‘God grant the right of worshipping,’ Guizhou Church stands firm against harassment by authorities

Thursday, July 11, 2019

ChinaAid



(Guizhou—July 11, 2019) On Sunday, June 30, authorities in Guizhou province broke into Zion Reform Evangelical Church during worship. Officials reportedly subjected congregants to inquiry and confiscated some church possessions.

When asked to sign official documents, church leader Zhu Jieheng wrote down “God grants the right to worship” to demonstrate the church was not subject to the mindsets and activities of the authorities.

According to reports, Zhu received a notice of rectification and reform from the Kaili Municipal Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau. Officials say the organization of religious events at the church violates regulations.

As ChinaAid has reported, authorities across China often operate to shut down churches. Reports say officials in Sichuan might force Baihua Church, a campus of Chengdu’s Early Rain Covenant Church, to close down after an investigation. 

A Henan Christian named Mr. Huang says officers are often pressured by their bosses to visit churches on Sunday if they do not have the day off. 

Information from an anonymous pastor details strict religious policies from the government that are even impacting churches associated with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, China’s state-run, technically legal church network.

Such churches are being subjected to constant surveillance, with officials even installing facial recognition cameras. In addition, many of them must sing nationalistic songs as a part of their worship services, and individuals affiliated with the Chinese government will preach propaganda from the pulpit alongside the pastor’s sermon. 

These congregations are often viewed by non-government churches as an instrument for the secular government, due to this continued politicization of the religious field. 

According to the pastor, fewer people are speaking out against persecution as a whole because anyone who does so will face trouble. Instead, “many people hide themselves and exist peacefully.” 

ChinaAid exposes abuses in order to stand in solidarity with the persecuted and promote religious freedom, human rights, and rule of law. If you wish to partner with us in helping those persecuted by the Chinese government

Chinese Christians flee China amid crackdown on church: ‘No longer safe for us’

By Caleb Parke | Fox News



As China continues its crackdown on religion, Christians in the Communist country are fleeing for their lives.

China’s ruling Communist Party has carried out a widespread crackdown on all religious institutions in recent years, including bulldozing churches and mosques, barring Tibetan children from Buddhist religious studies and incarcerating more than a million members of Islamic ethnic minorities in what are termed “re-education centers.” President Xi Jinping , who is also party leader, has ordered that all religions must “Sinicize” to ensure they are loyal to the officially atheistic party or face the wrath of the Communist regime.

CHINESE CHRISTIANS JAILED FOR FAITH MEMORIZE BIBLE BECAUSE GUARDS ‘CAN’T TAKE WHAT’S HIDDEN IN YOUR HEART’

Liao Qiang, who fled from Early Rain Covenant Church after it was raided and targeted by the government for its opposition to Xi and the party, is now in Taipei, Taiwan, hoping to get asylum in the United States until China reverses the anti-religious surveillance.

More than 100 members of Early Rain were taken into custody from the church or their homes on Dec. 9 and 10, according to Human Rights Watch. Those detained included Wang Yi, the pastor, who made a point of holding a prayer service on June 4 each year to commemorate the 1989 bloody crackdown on democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, which China's government has tried to erase from history. Since then, they have been under constant Orwellian watch under the state.

Ren Ruiting, Liao's 23-year-old daughter, told the Associated Press she had to report her whereabouts to police using social media whenever she left her home and was informed that her safety would not be guaranteed.

“That’s when I knew it was no longer safe for us here, and that my children were most in danger,” Liao said after Sunday’s service, attended by about 30 people, at the small Reformed Presbyterian Xinan Church in Taipei.

China’s government requires that Protestants worship only in churches recognized and regulated by the officially sanctioned Three-Self Patriotic Movement, although many more are part of independent congregations.

Liao refused to sign a statement renouncing his church after police tried to force him to do so.

“If our elders decided to break up the church, then I can accept it,” he said. “But it’s not up to you to say it’s evil or illegal.”

The persecution of Christians in China is nothing new. A report by the watchdog group Freedom House found that Christians and other religious groups in China have been persecuted since 2012, Fox News reported.

