Obama Plan: Muslim Force or American Liberty?

Mideast expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’

Does Obama’s Plan protect American Liberty?

Garth Kant


President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.
She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”
Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.
She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

EGYPT-POLITICS-UNRESTIn a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/cia-expert-obama-switchedsides-in-war-on-terror/#BQL406ZxRdgRozIi.99

Bible: Real Jesus vs. Fake Prophet

Anatomy of an Anti-Christ: Who is the Real Jesus Christ?

keyoldHe that remaineth steadfast and is not overcome, the same shall be saved. And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived. Matthew 24:11,37 JST

Month-Defining Moment

More Defining Moments

AntichristA word used by John the Revelator to describe one who would assume the guise of Christ, but in reality would be opposed to Christ. In a broader sense it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ. The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants both as spirit beings and as mortals. ~Bible Dictionary, p.609, KJV

wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-150x150A common perception among Christians is that there is one great Anti-Christ to appear in the last days before the Second Coming. However, careful study of the New Testament, especially the writings of the Apostle John, clarifies our understanding. According to Revelation, the great Anti-Christ is the devil. But John warns us of the appearance of many antichrists in these latter days, and if we pay attention to his definition, we can identify many antichrists in the world today, who are earthly minions of the devil. These minions are deceiving many, many people, even whole nations, even some of the very elect, or some Christians.

Matthew 24: 4-13;24

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

bible11 John 2:18,22

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10

Apostasy is to precede the Second Coming—The gospel prepares men for eternal glory.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Revelation 13:4,7,10,14,16

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.

dragon-beastNote: If you consider the world today, the “mark” in the forehead or right hand does not need to be literal. We think with our heads, and we carry out actions that we believe in with our right hand. The number “6” in Hebrew numerology means “man without God.” The number “3” in Hebrew numerology means “covenant.” Thus, three sixes could mean making a covenant against God, or worshiping the religion of atheism. Many people, rich or poor, etc., who have abandoned belief in God, accept atheism, or fight against Christ, may be, in effect, worshiping devilish doctrines without realizing it. Such deceived and misguided persons may bear the “mark of the beast”, but only in their mind, heart, and actions. The “mark” will not be visible to the outside observer.  This is strictly my own opinion. ~C.A. Davidson


4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.

16 And he [the beast or antichrist] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.

Nehor—archetype of an antichrist

I will give you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—Doctrine and Covenants 52:14

swordpirateNehor was an antichrist in ancient American history, about 100, B.C.. He killed a man with a sword for disagreeing with him. After Nehor was punished for his crime, his followers established what was known as the order of Nehor. These followers believed in forcing others to submit to their religion.~ Alma 1:2-16

This is a pattern you can see in the world today. Terrorists of a certain ideological persuasion try to impose their law to stifle free speech and prevent people from criticizing their ideology; they also kill people who do not accept their system of beliefs. They claim to be a religion so they can be granted “freedom of religion”, and get away with their terror in the name of “religion.” The need for discernment here is to distinguish between the sword of evil and the Biblical sword of truth. Ironically, some of the nations who are ruled by the political order of enforced religion have symbols and flags which bear an image of a sword! The order of Nehor lives on today.

What can we do to avoid being deceived?

JesusChristresize13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

He that remaineth steadfast and is not overcome, the same shall be saved. And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived. Matthew 24:11,37 JST

Science and History: Are People not as Smart now?

We Now Have Scientific Proof That People Are Getting Stupider

keyYou don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading. ~Ray Bradbury

Some people are blaming the environment! They’re not even smart to figure out the cause of this problem. It just shows what the corruption of the school system has done to our country. ~C.D.


Michael Snyder

characteredAre people dumber than they used to be?  Were previous generations mentally sharper than us?  You may have suspected that people are getting stupider for quite some time, but now we actually have scientific evidence that this is the case.  As you will read about below, average IQs are dropping all over the globe, SAT scores in the U.S. have been declining for decades, and scientists have even discovered that our brains have been getting smaller over time.  So if it seems on some days like you woke up in the middle of the movie Idiocracy, you might not be too far off.  Much of the stuff that they put in our junk food is not good for brain development, our education system is a total joke and most Americans are absolutely addicted to mindless entertainment.  Fortunately, we have a lot of technology that does much of our thinking for us these days, because if we had to depend on our own mental capabilities, most of us would be in a tremendous amount of trouble.
Most of us today just assume that people are smarter than they ever have been before.

SAT-ScoreMost of us today look down on our ancestors and mock them for being so primitive.

But the truth is that if we had to go up head to head against them in mental challenges, we might find ourselves greatly humbled.

At the end of this article, I have posted an eighth-grade exam from 1912 that was donated to the Bullitt County History Museum in Kentucky.

As you can see, it is far more difficult than anything that eighth-grade students have to do today.  In fact, most eighth-grade students today are doing pretty good if they can point out the United States on a map of the world and can string a few sentences together.

EIGHTH-GRADE-EXAM-facebookI should know – for a short period of time I once taught eighth-grade students.

So when I first came across the exam posted below, I was amazed at how difficult it was.

Could you pass such an exam?

I don’t know if I could.

