially Christians, that “consenting adult” polygamy is biblical and valuable, both to society and to individual men and women. Once the conservatives come around, Mr. Henkel says confidently, opposition to polygamy “will come crashing down … like a house of cards.”–excerpted from an article by Cheryl Wetzstein in The Washington Times 12.11.05 (I would encourage all Christians to read this article in its entirety as this is a part of the agenda of godlessness that is being jack booted through courts bypassing the polls and into the laws of this land. RAV)

Article contributed by Richard Vandagriff and Mark Zaveson

Back To Top