A third of all religious believers in China who belong to a faith group were also found to face “high” to “very high” levels of persecution, which ranges from bureaucratic harassment and economic exploitation to harsh prison terms and even violence.

But experts and activists say the Chinese government is now waging the most severe suppression of Christianity in the country since religious freedoms were granted by the Chinese constitution in 1982.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Equality Act of America - A Dark-Day for American Christian

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Democrats in the House are celebrating Friday’s passage of the Equality Act, a misnamed legal jackhammer that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to federal civil rights law.

It goes far beyond allowing men into women’s sports and locker rooms, as bad as that is. It provides the state with the power to persecute anyone who won’t celebrate any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda.

Far from merely expanding civil rights categories, it turns any recognition of the differences between the sexes or any preference for traditional sexual morality into actionable “hate,” creating fertile grounds for lawsuits.

“It is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level,” says Houston Baptist University Prof. Robert Gagnon, an expert in biblical sexual morality. “It will codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs.”

In other words, it will criminalize Christianity, an ongoing process that got a big boost from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling on same-sex “marriage.”

This draconian bill passed by a vote of 236-173, with 8 Republicans joining 228 Democrats. Another 16 Republicans and 7 Democrats did not vote.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has actually endorsed it. When did destroying the moral order and paving the way for more lawsuits against businesses become part of the chamber’s mission? Pouring legal acid on a marriage-and-family-based culture will not lead to a more stable society of upwardly mobile consumers. America is only as prosperous as its families are strong.

Many people are complacent because Republicans control the Senate and won’t allow it to become law — this time. Also, the Trump administration has announced its opposition.

But some weasel GOPers suggest a “carveout” for churches, leaving everyone else — tens of millions of Christians and observant Jews — at the mercy of a government run by LGBTQ activists who have no patience for resistance of any kind. In any case, the bill specifically rules out religion-based defenses.

And what if the GOP loses the Senate or the White House in 2020?

It’s time to educate the public about this bill’s toxic blend of mad science and totalitarian intent, and it won’t be easy.

“All the principalities and powers will cooperate in giving this cudgel to Leviathan,” writes John Smirak at thestream.org. “And to litigious thugs like [Pennsylvania state] Rep. Brian Sims. Guys who hike their testosterone count by bullying women and kids. Ask [Masterpiece Cakeshop owner] Jack Phillips and other victims of Gay Sharia how it feels. That will be the fate of every faithful Christian if this unjust bill becomes law.”

Unless we reassert the primacy of natural marriage and natural sexuality, “our battle will be a losing one,” Mr. Smirak writes. “Our churches will end up essentially illegal. Sooner or later.”

Mass Resistance, a parents-rights group, has compiled a list of likely outcomes. Here’s a tweaked version:

1. It will undermine the civil rights movement that black Americans fought for.

2. Churches will be sued or lose tax-exempt status if they don’t accept LGBTQ behaviors.

3. Schoolchildren will be forced to learn how to engage in destructive LGBTQ behaviors [in California, it begins in kindergarten].

4. Parents who oppose this will be charged with discrimination.

5. Private colleges will lose funding, grants and scholarships.

6. Public accommodations and small businesses will be forced to allow men into women’s bathrooms and vice versa.

7. Business owners will be forced to violate their freedom of conscience.

8. Hospitals, clinics and the armed forces will be forced to offer experimental and harmful transgender treatments — including surgeries.

9. Foster and adoption agencies will be forced to close, as has already happened to Catholic Charities in several liberal cities.

10. Men will displace women in sports events (already happening).

Scenarios like the following case would become common: A Texas father has been charged in a divorce proceeding with child abuse for not “affirming” his 6-year-old son as female. The mother renamed James as “Luna” and makes him wear dresses to school. The father says James is all boy when he visits him, and goes by “James.” The Equality Act would greatly enhance the mother’s insane quest to turn their son into a girl.

The mother also seeks to terminate the father’s visitations and to “require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight,” writes Walt Heyer, a former transsexual, in the Federalist.

Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, describes the pediatric community’s encouragement of sex change and hormones for children as “institutionalized child abuse.”

The Equality Act would federalize such abuse, and religious faith won’t be a shield. Judges will see to that.