But these are the kinds of questions that eighth-grade students were expected to be able to answer back in 1912…

-Through which waters would a vessel pass in going from England through the Suez Canal to Manila?

-How does the liver compare in size with other glands in the human body?

-How long of a rope is required to reach from the top of a building 40 feet high to the ground 30 feet from the base of a building?

-Compare arteries and veins as to function. Where is the blood carried to be purified?

-During which wars were the following battles fought: Brandywine, Great Meadows, Lundy’s Lane, Antietam, Buena Vista?

A full copy of the exam is posted below.  Please notice the absence of multiple choice questions where a student can guess by circling an answer.  In the old days, kids were actually expected to be able to think and to be able to write…

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/now-scientific-proof-people-getting-stupider/#mq29vMyCCvoSKL8R.99


Stress Management, Classical Music, and Dvorak

Dinner Topics for Friday

Listen to New World Symphony


Dvorak_1868Antonín Leopold Dvořák  DVOR-zhahk or / Czech:  September 8, 1841 – May 1, 1904) was a Czech composer. Following the nationalist example of Bedřich Smetana, Dvořák frequently employed features of the folk music of Moravia and his native Bohemia (then parts of the Austrian Empire and now constituting the Czech Republic). Dvořák’s own style has been described as ‘the fullest recreation of a national idiom with that of the symphonic tradition, absorbing folk influences and finding effective ways of using them’.[1]

Born in Nelahozeves, Dvořák displayed his musical gifts at an early age. His first surviving work, Forget-Me-Not Polka in C (Polka pomněnka) was written possibly as early as 1854.[2]He graduated from the organ school in Prague in 1859.[3] In the 1860s, he played as a violist in the Bohemian Provisional Theater Orchestra and taught piano lessons. In 1873, he married Anna Čermáková, and left the orchestra to pursue another career as a church organist. He wrote several compositions during this period. Dvořák’s music attracted the interest of Johannes Brahms, who assisted his career; he was also supported by the critic Eduard Hanslick.

After the premiere of his cantata Stabat Mater (1880), Dvořák visited the United Kingdom and became popular there; his Seventh Symphony was written for London. After a brief conducting stint in Russia in 1890, Dvořák was appointed as a professor at the Prague Conservatory in 1891. In 1892, Dvořák moved to the United States and became the director of the National Conservatory of Music of America in New York City, where he also composed. However, a salary dispute, along with increasing recognition in Europe and an onset of homesickness made him decide to return to Bohemia. From 1895 until his death, he composed mainly operatic and chamber music. At his death, he left several unfinished works.

Among Dvořák’s best known works are his New World Symphony, the “American” String Quartet, the opera Rusalka and his Cello Concerto in B minor. Among his smaller works, the seventh Humoresque and the song ‘Songs my mother taught me‘ are also widely performed and recorded. He composed operas, choral music, a wide variety of chamber music, concerti and many other orchestral and vocal and instrumental pieces. He has been described as ‘arguably the most versatile…composer of his time’.[4]

Read more


Science, Brain, and Moral Decision

Dinner Topics for Thursday

keyoldAnd the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. and because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. ~2 Nephi 2:26

University of California Study Denies Concept of Free Will

Rush Limbaugh

freewill1RUSH: By the way, back to free will for a second.  These scientists at the University of California-Davis, say there isn’t any.  “The concept of free will could be little more than the result of background noise in the brain, according to a recent study. It has previously been suggested that our perceived ability to make autonomous choices is an illusion — and now scientists from the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California-Davis, have found that free will may actually be the result of electrical activity in the brain.

“According to the research, published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, decisions could be predicted based on the pattern of brain activity immediately before a choice was made. Volunteers in the study were asked to sit in front of a screen and focus on its central point while their brains’ electrical activity was recorded. They were then asked to make a decision to look either left or right when a cue symbol appeared on the screen, and then to report their decision.”

All of this work, all of this research for the express purpose of proving we’re all robots, essentially, and that there is no free will.  “We’re not autonomous, we don’t make up our own minds, and therefore we need somebody doing it for us like Obama and the Democrat Party.  We need somebody smarter than we are! We need somebody who cares because we’re just not up to the task because we’re all just a bunch of prewired followers,” and they would love it, the more people they could convince of that.

Stop to think about it now.  If there’s no free will, there can be no freedom or liberty, right?  I’m holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story from the UK Independent.  Scientists at the University of California Davis found that the concept of free will is actually little more than the result of background noise in the brain.  There is no free will.  If there’s no free will, then there’s no freedom and there’s no liberty, and it just makes everything easier for tyrants, doesn’t it?

Free will could be the result of ‘background noise’ in the brain, study suggests

free-will2brainThe concept of free will could be little more than the result of background noise in the brain, according to a recent study.

It has previously been suggested that our perceived ability to make autonomous choices is an illusion – and now scientists from the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California, Davis, have found that free will may actually be the result of electrical activity in the brain.

According to the research, published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, decisions could be predicted based on the pattern of brain activity immediately before a choice was made.

Libet asked volunteers to press a switch in response to a visual signal – but whereas he had to rely on the participants telling him when they made their choice, Bengson explained that the random nature of the new study meant that “we know people aren’t making the decision in advance”.

