Posted on 04/23/2003 5:30:41 AM PDT by Hacksaw
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
http://www.natreformassn.org/pr/2002UfSeinpr.html
by William O. Einwechter
Response to Associated Press Article about the National Reform Association Conference
Lara Jakes Jordan's Associated Press article, "Pitts cancels speech in front of radical religious group," that appeared in the November 14, 2002 Intelligencer Journal (and other newspapers), is filled with falsehoods and inaccuracies concerning the National Reform Association (NRA) and what it believes and promotes. First, the National Reform Association, which was founded in 1864, states that its purpose is to "maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government." These principles include the lordship of Jesus Christ over civil government, the fact that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, and that the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments provide the standards and "values" to which citizens and their civil leaders ought to conform their laws, institutions, and practices. The NRA does not support "imposing biblical law over the United States laws." We repudiate any sort of agenda that seeks to force the principles of law and justice revealed in Scripture upon any community, state, or nation. The American system of government is, rightly, not totalitarian; it is a republic. In a republic, laws are formed or change comes through the proper processes of discussion, debate, and persuasion in the public arena and in the halls of government through our elected officials. We fully support the procedures of government that are established in the U. S. Constitution. We are an association of American citizens from various Christian churches and denominations who love our fellow citizens and our country. We seek to raise our voice (which right is guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and which we have been doing since 1864) in the public debate over what is the cause of our nation's woes and what are the solutions. We strive for liberty, justice, and peace under Christ and His revealed Word (the Bible).
Second, the NRA conference in Ephrata, PA, "Restoring our Republic" had nothing to do with "executing homosexuals and abortion providers and stoning disobedient children." These are gross and dishonest mischaracterizations (disseminated by American's United for the Separation of Church and State) of the National Reform Association, its members, and the speakers we have invited. The purpose of the conference was to teach God's sovereignty over the nations, how to establish Christian leadership, how Christians can help restore our American republic to its Christian foundations, and to explore American history with two of the finest Christian historians and teachers of our day. Gary DeMar, president of American Vision, has written extensively on American history and Christian principles of government, and his work has been well-received and used by conservatives and Christians throughout the country. Mr. DeMar has appeared on national television and radio, and his books (e.g. God and Government 3 vols.; America's Christian History: The Untold Story; Last Days Madness) have been promoted by prominent Christian and conservative booksellers. Stephen McDowell, president of the Providence Foundation, has spoken in the Lancaster, PA area before and is well-respected here. His book on America's Providential History is highly regarded and widely used.
Third, the National Reform Association does not advocate "executing homosexuals." This is a terrible slander of our organization. The NRA has never taken this position on the homosexual issue. There are different views on the matter in the Association, but, generally, our members would see homosexual behavior as being contrary to God's moral law. But I do not know of a single member who would advocate "executing homosexuals." (As Christians we desire to bring the forgiveness, mercy, and deliverance of Christ to them, as we do to all sinners and all of us are sinners in need of Christ's salvation.) It is not a crime to be a homosexual (it may be a sin, but it is not a crime). There are no "status" crimes in the Bible at all. For example, no one is guilty of a crime by being a "thief." You are only guilty of a crime if you are properly convicted of an actual act of stealing. Throughout our nation's history, acts of sodomy have been considered by the various states as a civil crime (many states have removed these laws from their books in recent years). The consensus of our members would probably be that acts of sodomy constitute a crime, and that these acts should be restrained by civil sanctions. What the nature of those civil sanctions should be is a matter of debate. But we condemn, in the strongest terms, all acts of violence against homosexuals. It is evil and anarchistic for any citizen or group of citizens to preach or practice violence against their fellow citizens. We do not believe, however, that it is an expression of hate or encouragement to violence to appeal to the Bible in an honest discussion of the issue of homosexual acts in the context of what a civil society should permit and/or punish.
Fourth, the statement in Jordan's article that the National Reform Association and its members support the execution of abortion providers must be placed in proper context. Again, the National Reform Association has not taken a specific position on this. However, in general, we believe that abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. The teaching of the Bible and the past consensus of Western legal thought is that the premeditated and deliberate taking of human life is murder. Furthermore, the Bible and the consensus of past Western legal thought is that the deliberate, premeditated killing of a human being is properly punished by death by the agency of the state. In contrast to many other pro-life groups, we are not ashamed to make the connection between abortion, premeditated killing of a human life (murder), and the death penalty. Having said that, however, it must quickly be added that we condemn all vigilantism and acts of violence against abortion providers by individual citizens. The power of the sword (capital punishment) belongs to the state alone. Our work is to change the minds of the citizens of this nation concerning abortion, by all lawful and peaceful means, so that they will see that abortion is the deliberate taking of human life and is a crime against God and man and should be punished as such.