The bill is far more dangerous than most people know. It’s about time they knew — and told everyone they can, especially lawmakers.

• Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times.

The Washington Times

An American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., that covers general interest topics with a particular emphasis on national politics. Its broadsheet daily edition is distributed throughout the District of Columbia and in parts of Maryland and Virginia.

Pride Comes Before the Fall

Michael Youssef | Aug 18, 2014



Surely now President Obama must believe at least part of the Bible—specifically, I’m thinking about the part that says: “Pride comes before the fall.”

If there is a perfect modern-day application of this biblical injunction, we have been watching it unfold during the last six years.

Oh, how Mr. Obama used to brag that he could handle foreign policy better than his predecessors. He often explained how, because of his ethnic background and upbringing, he understood the Muslim people and identified with them. Through his empathy, he would cause them to love America and the West.

He even made his first foreign trip as president to two Muslim countries—Turkey and Egypt. There, he apologized for America and its previous foreign policies. He assured them that he was their friend and that they could trust him.

President Obama even surrounded himself with Islamists and Islamist-sympathizers as advisors in the White House. He boasted that his envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference had memorized the Quran.

But nearly all of his bragging has now collapsed like a bad soufflé. Islamists do not trust him. Muslim leaders do not respect him. And around the world, leaders have no confidence in his once fawned-over rhetoric.

The resulting tragedy is that the American people are the victims of his misguided self-confidence.

But the core problem with all secular-thinking leaders on both political sides is they create foreign policy that is divorced from the other-worldly realities of Islamists.

Secular, by definition, means “this age,” which is opposite of the invisible world where Islamist minds reside. Their religious gurus have convinced many that when they die in the act of killing “infidels,” they will live in paradise, with lots of alcohol and seventy virgins for their sexual pleasures.

To be very clear, not all Muslims embrace that viewpoint—for I have many Muslim friends who reject the notion.

But when you put secular thinking up against such other-worldly fantasies, you have a formula for global explosions with catastrophic results. That is something I have written about since the early 80s to a skeptical world across the political spectrum. Sadly, now the whole world is experiencing it firsthand.

Our foreign policy—regardless of whether it is Democrat or Republican in origin—must understand the other-worldly motivations inherent in Islamist thinking. They not only resent our secular approach to their demands, but they reject and outright ridicule them.

If politicians in the West truly want to protect their fellow citizens, they must fully understand the Islamist mind. Then those politicians will not be able to avoid facing the reality of the situation: it is either kill or be killed. That is the reality that Churchill faced when dealing with Hitler. And unfortunately, that is the harsh reality that we face today. Any other thinking is delusional, and ultimately, suicidal.

I’m sure some on social media will attack my Christian bona fides after expressing such a terrible choice. As a Christian—especially as a Christian—I find such a choice very disturbing. But as a Christian, I must also face the reality of the present world, and not advocate that our country lie to itself and run from its troubles.

Persecution and the Return of Christ by Dr Michael Youssef

Michael Youssef explains what's really happening in Iraq. (YouTube)

Below is a special video I want you to watch. For those of you who have seen news reports of the persecution and political turmoil taking place in Iraq, this is an explanation of who ISIS is.

Last week I joined my son Joshua, executive vice president of Leading The Way, in the studio to put together a special video addressing the many questions we were receiving about what's happening in Iraq. I hope it will help you better understand what is going on in the Middle East and what we as Christians can do. If you would like to watch the full video with more details, click here.

Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed are solely the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Charisma Media.

'I Would Go to Jail over Jesus' Name,' Says Public Official by JOHN JESSUP/CBN NEWS

Robin Bartlett Frazier, who made waves by praying in public meetings, says she is willing to accept imprisonment for the sake of Christ. (CBN)

Robin Bartlett Frazier, a two-term elected official in Carroll County, Maryland, isn't shy about her Christian faith.

It's what almost landed the granddaughter of a Methodist minister on the wrong side of the law in March 2014.

"Thinking of what Jesus did for me on the cross, I would not say his name because I might go to jail?" Frazier pondered. "I just couldn't do that."

No Public Prayers to Jesus? 