“It inserts a random effect that allows us to be freed from simple cause and effect,” Bengson said.


Know This, That Every Soul is Free


right-wrongsignKnow this, that every soul is free to choose his life and what he’ll be;

For this eternal truth is given: that God will force no man to heaven.


He’ll call, persuade, direct aright, and bless with wisdom, love, and light,

In nameless ways be good and kind, but never force the human mind.


Freedom and reason make us men; take these away, what are we then?

Mere animals, and just as well the beasts may think of heaven or hell.


May we no more our powers abuse, but ways of truth and goodness choose;

Our God is pleased when we improve His grace and seek his perfect love.

Related Post:

Moral Compass: Defining Right and Wrong


Science: Liberal Fiction vs. Real Nutrition

Like Junk Science on the Climate, Saturated-Fat Fear mongering Has Been Exposed as Baseless


Rush Limbaugh

This is from the Wall Street Journal.  It is a long article and I’m just gonna give you the nut of it.  There is NO evidence — capital N, capital O; zilch, zero, nada, none, doesn’t exist, evidence — that high-fat diets or high-fat anything leads to heart disease.  NO evidence. Once again we have been lied to for decades, in this case by a single scientist.

LiberalNewsSoapRUSH: It’s been a 50-year effort to get people to stop eating meat, eggs, and whole fat dairy.  And do you know, an entire multiple billion-dollar industry has developed around it.  And do you know there is one person responsible?  Just like one person is responsible for all the deaths of malaria because we can’t use DDT, the idiot Rachel Carson, there’s one person responsible for this.  The person’s name is Ancel Keys

Now, you might say, “Aw, come on, Rush. Look, I love you, but what do you meanWhat’s politics about telling people not to eat mayonnaise and eggs?”  Health care is what’s politics about it.  The fact that you don’t know what’s good for you is what’s politics about it.  The fact that you need an FDA or some other government agency telling you what you should and shouldn’t eat because you’re not bright enough to know what’s good for you or not, that’s what’s politics about it. 

Butter, Meat, and Cheese belong in a Healthy Diet

We’ve gotta stop eating McDonald’s hamburgers.  Not only will they kill you and give you a heart attack, but they’re destroying the planet.  That’s the politics of it.  There’s politics all through this.  The story is by Nina Teicholz.  Nina Teicholz has been researching dietary fat and disease for nearly a decade. She’s got a book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. Simon & Schuster is going to publish the book on May 13th.  What is this, the 8th?  The 7th, okay.  So six days from now this book is gonna be out there.  But it’s not just her.

BookFatSurprisebook“‘Saturated fat does not cause heart disease’ — or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.” You know, what’s found on a farm you could argue is some of the most natural food out there, couldn’t you?  Butter, milk, eggs, beef, vegetables, you could argue all of it’s the essence of natural.  The earth produces it.  Whether man does anything about it or not or to it or not, saturated fat does not cause heart disease, so concluded a big study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

So Nina Teicholz said, “How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries.”  You remember Julia Child, the cooking shows?  Julia Child put a stick of butter in everything.  If she was preparing some roasted almonds as an appetizer, she’d boil ‘em in a stick of butter.  Everybody made fun of her. Everybody accused her of being a killer.  She said, “No, butter makes everything taste better.”  She said there was nothing wrong with it. She pronounced it “butter.”  “Butter.”  But she said there was nothing wrong with it.  And she was right. 

Now, let’s stop right there Julia Child lived to be 91, by the way.  She drank wine like a fish, too.  “There has never been solid evidence for the idea these fats cause disease.”  Fifty years.  How many of you believed it, still do, maybe?  Let me rewrite the sentence.  There has never been solid evidence for the idea that man is causing the climate destruction in the earth.  Same thing, folks.  “We only believe this to be the case because nutrition policy –” politics, anyone? “– has been derailed over the past half-century by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias.”

One Experience

Can I tell you a short little story?  I’ve told you this before.  I am a man of substance.  I am over what the actuarial tables say is my correct weight, and I eat all this stuff.  And every time I go in for mandated insurance policy health checkups, the doctors, they take the blood and they do the triglycerides and they do the cholesterol, the good and the bad, they do all of that.  And because even what they believe, my readings should be off the charts.  They think they need to have a stretcher nearby to get me to the ER right after doing their tests.  Then the tests come back and say, whoa, my cholesterol’s below normal, good and bad.  Triglycerides only slightly elevated. 

Then in Hawaii three years ago or so I had what everybody thought was a heart attack, but it wasn’t.  They went in to find the blockage, so they had to do one of those — what’s the name of it?  I forget.  But they go in either through your groin or through your arm and they go in there and they find what the blockage is, and if they find it then they do surgery, take it out.  The doctor was stunned.  There wasn’t any.  Zero.  Zilch, zero, nada blockage.  It just didn’t compute, based on what I like to eat, what I do eat, what I have eaten. 

Now, I know that’s just one example, not scientific, it’s pure anecdotal.   But this is so typical.  One man, Ancel Keys.  “More than a billion dollars have been spent trying to prove Ancel Keys’s hypothesis, but evidence of its benefits has never been produced. It is time to put the saturated-fat hypothesis to bed and to move on to test other possible culprits for our nation’s health woes.”  Not really identified here.

