TGIF - Beware of Mixture

This is especially important today, when hostility to traditional Christianity is being mixed with the notion equality of all ideas and the redefinition of all religious terms, it can be difficult for the Christian to sort out just where the mixture is entering into their lives.


Beware of Mixture
TGIF Today God Is First Volume 2, by Os Hillman
09-02-2009

"Then they said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt'" (Ex 32:4).

Moses had gone up onto Mount Sinai to meet with God and receive the Ten Commandments. He left his brother Aaron in charge. Aaron had been mentored by his brother Moses. However, we learn that Aaron still has vestiges of Egypt residing in him. He had not had a complete conversion from the ways of Egypt to the ways of God. His leadership was not strong enough to thwart a rebellion in the camp and he allowed the people, and even encouraged the people, to make an idol of gold. Later, he tried to justify his actions by saying the idol was a God of Israel.

Today we see such mixture in the body of Christ. We promote guaranteed prosperity without the cross. We call adversity a sign of a lack of faith. We promote New Age philosophies mixed with the scriptures and call it a new freedom in Christ. This is only mixture. It is an abomination to the Lord.

And because Aaron has mixture in his own life, he was unable to be truthful to Moses when confronted with his actions. "He said to Aaron, 'What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?' So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!'" (Ex 32:21-24).

Did you notice Aaron's explanation? Out came this calf! - all by itself. Aaron attempted to deceive Moses. Aaron failed to fulfill his role as a strong, Godly leader. He allowed "mixture" to have power over the people of God.

Pray that you will be faithful to the Word of God and not allow new philosophies to distort its ageless truths.

Reprinted by permission from the author. Os Hillman is an international speaker and author of more than 10 books on workplace calling. To learn more, visit http://www.marketplaceleaders.org/

Why we need a Parental Rights Amendment

From ParentalRights.org

Your freedom to raise your children
with your own faith and worldview is under attack
from outside our country, and from within.

♦ A New Hampshire mom has been forbidden to
home school because her daughter holds “too
firmly” to her religious beliefs.

♦ Several Boston-area school districts have rules on
what food parents can or cannot include in their
child’s lunch.

♦ National governments around the world are being
pressured to outlaw modest spanking as discipline
in the home, regardless of what voters would
choose.

♦ The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of
the Child contains threats to parental rights and national
sovereignty. One expert writes, “[The] best
interests [principle] provides decision and policy
makers with the authority to substitute their own
decisions for either the child’s or the parents’.”

This is not just in divorce courts. This is for any decision.

Call your legislators and tell them you support a parental rights amendment and oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is time to stop pretending this stuff is no big deal. Our freedom to decide how to raise our children is at stake. Ignorance is no excuse.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

Here is a sobering article following up on yesterday's post.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

So much for those who are thinking that the UNCRC is not going to be a problem for the US.

Just because you are not homeschooling does not mean that teams of government bureaucrats will not be able to override your every decision if they deem it not in "the best interests of the child."

Do you REALLY want someone else telling you what is best for your children?

Parents, oppose ratification of this treaty with every breath, or risk losing the right to direct the upbringing of your children.

Including their education.

Including their spiritual development, or lack thereof.

A lot of parents don't care about that because they think that will only affect those crazy Christians who hate the "godless" schools and want to establish a Theocracy on earth. "Good riddance," they are thinking. "We could do with less religion in the world."

Atheist parent, do you want the government to tell you that you are required to take your child to church if he wants to go?

Muslim parent, do you want the government to tell you that you must allow your child to convert to Judaism if that is what she desires?

That's what I thought.

This affects everyone.

No More Parental rights? The Threat is Real

Even as I am writing this, activists are gathering in Washington DC to rally in support of the ratification UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). It has been suggested that there will be an attempt by supporters in Congress to pass "ambush legislation" - that is, to rush through the ratification of this international treaty without getting the support of the American People.

The last few days and weeks should tell you that Congress does not give a damn about the support or desires of the American People.