Frazier made waves when she defied U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles' order that banned the Board of Carroll County Commissioners from opening meetings with prayers to Jesus, which they had done since January 2011 when they were sworn in.

One day after the temporary injunction against sectarian prayers came down, she made the following declaration at a commission hearing, which coincided with her turn to lead in prayer:

"I think that is an infringement on my freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and I think it's a wrong ruling," she announced. "And just as I wouldn't give up my guns or I wouldn't allow my children to be palm-scanned or I wouldn't give up my property rights with 'PlanMaryland,' I'm not going to give up those rights. But out of respect for my colleagues, I'm not sure how strongly they feel about it, I'm willing to go to jail over it. I believe this is a fundamental of America. And if we cease to believe that our rights come from God, we cease to be America. We've been told to be careful, but we're going to be careful all the way to communism if we don't start standing up and saying 'no.' So, I say no to this ruling."

Shortly after the statement, Frazier recited a prayer which she attributed to George Washington, though experts dispute its true author. "I didn't want to be directly defiant to the judge," she told CBN News. "I prayed about how I could draw a line, [but] the more I thought about it, the more it made me angry that we would be told not only that we couldn't pray to who we wanted to but that we couldn't use certain words."

Residents Say Prayers are Divisive 

Frazier, who became a Christian around the age of 14 at a Youth for Christ event in nearby Hampstead, Maryland, says ultimately it was an easy stand to make, even though she and the commission were in the middle of a lawsuit with the possibility of tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

The legal challenge came from a group of residents who said the prayers were divisive.

Frazier insists that was never the intent, telling CBN News that the commissioners researched the law and tried to be respectful of others while remaining true to their own religious convictions.

"The idea of inviting people to pray with us, we said we wouldn't do that. It would just be the board," she explained. "So, we kind of looked at the law and tried to be within it, but still asked for wisdom and guidance as we conducted our business."

Prayer Policy Coercive and Insulting?

However, the plaintiffs argued the prayer policy was coercive and insulting. "I reached a point, as others had, you just get tired of going to the meetings and being in an excluded class of individuals," Neil Ridgely explained in a documentary produced by a local student at McDaniel College in Westminster. Ridgely is one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the county.

Some residents who support the commissioners describe the challenge as Christian discrimination. But the plaintiffs' attorney, Monica Miller, told CBN News she rejects that notion, noting one of the plaintiffs is a practicing Catholic. 

"This isn't about atheism being pushed down someone's throat," Miller said. This is about being inclusive to everyone, including Christians."

Sign of the Times 

The case is still pending, but Frazier remains hopeful she's on the winning side of the law after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of sectarian prayers in another case, Greece v. Galloway, in early June.

 Frazier believes her case and others, like the recent Hobby Lobby contraception case, point to a decline in religious liberties. "All of these things are to try and limit religion," she said. "That's what motivates me to stand up for the Lord because we will not be America if we push God out."

 While she has received plenty of support for taking a stand for Judeo-Christian values, she also has faced a lot of backlash. Some have even suggested this was all a political stunt to sway voter support in her favor.

 "That was the furtherest [sic] thing from my mind," she explained. "I even tried hard not to politicize it, which is one of the reasons why I'm having this interview now and not before the election—because I didn't want to even give the impression that I was trying to do that, because this wasn't about that at all."

 For those who know her best, like lawyer and longtime friend Bob Lennon, they say Frazier is as genuine as they come. "She's an amazing person. She doesn't have an ego," Lennon said. "She's just a genuinely good person. And she's exactly what a public servant should be. She's there to serve people."

 But county voters had the final say in June's Maryland primaries. Frazier lost her re-election bid to represent her district to fellow Republican Steve Wantz. She conceded the loss was, at least in part, possibly the result of the battle over prayer backfiring.

I Wouldn't Change a Thing

Unfazed, she told CBN News she wouldn't change a thing and is proud of her political record and the stand she made for her Christian faith. Keeping taxes low, defending property rights and fighting an "overreaching" state government are among her proudest accomplishments. But two others top her list: leading a local newspaper reporter in the prayer of salvation and fighting for the right to reference Jesus in public prayers.

