News

Pentagon provides sex-change to traitor, as war veterans die waiting for treatment

2 Comments

Investors Business Daily reports.

Excerpt:

The Pentagon tries to transfer convicted national security leaker Bradley Manning to a civilian prison to treat a gender disorder while veterans suffer and die waiting in vain on phony Veterans Administration lists.

Or should we say Pvt. Chelsea Manning, the name chosen by the convicted leaker of sensitive classified documents to anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Manning has asked for hormone therapy and to be able to live as a woman and the Pentagon is trying to help.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month gave the Army approval to try to work out a transfer plan with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which, unlike the Defense Department, does provide such treatment to inmates, two Pentagon officials not authorized to speak on the record told the CBS affiliate in Washington, D.C.

The name change from Bradley to Chelsea was approved last month by a Leavenworth County District Judge, a request the Pentagon did not oppose.

Manning has been diagnosed by military doctors multiple times, including last fall after arriving at the Fort Leavenworth, Kan., prison,with gender dysphoria, the sense of being a woman in a man’s body.

[…]Meanwhile, the medical needs of veterans who have not betrayed their country but rather served it honorably fall victim to wait-list fraud in at least seven Veterans Administration facilities around the country, a very real scandal that has reached President Obama’s home state of Illinois at the Hines VA Medical Center just outside his hometown of Chicago.

Germaine Clarno, a VA social worker and employee representative in Chicago, told CBS News that at the Illinois facility there were multiple secret waiting lists designed to hide the fact that veterans were not receiving timely medical care and sometimes not at all.

Clarno says the purpose of the lists was “to make numbers look better for their own recognition and for bonuses.”

Her story mirrors those at other VA facilities, including the one in Phoenix, where Dr. Sam Foote revealed the scandal in which up to 40 veterans may have died. Sally Barnes-Breen told Sen. John McCain at a recent town hall meeting how her 71-year-old father-in-law, a Navy veteran, died while awaiting an appointment at the Phoenix VA. Thomas Francis Breen had bladder cancer and died Nov. 30.

This neglect has apparently been going on for some time. As Betsy McCaughey has written in these pages, on Jan. 30, it was disclosed that at least 19 veterans at VA facilities in Columbia, S.C., and Augusta, Ga., died in 2010 and 2011 because they were forced to wait too long for colonoscopies and endoscopies that could have diagnosed their cancers while they were still treatable.

Wow. So Bradley Manning leaks information that cost American lives and undermined our national security, and he gets a sex change while in prison. Meanwhile, war veterans die while waiting for treatment in VA hospitals. I guess this is what we should expect when we elect anti-Americans to run our government. Heck, the Democrats probably believe that they are doing the right thing by preferring traitors to veterans.

This is what my taxpayer money is going for – not to help wounded vets who protected me by risking their lives for me, but to provide traitors with sex changes. It’s appalling. I have less freedom to pursue my dreams with the money I earned, because a traitor needs a sex change.

News

Christian child care worker fired after being harassed by lesbian co-worker

6 Comments

Story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

A Christian nursery worker is taking her former employers to court claiming she was sacked for her beliefs after refusing to read stories about gay couples to children.

Sarah Mbuyi says she was dismissed due to religious discrimination, having also been accused of “harassing” a lesbian colleague to whom she gave a Bible when she was recovering from an accident.

The case, lodged at an employment tribunal, comes amid growing concerns among some Christians that religious beliefs are being “outlawed” in the workplace. A Christian group backing the case says it is an example of believers being “robbed” of the freedom to express views.

[…]Miss Mbuyi, 30, who lives in north London, carries a Bible. She started work for Newpark Childcare, a London-based group of four nurseries, last April, before being taken on full-time in one of the schools in September.

The same month a lesbian worker also joined the nursery, in Shepherd’s Bush, west London. After discovering that Miss Mbuyi was Christian she repeatedly asked her about her beliefs, the tribunal will be told.

