Tag Archives: politics

Political Termites

Termites: tiny creatures invisibly destroying massive buildings from the inside. Did you every meet anyone who got involved in politics for what they could get out of it? Most low-level politicians either work for free or almost free. They do the job because they honestly believe they are helping people.

At what point do they succumb to temptation and make something for themselves? With some politicians, they enter politics with no personal principles. They simply start out taking the easy road to personal rewards. But most people do not start out corrupt. Somewhere along the campaign trail or after they get into office they make a decision. That decision might come when someone takes them into a room and “explains” to them the way the “system” works. It could be some type of personal temptation, usually sexual or financial. But with most politicians, the pressure to do “greater good” overwhelms personal principles. They cannot help anyone unless they are in office. So they do what they have to do to get or stay in office.

It does not have to be just individual politicians, either. States at the end of the Primary voting season see that their votes do not count. By the time they get to vote, all the competitors have dropped out. In 2012, 33 states and territories, including the District of Columbia, moved their primary or caucus date forward, even though the Republican National Committee (RNC) passed rules forbidding voting before April 1, 2012. Arizona, Florida and South Carolina defied the rules even further. For those who moved their voting date, the RNC cut the number of delegates in half and required that they award their delegate proportionately instead of winner-take-all. Arizona, Florida and South Carolina awarded all their delegates to the winner. In South Carolina Newt Gingrich had 40.4%, Mitt Romney had 27.8% and Rick Santorum had 17%. In Arizona Mitt Romney had 47.3% to Rick Santorum’s 26.6 %, a difference of 8 delegates. In Florida Mitt Romney had 46.2% to Newt Gingrich’s 31.9%, a difference of 16 delegates.

In Iowa, Mitt Romney was originally declared the winner by 8 votes out of a total vote of 121,394. He was awarded one extra delegate because he was the winner. After the votes were certified, effectively recounting the votes, Rick Santorum was declared the winner by 34 votes. However, the state election board made this announcement very late on a Friday night, declared the election a tie and awarded the same number of delegates to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

In Michigan, delegates are awarded by popular vote per congressional district. Winning big in one district does not help you out in another district where you narrowly lose. Though Mitt Romney won the popular vote, in delegate count by congressional district, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum tied. According to Michigan law, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum should have an equal number of delegates. However, in violation of Michigan law, the Michigan Republican Party awarded Mitt Romney an extra delegate, taking one away from Rick Santorum.

Normally, these small “irregularities” would go unnoticed because the winner would be determined long before the final primary and few delegate votes here or there would go unnoticed. After all, each one of these is only a little termite. But with the possibility of a brokered convention looking more and more likely, these results certainly appear as if the fix is in for Mitt Romney.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics

Grace and Salt on Twitter (And some Light, Too, I Hope)


(Pictured above are Rex, Nessie, Sonny and Sis from the Disciplesaurs Puppet Play Series)

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person (Colossians 4:6).

Someone shared a link on Facebook the other day, in an authors’ group to which I belong, and said it scared her. The blog post was about reasons why the writer might “block” someone on Twitter. I am so new on Twitter I don’t even know how to block someone, but when I went to read the post it didn’t tell me how to block anybody.

It did, however, berate anyone who promotes something that might be good and valuable, such as when I post a link to one of our books or those of another author. It also demanded that we not talk about anything that might be important or relevant, like politics or religion. In other words, don’t bother me with anything that might matter. I want my social media fluffy and self-centered.

So, I guess I won’t trip over my tongue running to Twitter to follow that blogger. I want my Twitter experience to be something beyond entertainment. I did take away some good advice from that post, however. I tend to post and retweet and copy tweets from files of people whom I want to support but leave it at that. The writer suggested I be conversational.

Uh-oh. My Twitterland experience must broaden. First I had to make my own Tweets. Now I have to make conversations. And I have to do it in 140 characters or less. Oh, wait, I’m kind of already doing that, I think. When someone retweets my tweets, or tells people they should follow me, or even becomes a follower, I make it a point to say thank you. That’s a tiny conversation.

(Pictured above is a scene from “It Ain’t Gonna Rain,” one of the Different View Bible stories Puppet Plays.)

I sometimes even show that I’m paying attention to who they are and what their profile says. One new follower has a focus on educational materials for younger children. I responded that I had written puppet plays about a dinosaur family and about animals telling Bible stories from their points of view. Another claimed to be an Ogre but said, instead of eating people, he ate vegetables. I thanked him for eating vegetables.