History and Junk Science: the Origin of Liberal Fiction

But here’s the history of this, folks, very, very, very quickly.  “Our distrust of saturated fat can be traced back to the 1950s, to a man named Ancel Benjamin Keys, a scientist at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Keys was formidably persuasive and, through sheer force of will, rose to the top of the nutrition world.” Not based on any genuine exhibition of superiority, just sheer force of will.  He just willed himself into this role, like Rachel Carson: I am gonna be in charge of insecticides. 

Anyway, “Dr. Keys was formidably persuasive and, through sheer force of will, rose to the top of the nutrition world — even gracing the cover of Time magazine — for relentlessly championing the idea that saturated fats raise cholesterol and, as a result, cause heart attacks.” So why did people believe it?  Well, sheer force of will.  Guy was formidable.  He went out there and he was just damn sure of himself.  He was persuasive because of it, and there’s another ingredient that has to be present for anything like this to work. 

Critics have pointed out that Dr. Keys violated several basic scientific norms in his study. For one, he didn’t choose countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs.”

Huh.  Where have we heard that before?  He chose Yugoslavia, Finland, and Italy.  “Excluded were France,” land of butter, milk, eggs, cheese, bearnaise, hollandaise, mayonnaise.  You eat it out of the jar with a spoon in France!  So he didn’t go there.  They’ve even tried to tell you that there’s some super-secret ingredient in red wine that eats up all that fat, and that’s how the French get away with it

  “As it turns out, Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders’ diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese.”

This guy can be immediately linked and traceable to today’s climate scientists.  Start out with a premise that you want to be true and then go make it true.  Now they’ve done another huge, huge study here, huge, folks.  There is no evidence of this.  You can literally eat steak and eggs and butter and cheese and milk, not skim, but the whole thing, guilt free.  If you don’t like it, that’s another thing, but you don’t have to feel guilty.  And you vegans, man, what a bill of goods you bought.

RUSH: I actually believe that part of the reason they tried to run Paula Deen out of business is because she was a big advocate of butter and fat and southern cooking and all that, and she just offended the food Nazis of the left.  Do not doubt me on this.  I’m not ignoring the other things, but I guarantee you that was part of it.

The reason I spend time talking about this is because my mission is to expose fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism, everywhere it is.  But my primary objective is to try to promote critical thinking.  I want you to be skeptical of anything you hear in the media these days.  I don’t want you to trust any of it.  I want you to use your common sense and your own God-given intelligence and just stop for a moment and ask why all of a sudden is minimum wage being discussed.  Why all of a sudden income inequality, and then the next day, why global warming? 

I want you to finally get to the point that everything happening in the news media today is about getting you to willingly agree to let the government control more and more of your life.  And you’re not gonna have the best life you can have if you do that, and you’re not gonna have the best country we can have.  So if I can come along and help you to understand how you’re being hoaxed with global warming, how you’re being hoaxed with all of this food stuff — you know, every day, every week it’s a different food threat that you now have you avoid if you want to survive.  And it’s all lies, it’s all bogus.  And I don’t believe that every liberal doctor, medical personnel, health official is a rabid liberal activist. 

It is my belief you are better equipped to survive relying on yourself, than turning your life over to people you’ve never met who have no qualifications.  Barack Obama doesn’t know the first thing about the health care business or hospitals or doctors’ offices.  He doesn’t know the first thing about the military.  He doesn’t know the first thing about anything.  He hasn’t ever done anything.  You know more than Barack Obama about how the business you’re in operates and how it succeeds than he does.  And you care more than he does, because he’s not interested in that.

So that’s why I bring this stuff up.  I think if, in our schools, critical thinking were taught, and curiosity and skepticism, we’d be much better off, but that’s not what’s happening.  Kids are being propagandized, unknowingly. 

Global warming, classic example.  America sucks, classic example.  America unjust, immoral, multicultural, it’s all part of a massive effort to discredit things that you really should believe. 

It’s a shame, but science has become just as corrupt as any other institution that’s touched by politics.

It’s got some protection because people think that science is unsullied. People think science is untouched by politics, and it’s one of the most political disciplines out there anymore.  Hell, half the people in science who earn a decent living do it by getting grants from various places to further research to proven a political point or to advance a political agenda.  The only effort here…

Honestly, I don’t care what you eat.  I really don’t.  It’s your business.  If you want to be a vegan, you go right ahead — but don’t preach to me about having to do what you do.  I’m not one who wants to control what you do and eat.  I want you to have free will, and I don’t want you living and believing a bunch of lies. I want you to be able to spot who is lying to you the moment they do. 

That’s really the objective here.  I really… If I could wave a magic wand, it would be that, that people could spot tainted political statements the moment they hear them, hear corrupt political statements and understand the political nature of practically everything around ‘em.  If we could pull that off, we could stop liberalism in its tracks, because it would be demonstrated as fraudulent before a liberal even opened his mouth. 