• Ordinary Americans who do not support Obamacare have been vilified and mocked in the press and by legislators themselves as some sort of insurance industry shills and (God forbid) right-wing crackpots.
  
• Yesterday the White House directed the Justice Department to file court papers claiming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals, even though the Justice Department lawyers have been arguing that it is constitutional, and an infringement on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Parentalrights.org observes:

Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."

In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

It should insult you that this treaty will consider you an abusive parent unless you are able to prove otherwise. This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines our legal status as "innocent until proven guilty."

For those who cannot believe that parental rights are endangered by this treaty, but here are a couple of examples of cases where judges decided against parents without the treaty. We are not talking about parents who are abusive and dangerous themselves. There are already laws on the books dealing with those. We are talking about judicial activism and a culture that increasingly devalues parents and seeks to place control of our children, if not with the state, anywhere but with us.

From www.parentalrights.org

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were "deeply troubled by the utter disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world."

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question."Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?" he asked. (In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007))

Excuse me? With the girl's BABYSITTERS?? Does modern contempt for all things traditional or parental know no bounds? How about this one:

From www.parentalrights.org

The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away. (In Re: Sumey, 94 Wn. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980))

Did you catch the date on that last one? That was almost 30 years ago! Do you really think that judges have become more traditional since then? The battle has escalated alarmingly in just the few months since Obama was elected.

I know these last few posts do not deal directly with home business, but they do deal directly with homeschooling. Home schooling is already being restricted in other countries, notably in the UK, precisely because of provisions of this treaty. But even if you are not a homeschooler, if you have children and believe that you know better how to raise them than the state does, you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

Let's Look A Little Deeper at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Here is an outstanding piece that goes into more detail about exactly what is wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will not elaborate but urge you to go now and check this out. You may be shocked to realize how any rights YOU have to direct the upbringing of your child will be affected. This is not only, as she says, about "Christians and nutty homeschoolers" who oppose this. If you are a parent, you should oppose this.

Contact your legislators immediately.

Call Now to Stop UN Children’s Treaty

Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.

This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.

In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate. To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.

Action

Here’s what we need you all to do:

1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also, keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.

2. Call the Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.

3. Contact your senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your senators’ contact information by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16—the Parental Rights Amendment.

It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!

Michael Farris
HSLDA Chairman

Better than Seven Daughters

"He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth." Ruth 4:15

A son is a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter the rest of her life. - Irish Proverb

Ruth was declared to be of enormous value to her mother-in-law - "better than seven sons", a staggering claim in the ancient world where many sons were a badge of honor. But beyond the status and honor that accrued to a family with many sons, everyone knew then as they surely know now, it is most often daughters who have the longer lasting, intense bond with their mothers

Many families have seen one or the other of these sayings to be true. I have seen more women maintain closer bonds than men to their family of origin. I can remember the difference between the relationships my mother and aunt had with my grandmother and the relationship my uncle had with her. For all the jokes that are made about the relationship between mothers-in-law and daughters-in law, there have been many wonderful examples of in-law friends. My own mother was my very best friend, and my mother-in-law was right up there at the top of my list as well.

But I have a son who is better than seven daughters.

I say that not to demean my own daughter, but to confer upon my son the honor that he deserves as a particularly loving and considerate son, and a clever and funny friend.

When he was just a little boy, there was a little girl who was madly in love with him and pursued him for several years. She finally gave up after concluding that "he was just too attached to his mommy."

I don't know if that is still true. I don't think so, but I may not be the best judge of that. I do know that he never went through that phase where he was embarrassed to be seen with Mom or Dad in public. He has no frame of reference for the scenes in movies and on television where the kid walks ten paces ahead of his parents, belittles them in front of his friends, or would rather walk home than be seen riding with Mom. And he is eighteen.

Today.

This week I will be celebrating my son, remembering his childhood and thanking God for the young man he has become.

Happy birthday, Buddy.