Fifth, Jordan shows that she must have never actually read my article, Stoning Disobedient Children (Chalcedon Report, January 1999), because the article demonstrates that the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not about stoning disobedient children. The article, which seeks to defend the wisdom and justice of God in the giving of that law to Israel, shows that the rebels in view in that biblical law are not disobedient children, but incorrigible young people (late teens or older) of a dissolute, criminal character and conduct who constitute a real danger to the parents and society. The wicked son in view in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is of the nature of the adopted son and his friends who not long ago committed a horrible torture-murder of an Ephrata, PA couple, for which they are now on trial for murder, with the prosecutor seeking the death penalty for at least one of the defendants; of the character of those wicked young men who murdered their classmates at Columbine; of the disposition of the teenager who participated in the recent sniper murders in the Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. I am a Christian minister who believes in the full inspiration and authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. My article, which is being vilified here, was an attempt to deal honestly and forthrightly with this text of Scripture. Though some Christians may want to avoid such passages, and others may hate God's law, I say with David, "O, how love I thy law, it is my meditation all the day."
Finally, the fact that Jordan would include the absurd and absolutely false statement by Barry Lynn that the National Reform Association is "so extreme they would make the mullahs in Iran blush," shows that she and Lynn have no interest in promoting serious or peaceful discourse in America. These bizarre and inflammatory words from Lynn reveal that the agenda of so-called religious watchdog groups like "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" and the reporters that quote them is explicitly anti-Christian in its orientation. Whether it is deliberate or not, this type of irresponsible language only serves to engender enmity towards Christian who believe in the lordship of Jesus Christ over civil government (this I know for a fact from the mail I receive after Lynn and Americans United has released another of their incendiary and derogatory press releases about myself or the National Reform Association). While claiming to be the model of tolerance, Lynn and company practice a base form of intolerance. The fact is, that the mullahs of Iran would probably want to kill us because we believe in and preach that Jesus is the Christ, that there is salvation in no other name but His, and that He is the King of kings and Lord of lords.
William Einwechter
Vice President of the National Reform Association
Editor of The Christian Statesman
Given the way the Libs play politics, I'd have to disagree with you. Turnabout is fair play.
This happened to a Japanese automaker (can't remember which) when they aired a TV commercial featuring a Black driving one of their cars. The driver smiles to reveal a gold tooth cover. Jesse Jackson was all over that one! I thought it was just good marketing, but Jesse disagreed -- and as we all now that when it comes to racial discrimination we must all bow when Jesse passes judgment. < sarcasm off >
Actually, it s very germane to the conversation, when you recognize that the quote was altered by the reporter to give a very different impression. (In case you didn't realize it, when you see a word in brackets [ ] in an article, it means the word or phrase was not a part of the original quote, and was inserted by the writer to "clarify" the meaning.)
When someone deliberately alters a quote in a way that is detrimental to the speaker, it is quite appropriate to inquire as to the motive. Brian Wilson just reported on a possible motive.
If he said there is not right to privacy in the Constitution (I haven't read the complete remarks yet), then I have to agree with him. That "right" was created by the Supreme Court out of whole cloth in Griswold v. Connecticut, emanating from the "penumbras" of the Constitution. This was the primary foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision a few years later.
The 4th Amendment prevents the government from coming in your house, reading your mail, etc., without just cause. To that extent, there is a right to privacy. But there is no right to engage in any particular activity, sexual or not, in the privacy of your own home, just because that activity occurs among "consenting adults".
He was talking about a whole range of sexual practices that could fall under the "privacy" exception, if the USSC decided to use that reasoning. The "clarification" was to raise the ire of a specific, very political group. If, as you suggest, he was obviously talking about gay sex, then the "clarification" was unnecessary. There was an agenda at play here by the reporter, and she got called for it.
You are not going to believe this, but I used to know the $%^#$%(^#$% that wrote the article that MISQUOTED Santorum. A few years ago she subscribed to a mailing list that I ran, and once asked to crash at my apartment when I lived in NYC. She arrived at my office, took one look at me, decided I wasn't attractive enough to even SPEAK TO, much less hang out with, and hemmed and hawed and backed out.
Boy oh boy oh boy, do I hope she is DESTROYED by this false quotation of Santorum.
I don't think I believe in God any more, that people like her get everything handed to them on a silver platter, and I'm stuck unemployed waiting to die alone. Evil does indeed rule this world.
Never will one encounter a group more rabid, hate-filled or willing to do anything in the scope of human imagination to strike out against those who dare to say anything negative about their choice of lifestyle, than the "gay community."
"Gay" "Community" What a misnomer. On both counts.
Senator Santorum is from PA. Major Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame is also from PA. "Hang Tough" is Major Winters' trademark saying. Santorum should "hang tough!" as his fellow PA citizen, Major Winters, would say!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.