Ten Commandments, Murder, and Sharia Law

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

So, do we really have a dilemma here about freedom of religion and the laws of the land?

keyoldThou shalt not kill. ~Exodus 20:13

10commandmentsNo, we do not. Our Constitution, which was created by men possessed of an abundance of common sense and responsibility rarely seen today, declares that there shall be no establishment of religion. So the religion of Islam should get no more special treatment than any other religion. We are all subject to the law of the land. Article 6 of the United States Constitution says the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code.

The purpose of our government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Any person or group who violates the life, liberty, or property of another individual is in violation of the law and deserves to be punished. We have freedom, but not without responsibility. We are free to choose our actions, but we are not free to choose the consequences. ~C.A. Davidson

The new Political Correctness game is: the biggest bully wins the greatest political power

Sequel to

High School, Freedom of Religion, and Pledge of Allegiance

NOTE: The above post is not about Muslims, per se, but about their getting special privileges in schools, when Biblical activities are banned. To my knowledge, at no time in American history has anyone pledged allegiance to the flag in other than the national language, which is English. For fifty years we have had atheism as the state religion. Now Political Correctness, without authority, has practically established Islam as the state religion, perhaps in the name of “freedom of religion.” ??

A Tale of Two Laws

Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities was about London and Paris, and the impact of their two differing forms of government. Continuing in our “Tale of Two” series, today we are seeing a tale of two laws: the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian culture, and Sharia law of Islamic culture or political system.

I am all for freedom of religion. European and Middle Eastern history are fraught with religious wars and the slaughter of the Jewish people. We think how wrong it is to massacre so many innocent people.

When it legalized abortion, our own government failed in its Constitutional mandate to protect innocent life. Not only has the Supreme Court abused its power 50 years ago to establish the religion of atheism as the state religion, but it also has sanctioned the murder of countless millions of innocent born and unborn.

I am a Christian. My church, The Church of Jesus Christ, could only be restored in these latter days, in this great country of the United States, where there was freedom to do so. Even so, we know what it is like for Christians to be reviled, even in this free country, because great were the persecutions of the members of our Christian faith in the 19th century, resulting in our prophet, Joseph Smith, and his brother being murdered in cold blood. Christians of many denominations are still persecuted and reviled all over the world today.

I am old enough to remember the Cold War era, in which Communists purged their entire empire of God, and brutally punished believers.  Even so, it is hard to believe that today we are involved in the greatest religious war of all time. Atheists still cause trouble in our society, but now the greatest threat to our Judeo-Christian culture comes from extreme Islam’s declared war on all faiths other than their own. Islamic extremists even punish and kill Muslim reformers. They also have an abiding hatred for the Jewish people, and have sworn to destroy Israel.

We are taught that when we “receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions,” we are not to turn and revile again, but to be “humble and penitent before God.” (3 Nephi 6:13) The God of Israel is a God of love, not hate, or He would not have made it possible for all human beings to be saved from death and condemnation.

There is another reason I was relieved. Islamists world-wide were threatening nothing short of World War 3 if those books were burned; many more innocent people would have been killed. (They didn’t need to declare war; they already did that with the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers.)

Civil Law vs. Religious Law

Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other religions residing in this land have always dealt with moral issues in their own way. However, a member of any religion who steals, vandalizes, rapes, murders, or violates any other law against the public safety is subject to those laws which protect the public. Someone who kills an abortionist is punished, even though the abortionist himself may be guilty of killing. We may not agree with that killing, but we do not take the law into our own hands.

In my church, which is worldwide, we are also taught to respect and obey the governments of the respective nations in which we reside, even if we don’t agree with them.  We don’t make political demands in the name of our religion. Sharia law (which is political), also, has a “necessity clause”, which allows Muslims to accommodate the laws of their land, such as buying car insurance or postponing prayers that cannot be performed at school or work. So, if their political demands are not met, no harm is done to their religion. (Warner, Bill, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, p. 42-43. Center for the Study of Political Islam: 2010)

That said, I come to this matter of murder, with which I have issue. All faithful Christians obey the Ten Commandments, which include the commandment not to kill. Our United States government is based on the Ten Commandments. Therefore, it is simply against the law to kill, except in cases of legal punishment for capital crimes and terrorism, as in the execution of  terrorists and mass murderers.

MuslimWarriorObviously, Islamic terrorists do not honor the Ten Commandments (I’m not referring to the religion observed by moderate law-abiding Muslims who reside in our country). Radical Islam is not a religion, but is a tyrannical political system, called terrorism. Political systems are subject to the laws of the land. Like communism, Islamic terrorism seeks to replace existing law (in America, the United States Constitution) with a tyrannical law called Sharia law. Some of the plethora of killings approved by radical Islamists include suicide bombings—often involving children or adolescents as the perpetrators; “honor killings”—an example of this was a man in Arizona who purposely ran over his daughter with his car because she was becoming too Westernized. Sharia law permits some forms of honor killing, but does not seem to punish any of it. Also included is the killing of those Muslims who convert to another religion.  (Ibid., p.14)

So, do we really have a dilemma here about freedom of religion and the laws of the land? No, we do not. Our Constitution, which was created by men possessed of an abundance of common sense and responsibility rarely seen today, declares that there shall be no establishment of religion. So the religion of Islam should get no more special treatment than any other religion. We are all subject to the law of the land. Article 6 of the United States Constitution says the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code.