"It was much, much bigger than me, and it made me know that I was in the right place at the right time to be used of God," she said. "And maybe that was the full purpose I was in here this [sic] four years."

Fortune 500 Company: Homeschoolers Need Not Apply by MICHAEL DONNELLY/HSLDA

NiSource, Inc. will not hire home-school graduates, according to a recent report. (Flickr/Will Folsom)

NiSource, Inc., an Indiana-based energy distribution group with operations in Ohio, told the Home School Legal Defense Association that the company will not hire home-school graduates. In response to numerous letters written in an attempt to resolve a dispute over a particular job applicant whose job offer had been rescinded because he was home-schooled, NiSource Senior Counsel Adele O'Connor told me that NiSource "disagrees with the conclusions in your letter as to the legal requirements regarding a diploma. These requirements are set forth in Chapter 3313 of the Ohio Revised Code."

However, this section of the code applies to public and chartered private schools, not home-schools. NiSource is wrongly using Ohio law as an excuse to defend its discriminatory hiring policy. There is simply no legal impediment to NiSource hiring a home-school graduate—especially the one in question here. Ohio law clearly recognizes home-schooling as a legal and valid educational option. To rescind an offer of employment to an otherwise qualified and experienced applicant who received a legally recognized education is unreasonable and discriminatory.

Well-Qualified

This applicant was offered a job initially, but NiSource withdrew the offer when it found out he had a home-school diploma. In addition to graduating from home-school in compliance with Ohio law, this applicant had years of relevant job experience and several key industry certifications. During his last two years of high school the applicant took seven courses at a recognized state college and made the dean's list.

Although we are usually able to resolve problems related to home-school diplomas with employers and higher education officials, many human resources or admissions officials misunderstand Ohio law which recognizes home-schooling as a legal and valid form of education.

HSLDA has been working with home-school advocates in Ohio to seek legislative action to prevent this kind of discrimination. The problem may indicate more than just discrimination against home-schoolers. This situation reflects the precise concern that motivates HSLDA's opposition to the Common Core and its "college- and career-ready" standards—that qualified home-school graduates who don't have a state-issued credential will be discriminated against in employment decisions.

A National Scheme

The Common Core has been adopted in Ohio and is moving forward in the face of fierce opposition from grassroots activists—parents and educators who reject a nationalized education system that includes national standards and associated nationalized assessments and a national student data collection scheme. HSLDA opposes Common Core because it creates a system based on nationalized standards, assessment and data collection that could negatively affect home-school graduates and job seekers. Research indicates that home-schooled students are well prepared academically and socially for careers and college. But even if this is true, hiring decisions should be made based on an individual's qualifications, not a policy that discriminates against an entire class of people based on how they were educated.

HSLDA affirms the right of private companies to create their own hiring policies, which may include evaluating the academic credentials of prospective applicants. However, NiSource's discriminatory practice reflects a narrow-minded and statist view of education that is inconsistent with the values of a free society. In a free economy, companies have the right to hire those of their choosing; just as individuals have the right to decide who they work for and purchase from.

NiSource has a "contact us" form online. Home-schoolers may wish to take the opportunity to explain to the company why refusing to hire home-schoolers is not just bad policy, it is bad business.

House agrees to muzzle pastors with 'hate crimes' plan

'This is first time protected status given to whatever sexual orientation one has'
Posted: April 30, 2009

The U.S. House today approved a federal "hate crimes" bill that would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a "gay."

The vote, 249-175, came despite intense opposition from Republicans who argued the measure would create a privileged class.

Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of the High Impact Leadership Coalition also condemned the action, offering a warning about the nation's future.

He was interviewed on the issue by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND, and the audio of his interview is embedded here:

Jackson said the action puts "sexual orientation" in a specially protected class under federal law.
"Based on history, it really isn't something that needs to be protected," he said. "There's a problem that this is going to mark the first time that a protected class status is given to … whatever sexual orientation one has."

He said the experience in other countries has led to prosecution of Christians. In Sweden, for example, a minister was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching from Leviticus.

Similar state laws have resulted in similar results. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival, Jackson said.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, charged the plan will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of H.R. 1913, which says anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender.

But there is no epidemic of hate in the U.S., he noted.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., introduced a striking argument: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "The Anti-Christian Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives has acted today to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose Bible speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible.

"A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

"This Democrat-controlled Congress has now elevated pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men to the level of protection of that already given to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law," she said.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Democrats have placed a higher value on some lives compared to others, a decision he said is unconstitutional.

Not happy with just making Christian teachings on homosexuality illegal, supporters have approved a law that also provides grant money for so-called "sensitivity-training" to provide pro-homosexual propaganda, noted the public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel.

When a plan virtually identical to the current Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching against homosexuality under the premise that they could be "inducing" violence in someone.

The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.
"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

"Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality," he said.
Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law "regardless of sexual preference or proclivity."

Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be "hate crimes." And two-thirds of those involved claims of "hateful" words, touching and shoving.

Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn't touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.
"If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in 'apprehension of bodily injury' by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony 'hate crime,'" he said.

WND reported previously that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

Section 10 of the act states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

"They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty."

Read more: House agrees to 'muzzle pastors' with 'hate crimes' plan http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=96595#ixzz1YBMo7krG

 

Obama signs hate crimes bill into law in 2009

CNN - Gay Rights

President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law, hailed by supporters as the first major federal gay rights legislation, was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Shepard's mother, Judy, was among those at the ceremony that also included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder and leading members of Congress and the Pentagon, who were on hand for the appropriations bill signing.

To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to "help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray."

He cited the work of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and others "to make this day possible."

Later Wednesday, Obama stood with Shepard's parents and relatives of Byrd at a separate White House event honoring passage of the expanded hate crimes law.

Noting reports of 12,000 crimes based on sexual orientation over the past 10 years, Obama called the bill another step in the continuing struggle for protecting human rights.

"Because of the efforts of the folks in this room, particularly those family members standing behind me, the bell rings even louder now," Obama said. When he finished his remarks, he hugged the weeping relatives as the audience applauded.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White House.

When the bill won final congressional approval last week, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese called the hate crimes measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."


President says 'hate crimes' plan unneeded
Advisers would recommend veto of discriminatory federal plan
May 2007

One day after WND reported Christian activists were seeking a pledge from the president to veto a "hate crimes" bill now approved by the U.S. House, the White House issued a statement saying the proposal is "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

The plan, H.R. 1592 by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is feared by opponents, as WND has reported, as a means to target Christians and to demolish both freedom of speech and religion in the United States. The House voted 237-180 for it today.

"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crimes based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However … if H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," the White House said.

The statement said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in the bill, and many carry stricter penalties than the proposed language.
"State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement…" the statement said.

It said the administration believes all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished "firmly."

"I think it's a good sign, for now," said Michael Marcavage, of Repent America, an organization whose members include several Christians jailed for proclaiming their beliefs on public streets in Philadelphia.

Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary, called it a "Thought Crimes" plan.

"It's called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," he said.

Leaders at Concerned Women for America had asked for the veto promise.

"This bill would grant individuals who engaged in homosexual behavior ("sexual orientation") or those who cross-dress ("gender identity") preferential treatment over other citizens by elevating them to a specially protected class of victim," the organization said.

"The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, regardless of their chosen sexual behaviors. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dresser do not receive equal protection under the law," the CWFA said.

"Victims are – and should be – treated equally in the justice system, regardless of their 'sexual orientation,'" said CWFA President Wendy Wright. "This 'hate crimes' bill would overturn this balance, creating second-class victims and a federal justice system that discriminates against grandmothers, children, women and men simply because they are heterosexual."

"Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property," Colson continued. "Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals…"

He noted, as WND earlier reported, in other locations, such as England, Sweden, Canada, and even Philadelphia, where similar laws have been approved, the "Thought Police" already have prosecuted Christians.

In Philadelphia, a grandmother was hauled to jail and threatened with 47 years in prison for proclaiming her Christianity on a public street, Repent America has reported.

One Philadelphia woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers.

Faith2Action has launched a series of ads, which can be viewed at StopHateCrimesNow.com about the concerns.

The concerns also were echoed by Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth.

"This is really about getting the heavy hand of the federal government in promoting homosexuality as a 'civil right,'" he said.

Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund, earlier wrote to Congress warning the plan would criminalize thoughts and beliefs.

"This is a terrible thing, to criminalize thought or emotion or even speech," Lavy told WND.

WND columnist Janet Folger earlier warned in a commentary called "Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail," that in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim.


Read more: President says 'hate crimes' plan unneeded http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41444#ixzz1YBIXfPa5

 

Rejected by "Super Pastors" - be strong and courageous

zoe ministries
Christopher. K
GL Garden 01-21-02, Solok Paya Terubong 8, 11060 Penang, Malaysia
Email: cvs3zoe@yahoo.com

Ephesians 4:11-12 (NKJV) 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

Dear Friends, allow me to share a thought with you. When Jesus was on earth [flesh and blood] the recognized, established religious system functioned from the temple. The recognized “church” was meeting in the Temple. The recognized leaders were functioning from the Temple. Jesus and His apostles were functioning outside of the Temple [though there are times he has ministered in the synagogue and the Temple premises.

John 18:20 (NKJV) 20 Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing.

The Pharisees [the Pastors of Jesus time] did not recognize Jesus and His ministry. They looked down upon Him and in fact they said He was doing ministry through the power of Satan.

Matthew 12:24 (NKJV) 24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

The Pharisees felt Jesus was not a man of God and they rejected Jesus.

John 9:16 (NKJV) 16 Therefore some of the Pharisees said, “This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them.

Matthew 21:42 (NKJV) 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Luke 6:22 (NKJV) 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man’s sake.

John 15:18-20 (NKJV) 18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

Friends, if you are hated and rejected by the “super pastors” do not be discouraged because they did it to our Lord Jesus first. They reject and look down upon you because they rejected Jesus first. If you are not included in the elite group of the “super pastors” do not worry. You are in the Team of God. The elite group of “super pastors” might ignore you and side line you hoping that you and your ministry will die off but you be strong and courageous- God, who called you is faithful He will uphold you in His Right hand and protect, provide and guide you. Your names might not appear in the magazine of man but your names will appear in the magazine of God. Be strong and courageous and continue to do the work of God. He is with you and will provide for you. All that is needed from you is that you remain in HIM and he will work in you and through you. It does not matter whether the “super pastors” recognize you but it is important that God recognize you.

During Jesus ministry on earth, finances of the Old Testament Church were put into the Temple treasury [store house]. All the finances were given for the welfare of the Pharisees and Religious Leaders functioning from the Temple [Pastors and Theologians of Jesus time]. They should have accepted Jesus and His apostles as God’s servants and taken care of them BUT they did not.

God moved some women to take care of Jesus and His apostles.

Mark 15:41 (NKJV) who also followed Him and ministered to Him when He was in Galilee, and many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

Luke 8:3 (NKJV) and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.

In the old days God used man like Obadiah to take care of His prophets and ravens to feed His Prophet. The same God will take care of your needs.

Be strong and courageous and speak the truth, do not hold back. Speak up for those who cannot speak.

In His Majesty’s Service

Christopher.K

Christian doctors should be allowed to share their faith

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, hopes the General Medical Council will reconsider its investigation into a Christian doctor who talked to a patient about Jesus

by Dr Peter SaundersPosted: Monday, May 23, 2011, 15:06 (BST)

A Christian GP has been reprimanded by the General Medical Council for talking about his faith to a patient.

Dr Richard Scott was accused of ‘harassment’ and told by the medical regulator that he risked bringing the profession into disrepute by discussing his religious beliefs.

He has refused to accept a formal warning on his record, and is instead taking legal action to fight the censure with the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre and leading human rights lawyer Paul Diamond.

Dr Scott, from Margate, who says he has shared his faith with thousands of patients in the past, saw the patient who is at centre of the complaint in 2010. Following the consultation, the patient’s mother complained that the doctor had abused his position by ‘pushing religion’ on her son.

However, Dr Scott argues that he acted within official guidelines, having asked if he could talk about his Christian beliefs to the patient, who is of a different faith, and having ended the conversation as soon as he was asked to. The conversation only turned to faith issues after they had fully explored the medical options.