The politics and religion and sharing good authors will stay. If you’re offended, unfollow, bock, whatever. Because when it comes to Twitter, and everything else I do, I don’t just do it to socialize. It may be social media to you, but to me it’s another way to “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Wanna follow me on Twitter? @MaryCFindley.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

The Greatest Commandment


“Master Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40

Everything we do, every decision we make must have these two guiding principles. Does it glorify God? Does it show that I love my neighbor as myself? This blog post is inspired by a variety of topics that come across my Facebook page.

People have said in many different ways that they want their Facebook experience to be, in effect, “light and fluffy.” They don’t want to talk about religion or politics. A cute picture or a funny story receives many, sometimes hundreds of “likes,” reposts, and comments. Sometimes we like and repost such things too. But important posts, prayer requests for persecuted Christians or links to important news items, rarely show any evidence that anyone has even seen them.

As believers in Christ Jesus, we are not keeping these two commandments when we keep our lives “light and fluffy.” As believers, we are part of the Church, engaged in warfare. As believers we are faced with daily choices. Are our bodies temples of the Holy Spirit, or are they simply, as the Secular Humanist bumper stickers claim, amusement parks?

The Scriptures have detailed teaching about how a church should conduct itself and what it should expect of its membership, and vice-versa. Failure to follow these Scriptures is sin. A church or an individual needs to condemn failure to follow clear Scriptures or the making up of practices the Scriptures do not teach or allow for.

The Word of God clearly commands us not to fellowship with believers living in open sin. Though it grieves God’s heart, some people in positions of church leadership are living in open sin. Sadder still, unbelievers mock and ridicule the Word of God in the majority of the church buildings of Western Europe and the United States. We can neither glorify God nor love our neighbor in these services. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help us discern exactly what type of ministry we should join and support.

But some people say they won’t go to a church service if it does not meet their “needs,” whatever that means. Would you attend a church where men were segregated from women and children? What about a service without pews or chairs, where you had to stand for the entire service? What about a church that met in a different place each service because of threats on the worshipers’ lives?

There are three standards in the word of God for choosing to fellowship and support a local work by joining in membership. First, does it preach the Word of God? This means the whole council of God, not just what I want to hear. Second, is there a place for ministry? If the abilities and gifts God has blessed you with cannot be used in one fellowship, seek out another place where they can be used. Third, can I faithfully attend the services? The perfect fit a thousand miles from your house is not such a perfect fit.

These should not be such high standards. Instead, Christian Churches are filled with people “whose god is their appetites.” Philippians 3:9. These people will only attend a church which meets their appetites. The sad part is, what might be acceptable for one believer, might be a stumbling block and a sin for another believer.

The following is a brief list of some of the issues we have seen which cause people to leave a church. 1) The church is not the right size. These are “Goldilocks” Christians. This church is too big. This church is too small. They go through life forever searching for the church that is “just right.” 2) The music or worship service is not “contemporary” enough. They often tie this to other issues. They say the church is cold, unfriendly, judgmental, sometimes after attending for years and suddenly discovering that all these things have bothered them for years. Do they really mean to say, “I hate this church and I know this church hates me because I hate its music”? 3) The Church isn’t “giving” enough. What they usually mean by this is that other members are not giving them enough. 4) The Church is “legalistic.” This word is so overused that it has lost it’s meaning. In the Bible the word legalism simply means works salvation. Sometimes people simply mean that this particular church has standards they do not like.

So maybe our facebook pages, and our churches, and our lives, should not consist of what is light and fluffy, of what is pleasing to us, but rather of things that fulfill the Greatest Commandment.

7 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books

Preface to Antidisestablishmentarianism

The most religious people on earth are those who claim not to have any religion. Dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted, they refuse to allow anyone to so much as speak their opposition. Yet these same people demand political power and tax support. The mildest opposition, such as the mere mention of Intelligent Design (not God), has blacklisted tenured professors. Just two parents in a middle school in Texas made the national news by objecting to Gideon Bibles placed, without comment, on a table outside the school office.1 Such people dishonestly claim that they are not religious and “religion” is a group of mythologies. The truth is that they are the ones promoting mythology. In every aspect of life they promote this mythology with unproven dogmatic assertions under the guise of “Science” vocabulary. After hijacking the word “Science,” they use the courts to elevate their misuse of the term to an established religion.

Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology. It is divided into various academic disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Biology. However, what the federal courts, the academic community and the mainstream Western media mean by science is uniformitarianism. It is the cosmological foundation of the religion of Secular Humanism. “Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (II Peter 3:4). This concise description of Uniformitarianism clearly shows that it is completely and entirely a religious belief in antiscientific myths.