The purpose of our government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Any person or group who violates the life, liberty, or property of another individual is in violation of the law and deserves to be punished. We have freedom, but not without responsibility. We are free to choose our actions, but we are not free to choose the consequences.

© 2011 by Christine Davidson

Parents: Get Obama, Government Out of our Children’s School!

Sen. Mike Lee Pleads: Abolish Common Core

keyoldTherefore my people are gone into acaptivity, because they have no bknowledge.~ Isaiah 5:13


commoncoreSen. Mike Lee has called on Americans to join him in the effort to abolish the federal Common Core education standards in a fundraising email for the conservative group FreedomWorks.

“As a U.S. Senator, I’ve seen the federal government make a mess of everything it touches,” the Utah Republican wrote in the email sent out Monday morning.

“And if they’re allowed to stay, Common Core standards will be the ObamaCare of education,” he wrote. “Common Core is the DC takeover of our school system. It will dumb down standards and cheapen the education our children receive.”

MikeLeeonstandfortherightAll kids in America “deserve the best education in the world. The only way we can make that happen is to repeal Common Core across America,” Lee wrote.

“When it comes to education, the future of our country is on the line,” the senator said in the email. “The next generation of Americans doesn’t need to be force-fed big government propaganda in the classroom.

“They should be learning real American history, and why our sacred heritage makes this the greatest nation in the world,” he wrote. “Common Core does away with that. That’s why it must be stopped.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lee-Common-Core-education-standards/2014/09/01/id/591939/#ixzz3CICQpKBY

The Muslims’ Trojan Horse

If you thought the U.N. International Baccalaureate and federal No Child Left Behind educational schemes were bad enough, you might want to look a little deeper.

In light of the 9/11 attacks, you would think the current administration would use a little prudence if they were sincerely concerned about a Muslim threat. When Obama took his oath of office, he instead defied America in numerous ways. He has given $1.5 billion to Muslim-led Egypt in foreign aid, shortly after the Muslim Brotherhood declared war on the United States. This is the same man that said America is “no longer a Christian nation,” followed by a reference that America may be described as a Muslim nation.

Muslim indoctrination in public schools

Interestingly enough, in recent years American public schools have been indoctrinated with the Muslim religion. Studies have shown over 500 historical errors in public school textbooks, giving an Islamic slant to our youth.

As a result, our youth are subject to the following teachings and practices:

How did this happen? The ACLU, the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Clinton administration joined together to create an environment that opened the door to Muslim teaching, while attacking anyone who speaks of the Christian religion in public schools.



US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.


Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control


Christianity, Truth, and Tolerance

Dinner Topics for Friday

Balancing Truth and Tolerance

Dallin H. Oaks

coinedgekeyTolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other.

We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. We know that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed in or not. We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong.

The existence and nature of truth is one of the fundamental questions of mortal life. Jesus told the Roman governor Pilate that He came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth.” That unbeliever responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38). Earlier the Savior had declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). In modern revelation, He declared, “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24).

We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. We know that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed in or not. We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong.

Shocking reports of large-scale thievery and lying in civilized societies suggest a moral vacuum in which many have little sense of right and wrong. Widespread rioting, pillaging, and cheating have caused many to wonder whether we are losing the moral foundation Western countries have received from their Judeo-Christian heritage.1

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong—that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.

The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for him or herself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in the United States and other Western nations. At the extreme level, evil acts that used to be localized and covered up like a boil are now legalized and paraded like a banner. Persuaded by this philosophy, many of the rising generation are caught up in self-serving pleasures, pornography, dishonesty, foul language, revealing attire, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, and degrading sexual indulgence.

Many religious leaders teach the existence of God as the ultimate lawgiver, by whose command certain behavior is absolutely right and true and other behavior is absolutely wrong and untrue.2 Bible and Book of Mormon prophets foresaw this time, when men would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:4) and, indeed, when men would deny God (see Jude 1:4; 2 Nephi 28:5; Moroni 7:17; D&C 29:22).

In this troubled circumstance, we who believe in God and the corollary truth of absolute right and wrong have the challenge of living in a godless and increasingly amoral world. In this circumstance, all of us—especially the rising generation—have a duty to stand up and speak out to affirm that God exists and that there are absolute truths that His commandments establish.

Many teachers in schools, colleges, and universities are teaching and practicing relative morality. This is shaping the attitudes of many young people who are taking their places as the teachers of our children and the shapers of public attitudes through the media and popular entertainment. This philosophy of moral relativism denies what millions of believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider fundamental, and this denial creates serious problems for all of us. What believers should do about this introduces the second of my twin subjects, tolerance.

Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar or different opinions and practices or toward the persons who hold or practice them. As modern transportation and communication have brought all of us into closer proximity to different peoples and different ideas, we have greater need for tolerance.

This greater exposure to diversity both enriches our lives and complicates them. We are enriched by associations with different peoples, which remind us of the wonderful diversity of the children of God. But diversity in cultures and values also challenges us to identify what can be embraced as consistent with our gospel culture and values and what cannot be. In this way, diversity increases the potential for conflict and requires us to be more thoughtful about the nature of tolerance. What is tolerance, when does it apply, and when does it not apply?