Miss Mbuyi, now working at another nursery, will claim her colleague sought to provoke her. In December the co-worker spent time in hospital having had an accident at work and Miss Mbuyi gave her a Bible on her return.

The present, Miss Mbuyi says, was as a result of the interest she had shown in her faith. It was received well, she insists.

The following month, however, Miss Mbuyi, a Belgian national who came to Britain six years ago, says her colleague told her she had received abuse about her sexuality from religious people in the past.

During the discussion, Miss Mbuyi says she told the woman that “if I tell you that God is OK with that I am lying to you”.

At a disciplinary meeting, her employers accused Miss Mbuyi of “harassing” her co-worker, saying such behaviour amounted to “gross misconduct”. The co-worker could not be reached for comment.

Already, we see workers in particular fields like nursing and child care being grilled by their co-workers and supervisors about their beliefs. Mandatory sensitivity training has been the rule in much of corporate America. It’s getting to the point where you can’t even be a Christian and keep your beliefs to yourself, as in the Brendan Eich or Frank Turek terminations. Even if you say nothing at all at the office, gay activists are apparently digging through your private life to dig up dirt on you in order to force you into celebrating their lifestyle. OR ELSE.

When I started this blog in 2009, I always knew that there would come a time with the immoral secular left would figure out who I was and make me unemployable. I have tried to keep clear of them so I could use the freedom I still have to make a difference for what I believe. But I have no doubt that the goal of the secular leftists is to make impossible to both be a Christian and earn a living.

This is something we need to fight now, while there is still time. It’s not just our religious liberty that is on the line – it’s everyone’s religious liberty. What I would really like to see is for the church to get serious about motivating all the people in church to see these threats and then be thoughtful about what they are studying in school, and where they are going to work. It’s important for us to study hard things and earn a lot of money so we can find back effectively against these threats. Not everyone can do hard degrees and make a lot of money, but everyone who can should. And everyone should be focused like a laser beam on these threats. We are not facing a threat from the poor, so we should not be focusing our main effort on helping the poor. We are facing a threat from the secular elites – that’s where the battle lies here and now.

News

Is belief in the Jesus of the Bible needed in order to be rightly related to God?

Leave a comment

Here’s a good introductory lecture on the topic by Chad Gross, who blogs at Truthbomb Apologetics.

You can see the footnotes for his article on his blog.

The one criticism I have is that he seems to be quoting from John a lot, and he should have some sort of case for John being reliable. I would maybe cite the scholarly work of someone like Richard Bauckham, who thinks that John is not only based on eyewitness testimony, but was actually written by a disciple of Jesus named John. John is my favorite gospel, but skeptical NT critics critics are pretty hard on it. Of course, Chad was speaking in a church, so it’s understandable why he might not take the time to do that.

For those who don’t want to watch the video, here’s a good thought from J. Warner Wallace at Please Convince Me.

Excerpt:

A “just” God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately. In the Western tradition, we punish people for the actions they commit, but the extent of punishment is dependent also on the person’s mental state, and a person’s mental state is reflective of his or her beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices and wants the victim dead; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering a person’s beliefs may well be relevant, especially if those beliefs have motivated the criminal behavior.

But the challenger’s mistake is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for not accepting the gospel. Christians believe that people are condemned for their sinful behavior – the “wages of sin is death” – not for what they fail to do. The quoted challenge is like saying that the sick man died of “not going to the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific condition – perhaps cancer or a heart attack – which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in His presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.

The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress Him. What we do right we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. This is expected of them. They can’t commit a murder and then claim that punishment is unfair, because they had been kind and generous in the past. When a person gets his mind around the idea of what perfection entails, trying to impress a perfect Creator with our “basic goodness” no longer seems like such a good option.

If you want to hear a debate featuring exclusivists versus pluralists, I’ve got a podcast and a summary of a good debate on this issue between Chris Sinkinson and John Hick. You can’t find a more prominent pluralist than John Hick, except for maybe Paul Knitter, who is featured in a debate with Harold Netland in the new “Debating Christian Theism” book that is just out with Oxford University Press.