After receiving the complaint, the GMC apparently sent Dr Scott a letter warning him over his conduct and told him that the way he expressed his religious beliefs had "distressed" the patient and did ‘not meet with the standards required of a doctor’.

Dr Scott, a doctor for 28 years, works at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent. Its six partners are all Christians and state on the official NHS Choices website that they are likely to discuss spiritual matters with patients during consultations.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, is reported by the Telegraph as saying: "Our guidance, which all doctors must follow, is clear. Doctors should not normally discuss their personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient’s care. They also must not impose their beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or views."

However Dickson has been quite selective in his quotation of the guidance which actually gives doctors a lot of freedom in expressing their faith, provided they do it in an appropriate and sensitive way.

The GMC guidance in question, Personal beliefs and medical practice, was published on 17 March 2008.

Christian Medical Fellowship contributed to the consultation leading to its publication and published a review of the guidance at the time.

At the time of the publication of the guidance Dr John Jenkins, Chair of the GMC Standards and Ethics Committee said: "The GMC recognises that personal beliefs, values, and cultural and religious practises are central to the lives of doctors and patients. The guidance balances a doctors’ right to practise in accordance with their views and beliefs, and patients’ right to receive timely and appropriate medical care."

The guidance states specifically (para 7) that it "attempts to balance doctors' and patients’ rights – including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the entitlement to care and treatment to meet clinical needs – and advises on what to do when those rights conflict". It is not intended to ‘impose unnecessary restrictions on doctors’ (p8) but does point out that doctors have an obligation not to impose their beliefs on patients:

"You must not express to your patients your personal beliefs, including political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress." (p1)

So there is no blanket prohibition on expressing personal beliefs, as long as it is done in a way that is sensitive and appropriate.

The guidance also underlines the principle that doctors must "make the care of (their) patient (their) first concern’ and must treat them ‘with respect, whatever their life choices and beliefs".

These are all good principles that I personally have no problem with. No doctor, Christian or otherwise, should impose his views on his patient or seek to exploit his or her position.

However, the guidance goes on to stress that all patients and doctors have personal beliefs implying that these principles apply not just to those who subscribe to a particular faith, but to everyone.

"Personal beliefs and values, and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of doctors and patients." (p4) "All doctors have personal beliefs which affect their day-to-day practice." (p6)

It also emphasises that taking account of patients’ beliefs is part of good medical care.

"Patients’ personal beliefs may be fundamental to their sense of well-being and could help them to cope with pain or other negative aspects of illness or treatment." (p5) "For some patients, acknowledging their beliefs or religious practices may be an important aspect of a holistic approach to their care. Discussing personal beliefs may, when approached sensitively, help you to work in partnership with patients to address their particular treatment needs." (p9)

I recently blogged about a new report from CMF, which has had wide international news coverage which reviews the positive health benefits of Christian faith.

Good doctors do not treat their patients solely as biological or biochemical machines. Rather they practise ‘whole person’ medicine that is not concerned solely with physical needs, but also addresses social, psychological, behavioural and spiritual factors that may be contributing to a person’s illness.

Here we have the case of a doctor who has talked to many patients about faith matters and who has had only a very small handful of complaints. He seems genuinely to make his patients welfare his main concern, and when he feels it appropriate to raise spiritual issues does so with sensitivity and respect.

From the facts of the case, as reported, it appears that the General Medical Council has acted with inappropriate and disproportionate force and appears to have applied its (very reasonable guidance) in a selective and unbalanced way.

The Telegraph, in its editorial, 'Doctors can be Christians too’, quite rightly says that "this case of a doctor reprimanded for discussing his religion is a worrying one" and accuses the GMC of an "excessive reaction". It concludes that "we appear to be heading towards an alarming situation in which the profession of faith becomes an active disqualification".

The GMC has clearly overreacted and I am on record in the Telegraph saying just this.

Let’s hope that it reassesses its position and applies its own guidance in an even-handed way by balancing more carefully what it calls "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" with "the entitlement to care and treatment to meet clinical needs".

If it fails to do so it may find itself losing more than its credibility.

This article first appeared on the CMF blog and appears here with permission