These are harder questions for those who affirm the existence of God and absolute truth than for those who believe in moral relativism. The weaker one’s belief in God and the fewer one’s moral absolutes, the fewer the occasions when the ideas or practices of others will confront one with the challenge to be tolerant. For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any person. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed.

Three Absolute Truths

So what does tolerance mean to us and other believers, and what are our special challenges in applying it? I begin with three absolute truths. I express them as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I believe that most of these ideas are shared by believers generally.

First, all persons are brothers and sisters under God, taught within their various religions to love and do good to one another. President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) expressed this idea for Latter-day Saints: “Each of us [from various religious denominations] believes in the fatherhood of God, although we may differ in our interpretations of Him. Each of us is part of a great family, the human family, sons and daughters of God, and therefore brothers and sisters. We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse.”3

Note that President Hinckley spoke of mutual respect as well as tolerance. Living together with mutual respect for one another’s differences is a challenge in today’s world. However—and here I express a second absolute truth—this living with differences is what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do.

The kingdom of God is like leaven, Jesus taught (see Matthew 13:33). Leaven—yeast—is hidden away in the larger mass until the whole is leavened, which means raised by its influence. Our Savior also taught that His followers will have tribulation in the world (see John 16:33), that their numbers and dominions will be small (see 1 Nephi 14:12), and that they will be hated because they are not of the world (see John 17:14). But that is our role. We are called to live with other children of God who do not share our faith or our values and who do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed. We are to be in the world but not of the world.

Because followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to be leaven, we must seek tolerance from those who hate us for not being of the world. As part of this, we will sometimes need to challenge laws that would impair our freedom to practice our faith, doing so in reliance on our constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion. The big concern is “the ability of people of all faiths to work out their relationship with God and one another without the government looking over their shoulder.”4 That is why we need understanding and support when we must contend for religious freedom.

We must also practice tolerance and respect toward others. As the Apostle Paul taught, Christians should “follow after the things which make for peace” (Romans 14:19) and, as much as possible, “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Consequently, we should be alert to honor the good we should see in all people and in many opinions and practices that differ from our own. As the Book of Mormon teaches:

“All things which are good cometh of God; …

“… wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

“Wherefore, take heed … that ye do not judge … that which is good and of God to be of the devil” (Moroni 7:12–14).

That approach to differences will yield tolerance and also respect toward us.

Our tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs does not cause us to abandon our commitment to the truths we understand and the covenants we have made. That is a third absolute truth. We are cast as combatants in the war between truth and error. There is no middle ground. We must stand up for truth, even while we practice tolerance and respect for beliefs and ideas different from our own and for the people who hold them.

Tolerance for Behavior

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from behavior that is wrong. This is easy with extreme behaviors that most believers and nonbelievers recognize as wrong or unacceptable.

As to less-extreme behaviors, where even believers disagree on whether they are wrong, the nature and extent of what we should tolerate is much more difficult to define. Thus, a thoughtful Latter-day Saint woman wrote me about her concern that “the world’s definition of ‘tolerance’ seems to be increasingly used in relation to tolerating wicked lifestyles.” She asked how the Lord would define tolerance.5

President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has said: “The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. … Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.”6

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication but firmness in the truth.

Another thoughtful Latter-day Saint wrote: “I often hear the name of the Lord taken in vain, and I also have acquaintances who tell me that they are living with their boyfriends. I have found that observance of the Sabbath is almost obsolete. How can I keep my covenant to stand as a witness and not offend these people?”7

I begin with our personal conduct. In applying the sometimes-competing demands of truth and tolerance to these three behaviors—profanity, cohabitation, and Sabbath breaking—and many others, we should not be tolerant with ourselves. We should be ruled by the demands of truth. We should be strong in keeping the commandments and our covenants, and we should repent and improve when we fall short.

Theater Mask

President Thomas S. Monson has taught: “The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that facade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain. … If your so-called friends urge you to do anything you know to be wrong, you be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone.”8

Similarly, with our children and others whom we have a duty to teach, our duty to truth is paramount. Of course, teaching efforts bear fruit only through the agency of others, so our teaching must always be done with love, patience, and persuasion.

I turn now to the obligations of truth and tolerance in our personal relations with associates who use profanity in our presence, live with a partner out of wedlock, or do not observe the Sabbath day appropriately.

Our obligation to tolerance means that none of these behaviors—or others we consider deviations from the truth—should ever cause us to react with hateful communications or unkind actions. But our obligation to truth has its own set of requirements and its own set of blessings. When we “speak every man truth with his neighbour” and when we “[speak] the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, 25), we are acting as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, doing His work. Angels will stand with us, and He will send His Holy Spirit to guide us.

In this sensitive matter we should first consider whether—or the extent to which—we should communicate to our associates what we know to be true about their behavior. In most cases this decision can depend on how directly we are personally affected by it.

Profanity consistently used in our presence is an appropriate cause for us to communicate the fact that this is offensive to us. Profanity used out of our presence by nonbelievers probably would not be an occasion for us to confront the offenders.