Secular Humanists use words which have been in the English language for hundreds of years but give them “new” meanings. However, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV). The words believe, faith and trust are all historic judicial terms and they also form the foundation of the true scientific method. What Secular Humanists promote as their version of the scientific method consists of preconceptions, presuppositions and assumptions. It is the opposite of an open mind.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.2 The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

Liberals, Secular Humanists and materialists, however, use the word “belief” as a synonym for a philosophical position, just an opinion. Faith and trust to them are metaphysical words which mean different things to different people. And this is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Secular Humanists have redefined hundreds of words to support their religion, such as sin, judgment and anthropology. A conversation with them can be very difficult since they use historical English words but mean something entirely different.

The traditional role of religion is to place priesthood as intermediary between God and man. The traditional role of an establishment of religion places the government in that intermediary role between God and man. In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church put itself between man and God, as other religions have in the past. Johann Tetzel, a “professional pardoner,” sold indulgences representing forgiveness for sins in Germany. Indulgences were based on the “storehouse” of good works believed to exist because of the sacrifice of Christ and the good deeds and prayers of past saints. Tetzel was said to promise that, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”3

Selling indulgences was the final act of many which brought on the Reformation. People wouldn’t have bought them if they hadn’t believed the Catholic Church alone could placate God on their behalf. Martin Luther convinced the princes of Germany that they did not need to send their money to Rome because they could go to God directly. Rome sent armies to collect the money. Even Modern Roman Catholics who do not believe that their church today claims to stand between them and God have to admit that the medieval Roman Catholic Church did.

The combined power of Church and State restricted personal worship, scientific study and access to historical truth. Today Secular Humanism has done the same by removing foundational truths from education. It excludes study and discovery that contradicts uniformitarianism. It rewrites history to undermine morality and freedom of expression.

The union between the medieval Romanist church and the state came to an end in two ways. In Southern Europe during the Renaissance, art, architecture, literature, and learning opened up to all men, not just those who were part of the church and state system. The Renaissance left the power intact, however. In Northern Europe, the Reformation abolished the need for a church like Rome through the great affirmations of the Reformation: The Scriptures are the absolute authority; Justification is by faith alone apart from works; and every believer is his own priest with direct access to God. The Reformation made a special priesthood class unnecessary because men could pray directly to God and read His Word on their own.

The medieval Roman Catholic Church kept the Scriptures almost exclusively in Latin to prevent ordinary people from studying them, forcing people to come to the priest. The priest would not only tell them what the Scriptures said, but he also mingled that with the church’s interpretation. In order for ordinary people who did not know Latin to read the Bible for themselves, the Scriptures had to be translated into the language of the ordinary people. Translation work by Reformers was essential to enable ordinary men to read the Scriptures for themselves, even though it was punishable by death under the Church-State system. The Renaissance and the Reformation worked together in the development of moveable type to make printing and distribution of translations of the Scriptures easier. Renaissance scholars revived interest in studying forgotten manuscripts and making translations into the vernacular. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament provided a basis for more accurate translations of the Scriptures.

The Medieval Romanist Church-State system took away freedom by forcing man to rely on and accept its teachings. The Renaissance and the Reformation restored freedom by returning art, science, and all forms of learning to ordinary people. In particular the people were able to worship God as the Scriptures taught, without Church-State control. Modern western culture, and American culture in particular, was founded on this religious freedom. American culture is more Christian than European cultures, but neither of these cultures can survive if the foundation of religious freedom is destroyed.

It is this Christian foundation of religious freedom which is the real target of Secular Humanists. These Secular Humanists have taken outrageous liberties in their unrelenting quest to replace religious freedom with their established religion of Secular Humanism, which they incorrectly call science or Natural Law. Their major tool is the US court system. Sympathetic US courts have consistently supported Secular Humanism by using every possible opportunity to replace the word religion with the ancient concept of Natural Law. However, since Natural Law has been used so many different ways, the courts had to standardize the term Natural Law. Their version of Natural Law goes back to Plato’s Republic. Though Plato never used the phrase “natural law” in his Republic, translator Benjamin Jowett’s notes state that, “Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the first who conceived a method of knowledge…”4 Plato’s Republic is at least the foundation of modern Natural Law, if not the detailed finished product. Together with Aristotle, Plato is supposed by secularists to have laid the foundation for learning and development of the Sciences. This is really is essence of Natural Law.