Cohabitation we know to be a serious sin, in which Latter-day Saints must not engage. When practiced by those around us, it can be private behavior or something we are asked to condone, sponsor, or facilitate. In the balance between truth and tolerance, tolerance can be dominant where the behavior does not involve us personally. But if the cohabitation does involve us personally, we should be governed by our duty to truth. For example, it is one thing to ignore serious sins when they are private; it is quite another thing to be asked to sponsor or implicitly endorse them, such as by housing them in our own homes.

On Sabbath observance, we should perhaps explain our belief that our observance of the Sabbath, including our partaking of the sacrament, restores us spiritually and makes us better people for the rest of the week. Then, to other believers, we might express appreciation for the fact that we share common ground on what is most vital: each of us believes in God and in the existence of absolute truth, even though we differ in our definitions of those fundamentals. Beyond that, we should remember the Savior’s teaching that we should avoid contention (see 3 Nephi 11:29–30) and that our example and our preaching should “be the warning voice, every man to his neighbor, in mildness and in meekness” (D&C 38:41).

In all of this we should not presume to judge our neighbors or associates on the ultimate effect of their behaviors. That judgment is the Lord’s, not ours.

Principles in the Public Square

When believers enter the public square to try to influence the making or the administration of laws motivated by their beliefs, they should apply some different principles.

First, they must seek the inspiration of the Lord to be selective and wise in choosing which true principles they seek to promote by law or executive action. Generally, they should refrain from seeking laws or administrative action to facilitate beliefs that are distinctive to believers, such as the enforcement of acts of worship, even by implication. Believers can be less cautious in seeking government action that would serve principles broader than merely facilitating the practice of their beliefs, such as laws concerning public health, safety, and morals.

Believers can and must seek laws that will preserve religious freedom. Along with the ascendancy of moral relativism, the United States and other nations are experiencing a disturbing reduction in overall public esteem for religion. Once an accepted part of American life, religion is now suspect in the minds of many. Some influential voices even question the extent to which our constitutions should protect the free exercise of religion, including the right to practice and preach religious principles.

This is a vital matter on which we who believe in a Supreme Being who has established absolute right and wrong in human behavior must unite to insist on our time-honored rights to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with other believers to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. For this purpose we must walk together on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our separate beliefs.

Second, when believers promote their positions in the public square, they should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs. Believers must always speak with love and show patience, understanding, and compassion toward their adversaries. Christian believers are under command to love their neighbors (see Luke 10:27) and to forgive (see Matthew 18:21–35). They should also remember the Savior’s teaching to “bless them that curse [them], do good to them that hate [them], and pray for them which despitefully use [them], and persecute [them]” (Matthew 5:44).

Third, believers should not be deterred by the familiar charge that they are trying to legislate morality. Many areas of the law are based on Judeo-Christian morality and have been for centuries. Western civilization is based on morality and cannot exist without it. As the second U.S. president, John Adams, declared: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”9

Fourth, believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public health, safety, or morals. For example, even though religious beliefs are behind many criminal laws and some family laws, such laws have a long-standing history of appropriateness in democratic societies. But where believers are in the majority, they should always be sensitive to the views of the minority.

Finally, the spirit of our balance of truth and tolerance is applied in these words of President Hinckley: “Let us reach out to those in our community who are not of our faith. Let us be good neighbors, kind and generous and gracious. Let us be involved in good community causes. There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.”10

watchmantowerWatchman on the Tower

The Bible teaches that one of the functions of a prophet is to be a “watchman” to warn Israel (see Ezekiel 3:17; 33:7). In revelation the Lord added this counsel for modern Zion: “Set … a watchman upon the tower,” who will “[see] the enemy while he [is] yet afar off” and give warning to save the vineyard “from the hands of the destroyer” (D&C 101:45, 54).

I speak as one of those watchmen. I assure you that my message is true. I proclaim my knowledge that God lives! I testify that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, crucified for the sins of the world, and that He reaches out to each of us with the timeless invitation to receive His peace by learning of Him and walking in His way (see D&C 19:23).


  1.  “Is US a Nation of Liars? Casey Anthony Isn’t the Only One,” The Christian Science Monitor, July 19, 2011, 20; “Anarchy in the UK,” The Economist, Aug. 13, 2011, 144.
  2.   See, for example, Joseph G. Donders, ed., John Paul II: The Encyclicals in Everyday Language (2005), 212–13; see also Rabbi Harold Kushner, Who Needs God (2002), 78.
  3.   Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (1997), 665.
  4.   Eric Rassbach, in William McGurn, “Religion and the Cult of Tolerance,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 16, 2011, A11.
  5.   Letter to Dallin H. Oaks, May 14, 1998.
  6.   Boyd K. Packer, “Be Not Afraid” (address at the Ogden Utah Institute of Religion, Nov. 16, 2008), 5; see also Bruce D. Porter, “Defending the Family in a Troubled World,” Ensign, June 2011, 12–18.
  7.  Letter to Dallin H. Oaks, Dec. 22, 1987.
  8.   Thomas S. Monson, “Examples of Righteousness,” Ensign, May 2008, 65.
  9.   In Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, 10 vols. (1850–56), 9:229.
  10.  Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 131.