Jowett goes on to say that Plato provided for a means to spread his method of acquiring knowledge. “In the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates, the first care of the rulers is to be education.”4 Jowett makes it clear that Socrates meant to impart much more than mere academic knowledge, just as Natural Law means to teach more than mere Science. Socrates promoted “the conception of a higher State, in which ‘no man calls anything his own,’ and in which there is neither ‘marrying nor giving in marriage,’ and ‘kings are philosophers’ and ‘philosophers are kings;’ and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life.”4

Many know that Plato in his Republic based his state on a philosopher/king. Few, however, are aware that he believed in communism and free love and that these two “natural” principles were to be foundational principles of the state. Though the preceding condensation by Benjamin Jowett is an excellent job, as you can read for yourself, the actual words of Socrates, as quoted by Plato, are much longer and more difficult to understand. “None of them will have anything specially his or her own.” “… Their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them [the legislator gives selected women to selected men]… they must live in common houses and meet at common meals … they will be together … And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other…” “… Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes … have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one … cities will never have rest from their evils.”5

The philosopher/king, according to Socrates, was to lay these foundational ideas through education. Though he did not use the phrase “establishment of religion,” Plato clearly advocated an established religion. It was to be put in place by a philosopher/king through education based on a state where “no man calls anything his own” and where there is neither “marrying nor giving in marriage.” Though this education would begin with children, it would continue throughout a person’s entire life. This is the Natural Law which the US Court system has imposed.

The US needs to disestablish its Establishment of Religion and reestablish religious freedom. In the 1800’s churches which tried to break away from the Church of England were called disestablishmentarians. The people who fought against the disestablishment of those churches within the Church of England in the 1800s were called Antidisestablishmentarians. Today, the mainstream media, liberal politicians, the academic community, the liberal courts and all others who file lawsuits, blacklist, fire, refuse to hire, tax, legislate against, libel, slander and do whatever is necessary to maintain their positions of privilege and power are modern Antidisestablishmentarians.

1 (No author) “Parents Fuming as Texas Schools Let Gideons Provide Bibles to Students,” Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Fox News.com. “A spokeswoman for the school district said that a number of materials are made available to students this way, including newspapers, camp brochures and tutoring pamphlets. College and military recruitment information is available all year long. The Gideon Bibles were made available for just one day. ‘We have to handle this request in the same manner as other requests to distribute non-school literature — in a view-point neutral manner,’ Shana Wortham, director of communications for the district, wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

2 Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to James Bayard. “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would un-hesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

3 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 7, “The Reformation,” Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

4 Plato, The Republic (c. 360 B.C.), translated by Benjamin Jowett over a period of 30 years until his death in 1893, completed posthumously by Lewis Campbell. (Introductory material (in double quotes) and paraphrases of Plato’s ideas (in single quotes) were written by Jowett.)

5 Plato, The Republic, Book Five Dialogue excerpts among Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon and Thrasymachus have been placed in parentheses within Jowett’s introductory material.

3 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

What’s Elk Jerky for the Soul?

Today we Christians hear many messages designed to make us feel better, and above all to be easy to digest (understand, absorb), like chicken soup. Much “feel good” Christian teaching is, however, not biblical.

I Corinthians 3:1 says, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.”

Milk is good for babies. It’s easy to digest. Paul calls these “milk-drinking” Christians carnal. They shouldn’t be babies. They should have grown up by now. Today we have lots of carnal Christians subsisting on milk. We have based this blog on a passage of Scripture today’s “milk-fed” Christians might not know.

Hebrews 5:11-14: “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

The writer of Hebrews wants to teach his audience so much, but they are not concentrating and taking in the message. He says they ought to be teachers by now, but they’re back to being milk-drinkers. They need to learn the “first principles” all over again.

Here’s the key portion of the passage: “such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” Elk jerky is about the “strongest” meat we could think of. That’s why it says in the banner, “It’s tough, but you need it.” Soldiers carving a victory out in time of war could pretty much live on jerky. It builds you up, but it’s kind of tough if you’re used to milk. Christians should understand that they are battling to carve out a victory for Christ. If you are a “milk-drinking” Christian, it’s time to get used to some elk jerky to feed your soul.

Do you really want to be “unskillful in the word of righteousness”? Don’t you want to be “of full age“? Are you really satisfied with what may make you feel good, but is designed for babies? Don’t you want to be one of “those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”?

Use self-discipline. Push yourself to grow in Christ. Chewing elk jerky develops some physical muscle and strength. Disciplining yourself takes you out of the carnal Christian category and puts you in the “full age” or mature Christian category.

Our Findley Family Video Publications website states that our main purpose is to “Disestablish America’s Established Religion,” Secular Humanism. The blogs on this site are going to cover, a little more briefly and less colorfully, the areas in which Secular Humanism has taken over our world. You’ll find as you follow our posts that it’s taken over every area. History, Science, Culture, Education, Politics, and even the churches, are permeated with secularism.

We are in the Conflict of the Ages, fighting the Prince of this World and spiritual wickedness in high places. We need survival rations for that battle, something light, easy to carry, but packed with what you need to keep going and growing. That’s what elk jerky for the soul really is.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging