TESTING THE FAITH: The interfaith cult, ultimately wants Christians to change their exclusive view of the fact that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
Christians must 'let go' some beliefs for sake of peace, theologian says
By ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer
To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.
"We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea," Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday's conference.
The unusual gathering of several dozen clergy and lay people was devoted to resolving religious conflict in Nashville and around the world.
"We need to forsake the Christendom model," Camp said. "The most basic Christian commitment … is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?"
Co-sponsored by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, the daylong conference was prompted by a desire to begin a dialogue about global religious conflict.
After five years of rising gas prices, disturbing privacy issues that followed the Sept. 11 attacks and the fear of terrorism, it became apparent that everyday life in Nashville is directly affected by religious conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, conference organizers said.
"We felt like the larger community is calling for this," said Larry Bridgesmith, executive director of Lipscomb's newly established Institute for Conflict Management.
Panelists representing different faiths presented their own views on how to begin to bridge the religious divide.
For Kahled Sakalla, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Nashville, some of the answers lie in better education about Islam in the non-Muslim world.
Allah, the God Muslims worship, is the same God Christians and Jews worship, and the Quran recounts the same biblical stories of Mary and Jesus, he said.
"Yes, we have differences, but it's important to focus on commonalities," said Sakalla, one of four panelists representing different faiths who addressed the Lipscomb conference.
Mark Schiftan, rabbi of the Temple in Belle Meade, said he also believes people of faith must begin to look for common ground.
"If all of us believe we were created in God's image, then we have to believe that everyone else is also created in God's image," Schiftan said.
Charles McGowan, president of the Christian group Operation Andrew said: "It's important to us in Nashville that we be proactive. Religious leaders must engage one another if we are going to experience in this city the peace and calm we all desire."
But the issues that have divided the world's religions for millennia are so deep and fundamental — ranging from the question of whether the land of Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews and whether there is one way to salvation — that tackling them will require both dialogue with other faiths and a more introspective look at one's own beliefs, panelists said.
Some liberal theologians have suggested that different faiths are all variations on one another and that beliefs are all basically the same, a position with which Camp deeply disagrees.
Instead, he believes, Christians must not back away from their beliefs but further examine them and their own history.
First, Christians must examine their "sins of omission," he said — such as not taking the time to learn about other religions. Then they must look at their "sins of commission."
"We have such short historical (memory) spans as white Christians," he said. "There is a history of anti-Semitism, the violence and bloodshed of the crusades and cultural imperialism. We have to deal with the reality of what Christians have done, which in some cases has been to kill people."
Camp described himself as a conservative Christian but conceded his opinions may be viewed as "radical" by other evangelical Christians.
Christians must shed the idea that they need to promulgate a worldwide Christianity, he said.
"If I hold to a model of Jesus … what I've committed to in my baptism is loving my enemy," Lee said. "I'm committed to not killing you, but to serving and honoring you. It's an exclusive commitment to the way of Christ, not to the exclusive authority of Christ."
Sakalla said there may never be reconciliation on the fundamental theological divisions.
"Every religion has different teachings," he said. "For Muslims, it's: Do you believe in one God and that Muhammad" is his prophet? "I don't think we can teach individuals that the way you go to heaven in other religions is OK. You have to teach differences." •
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Lipscomb professor responds to the Above Tennessean article
This article was in response to the above posting, "Christians must 'let go' some beliefs for sake of..."
I had a comment from a viewer state:
"I encourage you to read Camp's response to the newspaper's misrepresentation." www.lipscomb.edu/filter.asp?SID=4&fi_key=657&co_key=10941 , so I did, and I want to thank this person for their comment.
Biblical News is a place where we try to get all the Christian news and info at one address, but we want it to be accurate. If there is ever any article that you the viewer have found to be un-accurate, please comment so I can investigate it, and post it to let you the viewer investigate it as well.
Again thank you! Here is the article...
Lipscomb professor responds to Tennessean article
On November 28, 2006, Lipscomb University held a historic meeting for the city of Nashville and the surrounding community. The Institute for Conflict Management invited individuals with differing religious beliefs to come to campus and participate in a dialogue. That purpose is consistent with one mission of this institution: to proclaim our faith and values to a broader community. For those engaged in the day long endeavor, the program was enthusiastically endorsed.
As is often the case in dealing with difficult questions, misunderstandings or misinterpretations can occur. By now many of you have read the Tennessean article or heard various news reports purporting to summarize comments by Dr. Lee Camp. Having been a participant in that seminar and heard Professor Camp’s statements, I can assure you the article printed in the Tennessean did not accurately reflect the substance of Dr. Camp’s presentation or his personal beliefs.
As a point of clarification, Dr. Camp has provided the following summary statement of his presentation and beliefs.
“On Tuesday, Lipscomb University’s Institute for Conflict Management hosted an “Invitation to Dialogue: Conversations on Religious Conflict.” The full-day program included a variety of speakers, and from a broad range of backgrounds: Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist, as well as Catholic and Protestant. My assignment for the day was to articulate the “Theological Ground for Peaceful Co-Existence.” Due to a front-page story in The Tennessean that mis-characterized my lecture and beliefs, numerous questions have been raised regarding what I believe, and what I said. Many have expressed feelings of dismay in response to the story, feelings I also shared when I read the report. Brief news stories can seldom do justice to substantive conversations.
“The dialogue prior to my lecture had been most encouraging and refreshing: numerous speakers had insisted that Jews, Muslims, and Christians must not pretend that our differences are insignificant. Moreover, we can acknowledge the seriousness of the differences, while honoring one another. Such conversation encouraged me, precisely because I have long disagreed with those who say that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all “saying the same thing.” Serious adherents of their respective faiths know this is not the case.
“In my lecture, I too insisted that we must not discard what is most important to us. I am a Christian who holds, without apology, to the Lordship of Jesus. I cannot accept any strategy of “conflict resolution” that asks me to set aside that particular claim. I believe and teach that Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
“This exclusive claim of the authority of Christ thus presents a problem for “conflict management.” I went on to ask these questions: How can the Jew or Muslim trust us Christians if we hold onto the exclusive Lordship of Jesus? Given that I refuse to deny the Lordship of Jesus, what can I or other Christians possibly contribute to peace-making, whether global or local?
“Here is my answer: Because I profess that Jesus is Lord of Lords, I have committed myself to loving both neighbor and enemy. Because I profess that Jesus is King of Kings, I have committed myself to serving and honoring all people. Because I profess that Jesus is the ultimate authority to which all other authorities must submit, that authority requires of me to extend gracious, generous hospitality to the stranger, the pilgrim, and those who do not see the world as I see it.
“This, of course, is not how the authority of Christ has always been practiced. In serious dialog with Jews and Muslims, we American Christians, who tend to have very short historical attention spans, must acknowledge the sins of Christian history. The claim of the Lordship of Jesus has often been divorced from Jesus’ call to be merciful to those with whom we differ. In fact, the claim has often served as a battle-cry, an imperialistic profession used to destroy Jews and Muslims. In view of this history, Jews and Muslims have good reasons for not trusting those who wear the name Christian.
“Because I profess Jesus as Lord, I must let go of any strategy that seeks to violently impose “Jesus is Lord” upon another. I believe and profess “Jesus is Lord,” and am compelled by Jesus’ Lordship to share this Good News world-wide. But if such sharing treats others in a way contrary to the teachings of Jesus, I have thereby denied my profession. I choose not only to proclaim that “Jesus is Lord,” but to live Jesus as Lord, among all—believer or unbeliever, Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew.”
Lee C. Camp
Assoc. Professor of Theology & Ethics
Lipscomb University
29 November 2006
Upon learning of the article in the Tennessean, we reviewed Dr. Camp’s actual comments and sought perspectives from conference attendees. This e-mail from Charles McGowan, a prominent religious leader, was consistent with other comments we received:
“The Tennessean did Lipscomb and Dr. Lee Camp a great disservice in how they reported his remarks. He absolutely did not say what the paper reported him to have said. … I commend Lipscomb University for this bold step and for creating a table to which we would invite Muslims and Jews. It is, however, a risky place and one that requires much grace and wisdom which I believe God will give us if we humbly seek His face.”
As an administration, we believe that continuing this dialogue is essential to fulfilling the ministry of reconciliation to which we have been called and for which Christ died. The ministry of reconciliation is not without risk and is sometimes difficult. As we participate in this dialogue, I encourage each of us to practice the principles of Matthew 18 as we engage in community with each other.
L. Randolph Lowry III
President, Lipscomb University
I had a comment from a viewer state:
"I encourage you to read Camp's response to the newspaper's misrepresentation." www.lipscomb.edu/filter.asp?SID=4&fi_key=657&co_key=10941 , so I did, and I want to thank this person for their comment.
Biblical News is a place where we try to get all the Christian news and info at one address, but we want it to be accurate. If there is ever any article that you the viewer have found to be un-accurate, please comment so I can investigate it, and post it to let you the viewer investigate it as well.
Again thank you! Here is the article...
Lipscomb professor responds to Tennessean article
On November 28, 2006, Lipscomb University held a historic meeting for the city of Nashville and the surrounding community. The Institute for Conflict Management invited individuals with differing religious beliefs to come to campus and participate in a dialogue. That purpose is consistent with one mission of this institution: to proclaim our faith and values to a broader community. For those engaged in the day long endeavor, the program was enthusiastically endorsed.
As is often the case in dealing with difficult questions, misunderstandings or misinterpretations can occur. By now many of you have read the Tennessean article or heard various news reports purporting to summarize comments by Dr. Lee Camp. Having been a participant in that seminar and heard Professor Camp’s statements, I can assure you the article printed in the Tennessean did not accurately reflect the substance of Dr. Camp’s presentation or his personal beliefs.
As a point of clarification, Dr. Camp has provided the following summary statement of his presentation and beliefs.
“On Tuesday, Lipscomb University’s Institute for Conflict Management hosted an “Invitation to Dialogue: Conversations on Religious Conflict.” The full-day program included a variety of speakers, and from a broad range of backgrounds: Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist, as well as Catholic and Protestant. My assignment for the day was to articulate the “Theological Ground for Peaceful Co-Existence.” Due to a front-page story in The Tennessean that mis-characterized my lecture and beliefs, numerous questions have been raised regarding what I believe, and what I said. Many have expressed feelings of dismay in response to the story, feelings I also shared when I read the report. Brief news stories can seldom do justice to substantive conversations.
“The dialogue prior to my lecture had been most encouraging and refreshing: numerous speakers had insisted that Jews, Muslims, and Christians must not pretend that our differences are insignificant. Moreover, we can acknowledge the seriousness of the differences, while honoring one another. Such conversation encouraged me, precisely because I have long disagreed with those who say that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all “saying the same thing.” Serious adherents of their respective faiths know this is not the case.
“In my lecture, I too insisted that we must not discard what is most important to us. I am a Christian who holds, without apology, to the Lordship of Jesus. I cannot accept any strategy of “conflict resolution” that asks me to set aside that particular claim. I believe and teach that Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
“This exclusive claim of the authority of Christ thus presents a problem for “conflict management.” I went on to ask these questions: How can the Jew or Muslim trust us Christians if we hold onto the exclusive Lordship of Jesus? Given that I refuse to deny the Lordship of Jesus, what can I or other Christians possibly contribute to peace-making, whether global or local?
“Here is my answer: Because I profess that Jesus is Lord of Lords, I have committed myself to loving both neighbor and enemy. Because I profess that Jesus is King of Kings, I have committed myself to serving and honoring all people. Because I profess that Jesus is the ultimate authority to which all other authorities must submit, that authority requires of me to extend gracious, generous hospitality to the stranger, the pilgrim, and those who do not see the world as I see it.
“This, of course, is not how the authority of Christ has always been practiced. In serious dialog with Jews and Muslims, we American Christians, who tend to have very short historical attention spans, must acknowledge the sins of Christian history. The claim of the Lordship of Jesus has often been divorced from Jesus’ call to be merciful to those with whom we differ. In fact, the claim has often served as a battle-cry, an imperialistic profession used to destroy Jews and Muslims. In view of this history, Jews and Muslims have good reasons for not trusting those who wear the name Christian.
“Because I profess Jesus as Lord, I must let go of any strategy that seeks to violently impose “Jesus is Lord” upon another. I believe and profess “Jesus is Lord,” and am compelled by Jesus’ Lordship to share this Good News world-wide. But if such sharing treats others in a way contrary to the teachings of Jesus, I have thereby denied my profession. I choose not only to proclaim that “Jesus is Lord,” but to live Jesus as Lord, among all—believer or unbeliever, Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew.”
Lee C. Camp
Assoc. Professor of Theology & Ethics
Lipscomb University
29 November 2006
Upon learning of the article in the Tennessean, we reviewed Dr. Camp’s actual comments and sought perspectives from conference attendees. This e-mail from Charles McGowan, a prominent religious leader, was consistent with other comments we received:
“The Tennessean did Lipscomb and Dr. Lee Camp a great disservice in how they reported his remarks. He absolutely did not say what the paper reported him to have said. … I commend Lipscomb University for this bold step and for creating a table to which we would invite Muslims and Jews. It is, however, a risky place and one that requires much grace and wisdom which I believe God will give us if we humbly seek His face.”
As an administration, we believe that continuing this dialogue is essential to fulfilling the ministry of reconciliation to which we have been called and for which Christ died. The ministry of reconciliation is not without risk and is sometimes difficult. As we participate in this dialogue, I encourage each of us to practice the principles of Matthew 18 as we engage in community with each other.
L. Randolph Lowry III
President, Lipscomb University
Farah to appear on Canada's 'RadioGay'
Farah to appear on Canada's 'RadioGay'
Hosts want to confront him on his stance against homosexuality
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Joseph Farah, WND editor and co-founder and a daily columnist, will appear on Canada's homosexual Internet radio network, RadioGay, tomorrow, confronted by hosts of the "Unglued!" show on what they see as his "anti-gay" positions. The show airs 9-11 p.m. Eastern Time.
Farah, a Christian, believes the Bible speaks clearly on the subject of homosexuality.
Farah made a name for himself with traditional daily newspapers prior to his founding of WorldNetDaily – running the Sacramento Union, directing the news operation of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner for six years and serving as editor in chief of a group of California dailies and weeklies.
The former nationally syndicated daily radio talk-show host has written for such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, National Review, TV Guide, Reason, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times and a host of other national, international and regional publications.
He is the co-author, with U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, of "This Land is Our Land" (1996), and in 1994 collaborated with Rush Limbaugh on the No. 1 New York Times best seller "See, I Told You So." His newest book is "Taking America Back," published in 2003 and in paperback in 2005.
NBC television, New World Entertainment and other media giants have sought his expertise as a media consultant.
Farah's many journalism awards include honors for reporting to writing headlines to honesty and courage in journalism to editing and newspaper design.
Farah speaks all over the world on topics ranging from the Middle East to the media to domestic policy issues.
Joseph Farah WorldNetDaily columns
Hosts want to confront him on his stance against homosexuality
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Joseph Farah, WND editor and co-founder and a daily columnist, will appear on Canada's homosexual Internet radio network, RadioGay, tomorrow, confronted by hosts of the "Unglued!" show on what they see as his "anti-gay" positions. The show airs 9-11 p.m. Eastern Time.
Farah, a Christian, believes the Bible speaks clearly on the subject of homosexuality.
Farah made a name for himself with traditional daily newspapers prior to his founding of WorldNetDaily – running the Sacramento Union, directing the news operation of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner for six years and serving as editor in chief of a group of California dailies and weeklies.
The former nationally syndicated daily radio talk-show host has written for such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, National Review, TV Guide, Reason, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times and a host of other national, international and regional publications.
He is the co-author, with U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, of "This Land is Our Land" (1996), and in 1994 collaborated with Rush Limbaugh on the No. 1 New York Times best seller "See, I Told You So." His newest book is "Taking America Back," published in 2003 and in paperback in 2005.
NBC television, New World Entertainment and other media giants have sought his expertise as a media consultant.
Farah's many journalism awards include honors for reporting to writing headlines to honesty and courage in journalism to editing and newspaper design.
Farah speaks all over the world on topics ranging from the Middle East to the media to domestic policy issues.
Joseph Farah WorldNetDaily columns
Chapel cross issue stands 5,000 to 1, but who's counting?
Chapel cross issue stands 5,000 to 1, but who's counting?
Students, alums still trying to convince college prez to restore historic symbol
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The dispute over the placement of a historic cross in the Wren Chapel at William & Mary College now stands at more than 5,000 people seeking the restoration of the antique, and one against, but who's counting?
The students and alums who have assembled in a group called SaveTheWrenCross.org have confirmed that their online petition has collected, as of late yesterday, 5,211 signatures from students, alums and friends of the Virginia university in support of restoring a bronze cross that had been donated to the school not quite a century ago.
They recently were unsuccessful in a lobbying campaign to have the school's board address the situation that was created on orders from Gene Nichol, the president, who reversed a long-standing policy that allowed the cross to be removed if secular events were planned in the historic facility. His new procedure requires the cross to be in storage UNLESS someone specifically requests it for an event.
Now the student group has told the Hampton Roads Daily Press that under a Freedom of Information Act request, the school was able to produce a single letter from someone with a concern about the cross being in the chapel.
William and Mary spokesman Brian Whitson told the newspaper in addition to that letter, there were "a number" of people who spoke directly to the president, but those comments were unrecorded and undocumented.
Nichol decided in October to remove the cross, because he wanted the building to be more welcoming to students of differing faiths. The cross had been on the altar since the 1930s but now is in storage.
But the coalition this week renewed its call for the cross to be returned, because of the lack of evidence that there was a desire to remove it.
Whitson said most of the conversations Nichol had were in person, and some people talked to him after he wrote a guest column in a student publication mentioning the chapel.
The president earlier this month used his appearance before the school's Board of Visitors to defend his actions in ordering the removal of the cross, but board members were given no opportunity to consider the actions or respond, officials said.
College spokesman Brian Whitson told WND that President Gene Nichol "did make some remarks during a regular report to the board" but since a petition drive asking the school to restore the cross to the chapel was not on the board's agenda, no action was taken.
WND broke the story on Oct. 27 that the two-foot-tall, century-old cross had been removed on the order of school managers.
Nichol then went before the board defended his decision. In his address, he said, "the display of a Christian cross – the most potent symbol of my own religion – in the heart of our most important building – sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."
That, he said, is bad for the school.
"I make no pretense that all will agree with these sentiments. The emotions and values touched by this dispute are deeply felt," he said. "I have been pleased to learn that students of disparate religions have reported using the Chapel for worship and contemplation for the first time."
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not return a message left by WND seeking a comment. She recently was named chancellor of the college.
It was during her tenure in the Supreme Court that a growing intolerance by the court for religious symbols – particularly Christian symbols – in public places became evident.
The petitioners are objecting to the policy change that removes the cross from the Wren Chapel, a 274-year-old facility used for both religious and secular events on campus.
"We, the undersigned students and alumni of the College, and concerned citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, disagree with your order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar," the petition says.
"The Wren Cross was given to Wren Chapel by Williamsburg neighbor Burton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s and has been a fixture on the altar ever since that time. Before your order, the policy was that if a group or individual using the Wren Chapel desired to not have the Wren Cross on display during their use of the Wren Chapel, then the Wren Cross was removed during such event and then returned to the altar.
"We petition you to rescind your October 2006 order and return to the policy that had governed the display of the Wren Cross prior to your inauguration as the 26th President of the College on April 7, 2006."
Vince Haley, a 1988 graduate, set up the website and launched the campaign when he found out what had happened.
"In the name of tolerance, we have intolerance; in the name of welcoming, we have hostility, and in the name of unity, we now have division," said junior Joe Luppino-Esposito.
Students, alums still trying to convince college prez to restore historic symbol
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The dispute over the placement of a historic cross in the Wren Chapel at William & Mary College now stands at more than 5,000 people seeking the restoration of the antique, and one against, but who's counting?
The students and alums who have assembled in a group called SaveTheWrenCross.org have confirmed that their online petition has collected, as of late yesterday, 5,211 signatures from students, alums and friends of the Virginia university in support of restoring a bronze cross that had been donated to the school not quite a century ago.
They recently were unsuccessful in a lobbying campaign to have the school's board address the situation that was created on orders from Gene Nichol, the president, who reversed a long-standing policy that allowed the cross to be removed if secular events were planned in the historic facility. His new procedure requires the cross to be in storage UNLESS someone specifically requests it for an event.
Now the student group has told the Hampton Roads Daily Press that under a Freedom of Information Act request, the school was able to produce a single letter from someone with a concern about the cross being in the chapel.
William and Mary spokesman Brian Whitson told the newspaper in addition to that letter, there were "a number" of people who spoke directly to the president, but those comments were unrecorded and undocumented.
Nichol decided in October to remove the cross, because he wanted the building to be more welcoming to students of differing faiths. The cross had been on the altar since the 1930s but now is in storage.
But the coalition this week renewed its call for the cross to be returned, because of the lack of evidence that there was a desire to remove it.
Whitson said most of the conversations Nichol had were in person, and some people talked to him after he wrote a guest column in a student publication mentioning the chapel.
The president earlier this month used his appearance before the school's Board of Visitors to defend his actions in ordering the removal of the cross, but board members were given no opportunity to consider the actions or respond, officials said.
College spokesman Brian Whitson told WND that President Gene Nichol "did make some remarks during a regular report to the board" but since a petition drive asking the school to restore the cross to the chapel was not on the board's agenda, no action was taken.
WND broke the story on Oct. 27 that the two-foot-tall, century-old cross had been removed on the order of school managers.
Nichol then went before the board defended his decision. In his address, he said, "the display of a Christian cross – the most potent symbol of my own religion – in the heart of our most important building – sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."
That, he said, is bad for the school.
"I make no pretense that all will agree with these sentiments. The emotions and values touched by this dispute are deeply felt," he said. "I have been pleased to learn that students of disparate religions have reported using the Chapel for worship and contemplation for the first time."
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not return a message left by WND seeking a comment. She recently was named chancellor of the college.
It was during her tenure in the Supreme Court that a growing intolerance by the court for religious symbols – particularly Christian symbols – in public places became evident.
The petitioners are objecting to the policy change that removes the cross from the Wren Chapel, a 274-year-old facility used for both religious and secular events on campus.
"We, the undersigned students and alumni of the College, and concerned citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, disagree with your order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar," the petition says.
"The Wren Cross was given to Wren Chapel by Williamsburg neighbor Burton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s and has been a fixture on the altar ever since that time. Before your order, the policy was that if a group or individual using the Wren Chapel desired to not have the Wren Cross on display during their use of the Wren Chapel, then the Wren Cross was removed during such event and then returned to the altar.
"We petition you to rescind your October 2006 order and return to the policy that had governed the display of the Wren Cross prior to your inauguration as the 26th President of the College on April 7, 2006."
Vince Haley, a 1988 graduate, set up the website and launched the campaign when he found out what had happened.
"In the name of tolerance, we have intolerance; in the name of welcoming, we have hostility, and in the name of unity, we now have division," said junior Joe Luppino-Esposito.
'Shooting Back' published in America for 1st time
'Shooting Back' published in America for 1st time
Biblical defense of bearing arms by man who fired on terrorists attacking church
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?
Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?
Would you be justified in doing so?
Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?
There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.
His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.
In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.
"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews – and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory – to pieces. We were being attacked!"
But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.
"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America next month by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."
During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers, drove the others away.
Those killed were:
Guy Cooper Javens
Richard Oliver O'Kill
Gerhard Dennis Harker
Wesley Alfonso Harker
Denise Gordon
Mirtle Joan Smith
Marita Ackerman
Andrey Kayl
Karamjin Oleg
Varaksa Velentin
Pavel Valuet
The last four were Russian seamen attending the service as part of a church outreach program. Another Russian seaman, Dmitri Makogon, lost both legs and an arm in the attack.
Using his personal and high-profile story as a launch-pad, van Wyk wrote "Shooting Back" – which instantly became a South African bestseller, as well as a bestseller for WND, which imported thousands of copies of the original book for sale online to audiences in the U.S. and around the world.
But it was always a challenge maintaining supplies to meet the demand.
So, next month, to kickoff the New Year, WND Books is publishing, for the first time in the U.S., an updated, revised and repackaged edition of "Shooting Back" by van Wyk.
"I am honored to be a part of this historic undertaking – the republishing of this classic work in the United States," said Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books and editor and chief executive officer of WND. "We have been working on this for more than three years. Now everyone can read this amazing and important story, which has applications in terror-stricken America and for Christians and Jews throughout the world."
Far from being just a reliving of the tragedy of the St. James Church Massacre, "Shooting Back" is a thorough examination of the whole issue of armed self-defense from a Christian perspective. It deals with burning questions that plague all conscience-driven people:
Should we carry arms?
When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families?
What can we do when our freedom to carry arms is legislated away from us?
Using the Bible as his guidepost, van Wyk makes the case that Christians not only have the right but the duty to defend themselves and other innocents from such aggression.
What's the lesson?
"As Van Wyk's experience illustrates, no place is totally safe – not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the forward to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk's book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere –need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."
But this amazing true story doesn't end there. It's also about redemption and reconciliation. Several of the church members who were injured or who lost family members in the attacks, as well as van Wyk, later met with and forgave some of their repentant attackers.
WND Books has published some 35 titles in the last three years – including bestsellers by Michael Savage, Wayne LaPierre and Jayna Davis. Unlike all of those previous releases, "Shooting Back" will be exclusively available for sale in WND's online store – Shop.WND.com.
This is also the first WND Books release under a new partnership between WND and World Ahead Books, the exclusive distributor of WND Books beginning Jan. 1, 2007.
You can reserve your copy now and ensure you are among the first to receive this historic title. WND Books expects to ship the first books to consumers who purchase advance copies in time for Christmas.
Order your copy today. Your credit card will not be debited until the books are shipped next month.
Biblical defense of bearing arms by man who fired on terrorists attacking church
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?
Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?
Would you be justified in doing so?
Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?
There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.
His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.
In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.
"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews – and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory – to pieces. We were being attacked!"
But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.
"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America next month by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."
During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers, drove the others away.
Those killed were:
Guy Cooper Javens
Richard Oliver O'Kill
Gerhard Dennis Harker
Wesley Alfonso Harker
Denise Gordon
Mirtle Joan Smith
Marita Ackerman
Andrey Kayl
Karamjin Oleg
Varaksa Velentin
Pavel Valuet
The last four were Russian seamen attending the service as part of a church outreach program. Another Russian seaman, Dmitri Makogon, lost both legs and an arm in the attack.
Using his personal and high-profile story as a launch-pad, van Wyk wrote "Shooting Back" – which instantly became a South African bestseller, as well as a bestseller for WND, which imported thousands of copies of the original book for sale online to audiences in the U.S. and around the world.
But it was always a challenge maintaining supplies to meet the demand.
So, next month, to kickoff the New Year, WND Books is publishing, for the first time in the U.S., an updated, revised and repackaged edition of "Shooting Back" by van Wyk.
"I am honored to be a part of this historic undertaking – the republishing of this classic work in the United States," said Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books and editor and chief executive officer of WND. "We have been working on this for more than three years. Now everyone can read this amazing and important story, which has applications in terror-stricken America and for Christians and Jews throughout the world."
Far from being just a reliving of the tragedy of the St. James Church Massacre, "Shooting Back" is a thorough examination of the whole issue of armed self-defense from a Christian perspective. It deals with burning questions that plague all conscience-driven people:
Should we carry arms?
When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families?
What can we do when our freedom to carry arms is legislated away from us?
Using the Bible as his guidepost, van Wyk makes the case that Christians not only have the right but the duty to defend themselves and other innocents from such aggression.
What's the lesson?
"As Van Wyk's experience illustrates, no place is totally safe – not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the forward to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk's book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere –need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."
But this amazing true story doesn't end there. It's also about redemption and reconciliation. Several of the church members who were injured or who lost family members in the attacks, as well as van Wyk, later met with and forgave some of their repentant attackers.
WND Books has published some 35 titles in the last three years – including bestsellers by Michael Savage, Wayne LaPierre and Jayna Davis. Unlike all of those previous releases, "Shooting Back" will be exclusively available for sale in WND's online store – Shop.WND.com.
This is also the first WND Books release under a new partnership between WND and World Ahead Books, the exclusive distributor of WND Books beginning Jan. 1, 2007.
You can reserve your copy now and ensure you are among the first to receive this historic title. WND Books expects to ship the first books to consumers who purchase advance copies in time for Christmas.
Order your copy today. Your credit card will not be debited until the books are shipped next month.
Hoaxbuster Snopes makes Ten Commandments changes
Hoaxbuster Snopes makes Ten Commandments changes
But pastor who found inaccuracies says clarifications still needed
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A community church pastor who invited the Internet hoaxbusters Snopes.com and TruthOrFiction.com to fix errors of fact in their reports on the Ten Commandments at the U.S. Supreme Court says the changes made by Snopes are good, but more are needed.
Todd DuBord's research into the artistic representations of the Ten Commandments was profiled by WND in an article about the Supreme Court and a second story about the Monticello and Jamestown historic sites.
In his invitation to the Internet sites, DuBord documented misrepresentations including one that the two plates of stone Moses is holding in one of the pieces of art are blank, so they don't necessarily represent the Ten Commandments.
His question was: How many other stone tablets did Moses carry down from Sinai?
While DuBord reported that he'd gotten no formal response to his suggestions and documentation, he did notice that Snopes had adjusted some of its explanations.
"Thank you for taking off the word 'two' in the 'two representations of Moses which adorn the Supreme Court building,' since as I pointed out in my research to you (seen at www.lacconline.org) there are at least four (actually in the Grand Hall the metope that bears Moses' facial image, with two small tablets beside it, is repeated eight times in the Hall, but it is technically the same image – so I didn't count it eight times)," DuBord said in a follow-up.
And while he agreed with the idea of restating the description of the Eastern Pediment from: "And although many viewers might assume Moses is holding a copy of the Ten Commandments in this depiction, the two tablets in his arms are actually blank," as: "The two tablets Moses holds in his arms are actually blank, without inscription," he said that could be better.
"Frankly, it sounds to me like you've merely restated and implied the same thing: we don't know if these tablets are the Ten Commandments," DuBord wrote.
Since they're 50 feet above the ground, any inscription wouldn't be visible to most visitors anyway, he said. "So, I wondered, why even state they are 'blank, without inscriptions'? There are dozens of books, tablets, and scrolls all over the architecture of the Supreme Court building – should we now question their identity (even when associated with such obvious characters like Moses) just because they are blank?"
"If the South Wall Frieze inside the courtroom portrays Moses holding one of the tablets, with Commandments six through ten written in Hebrew, and the eight ornamental metopes of him in the Great Hall bear two tablets in each, can we not reasonably assume he is holding the same on the East Pediment display of the same building?
"What is the other option?" he asked.
"If Snopes were to say anything, based upon the clear evidence of the rest of the building, outside of Jewish faith and history, I would expect you to say, 'These tablets, though blank, obviously represent the Ten Commandments, consistent with the rest of the displays in the Building,'" he said.
But DuBord did object to the sniping by Snopes, apparently at him, since he raised the issue.
An old reference to one symbol, for example, used to say: "As discussed in the next item, these symbols can represent something other than the Ten Commandments." DuBord said the new explanation reads: "Some critics contend that anything that is tablet-shaped cannot possibly be interpreted as representing the U.S. Constitution, because that document was 'not written on tablets.' But one could use that same argument to contend that anything bearing the common version of Roman numerals cannot possibly represent the Ten Commandments, because that numbering system was not yet in use at the time of the events described in Exodus."
DuBord said that was missing the point.
"I’m not debating the generic use of all tablets as representing any law, but the two tablets that are shaped identical to those on the oak doors, being held by Moses on the Eastern Pediment, and right next to his face on the eight ornamental metopes that decorate the great hall. To conclude that these tablets on the oak doors are different from the same tablets represented as the Ten Commandments in nine other places on the U.S. Supreme Court building is just plain and simple oversight and logical denial. "
"Remember, there are ten Roman numerals on them, which are a reference to something, and your only other conclusion is that they represent ten amendments to the Constitution. But, even by the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition above, the ten amendments are not 'ancient laws,' having been drafted just a few centuries ago and, therefore, don’t even fit within the parameters of their definition of 'Symbols of Law,'" DuBord said.
"So, if the tablets on the oak doors don’t represent 'The Ten Commandments' and the ten amendments are also not 'ancient laws,' what other identification is there for these oak-door 'Symbols of Law'? Is there some other western art that depicts two tablets, with half-moon tops and the Roman numerals I-X, that represent other than the Ten Commandments?"
He also noted that Snopes' reference for calling the East Wall Frieze representation the Ten Amendments is a letter which experts have suspected of being a forgery.
DuBord said documents expert Catherine Millard, who has spent decades verifying historical documents, statements and representations, suspects that particular letter, in which the artist refers to the representation as the amendments, is not authentic.
Snopes' new footnote defends the authenticity of the suspect letter, which doesn't even carry the artist's signature – in contrast to his many other letters, saying "several prosaic reasons" might explain the differences "such as that the item is a draft of a letter."
"Would it not make more sense, as I pointed out in my last correspondence, to reveal the reasonable doubt for the letter’s originality, favoring the identity of the East Wall Frieze tablet to the virtually identical tablet Weinman created (on The Oscar Solomon Memorial) in the same city? (Both tablets are inscribed with Roman numerals I-X, both are being leaned upon in their portraits, and both bear similarity and consistency with the rest of the Ten Commandment depictions on the art of the U.S. Supreme Court Building and elsewhere in the capital itself). And, as I pointed out in my former letter, we have an undisputed letter from Weinman to his explanation of the tablet on the Oscar Solomon Memorial as being none other than the Ten Commandments," DuBord said.
DuBord also noted that the Supreme Court itself, until 1987, identified that representation as the Ten Commandments, after which it evolved into a representation of "ancient laws" and eventually the "ten amendments."
He also contested the comments that all of the figures and representations stand for "secular" law.
"The truth, however, is that, once upon a time, the Ten Commandments had a huge interplay with American government and law," he said.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, for example, in a 1917 decision, said, "Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity," he noted.
"I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I'm only a rural mountain pastor, who is trying to set the record straight, completely," he wrote. In that vein, he said, he was admitting one mistake of his own.
"I was wrong about how many depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments were on the Supreme Court. I said there were six, when there were actually seven." No. 7 is on the frame of the bronze gates that separate the courtroom from the aisle, he said.
In his letter inviting the websites to correct their references, he noted millions go to those sources for "the straight scoop on Internet and other legends." It would be good to have those correct, he said.
The Snopes article is: "Religious symbols and references abound in U.S. capital buildings and the words of America's founders" while the TruthOrFiction item is "Evidences of Faith in the Buildings, Memorials, and Forefathers of the United States-Truth!, Fiction! & Unproven!?"
Snopes did not respond to a WND request for comment. TruthOrFiction e-mailed WND asking for elaboration on the question, but then did not follow up.
Dubord's research is available online.
And his message from July 23, 2006, on this issue also can be heard immediately, and for free, on the church website at www.lacconline.org.
His messages can be downloaded at www.iTunes.com, by typing in "almanor" or "dubord."
But pastor who found inaccuracies says clarifications still needed
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A community church pastor who invited the Internet hoaxbusters Snopes.com and TruthOrFiction.com to fix errors of fact in their reports on the Ten Commandments at the U.S. Supreme Court says the changes made by Snopes are good, but more are needed.
Todd DuBord's research into the artistic representations of the Ten Commandments was profiled by WND in an article about the Supreme Court and a second story about the Monticello and Jamestown historic sites.
In his invitation to the Internet sites, DuBord documented misrepresentations including one that the two plates of stone Moses is holding in one of the pieces of art are blank, so they don't necessarily represent the Ten Commandments.
His question was: How many other stone tablets did Moses carry down from Sinai?
While DuBord reported that he'd gotten no formal response to his suggestions and documentation, he did notice that Snopes had adjusted some of its explanations.
"Thank you for taking off the word 'two' in the 'two representations of Moses which adorn the Supreme Court building,' since as I pointed out in my research to you (seen at www.lacconline.org) there are at least four (actually in the Grand Hall the metope that bears Moses' facial image, with two small tablets beside it, is repeated eight times in the Hall, but it is technically the same image – so I didn't count it eight times)," DuBord said in a follow-up.
And while he agreed with the idea of restating the description of the Eastern Pediment from: "And although many viewers might assume Moses is holding a copy of the Ten Commandments in this depiction, the two tablets in his arms are actually blank," as: "The two tablets Moses holds in his arms are actually blank, without inscription," he said that could be better.
"Frankly, it sounds to me like you've merely restated and implied the same thing: we don't know if these tablets are the Ten Commandments," DuBord wrote.
Since they're 50 feet above the ground, any inscription wouldn't be visible to most visitors anyway, he said. "So, I wondered, why even state they are 'blank, without inscriptions'? There are dozens of books, tablets, and scrolls all over the architecture of the Supreme Court building – should we now question their identity (even when associated with such obvious characters like Moses) just because they are blank?"
"If the South Wall Frieze inside the courtroom portrays Moses holding one of the tablets, with Commandments six through ten written in Hebrew, and the eight ornamental metopes of him in the Great Hall bear two tablets in each, can we not reasonably assume he is holding the same on the East Pediment display of the same building?
"What is the other option?" he asked.
"If Snopes were to say anything, based upon the clear evidence of the rest of the building, outside of Jewish faith and history, I would expect you to say, 'These tablets, though blank, obviously represent the Ten Commandments, consistent with the rest of the displays in the Building,'" he said.
But DuBord did object to the sniping by Snopes, apparently at him, since he raised the issue.
An old reference to one symbol, for example, used to say: "As discussed in the next item, these symbols can represent something other than the Ten Commandments." DuBord said the new explanation reads: "Some critics contend that anything that is tablet-shaped cannot possibly be interpreted as representing the U.S. Constitution, because that document was 'not written on tablets.' But one could use that same argument to contend that anything bearing the common version of Roman numerals cannot possibly represent the Ten Commandments, because that numbering system was not yet in use at the time of the events described in Exodus."
DuBord said that was missing the point.
"I’m not debating the generic use of all tablets as representing any law, but the two tablets that are shaped identical to those on the oak doors, being held by Moses on the Eastern Pediment, and right next to his face on the eight ornamental metopes that decorate the great hall. To conclude that these tablets on the oak doors are different from the same tablets represented as the Ten Commandments in nine other places on the U.S. Supreme Court building is just plain and simple oversight and logical denial. "
"Remember, there are ten Roman numerals on them, which are a reference to something, and your only other conclusion is that they represent ten amendments to the Constitution. But, even by the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition above, the ten amendments are not 'ancient laws,' having been drafted just a few centuries ago and, therefore, don’t even fit within the parameters of their definition of 'Symbols of Law,'" DuBord said.
"So, if the tablets on the oak doors don’t represent 'The Ten Commandments' and the ten amendments are also not 'ancient laws,' what other identification is there for these oak-door 'Symbols of Law'? Is there some other western art that depicts two tablets, with half-moon tops and the Roman numerals I-X, that represent other than the Ten Commandments?"
He also noted that Snopes' reference for calling the East Wall Frieze representation the Ten Amendments is a letter which experts have suspected of being a forgery.
DuBord said documents expert Catherine Millard, who has spent decades verifying historical documents, statements and representations, suspects that particular letter, in which the artist refers to the representation as the amendments, is not authentic.
Snopes' new footnote defends the authenticity of the suspect letter, which doesn't even carry the artist's signature – in contrast to his many other letters, saying "several prosaic reasons" might explain the differences "such as that the item is a draft of a letter."
"Would it not make more sense, as I pointed out in my last correspondence, to reveal the reasonable doubt for the letter’s originality, favoring the identity of the East Wall Frieze tablet to the virtually identical tablet Weinman created (on The Oscar Solomon Memorial) in the same city? (Both tablets are inscribed with Roman numerals I-X, both are being leaned upon in their portraits, and both bear similarity and consistency with the rest of the Ten Commandment depictions on the art of the U.S. Supreme Court Building and elsewhere in the capital itself). And, as I pointed out in my former letter, we have an undisputed letter from Weinman to his explanation of the tablet on the Oscar Solomon Memorial as being none other than the Ten Commandments," DuBord said.
DuBord also noted that the Supreme Court itself, until 1987, identified that representation as the Ten Commandments, after which it evolved into a representation of "ancient laws" and eventually the "ten amendments."
He also contested the comments that all of the figures and representations stand for "secular" law.
"The truth, however, is that, once upon a time, the Ten Commandments had a huge interplay with American government and law," he said.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, for example, in a 1917 decision, said, "Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity," he noted.
"I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I'm only a rural mountain pastor, who is trying to set the record straight, completely," he wrote. In that vein, he said, he was admitting one mistake of his own.
"I was wrong about how many depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments were on the Supreme Court. I said there were six, when there were actually seven." No. 7 is on the frame of the bronze gates that separate the courtroom from the aisle, he said.
In his letter inviting the websites to correct their references, he noted millions go to those sources for "the straight scoop on Internet and other legends." It would be good to have those correct, he said.
The Snopes article is: "Religious symbols and references abound in U.S. capital buildings and the words of America's founders" while the TruthOrFiction item is "Evidences of Faith in the Buildings, Memorials, and Forefathers of the United States-Truth!, Fiction! & Unproven!?"
Snopes did not respond to a WND request for comment. TruthOrFiction e-mailed WND asking for elaboration on the question, but then did not follow up.
Dubord's research is available online.
And his message from July 23, 2006, on this issue also can be heard immediately, and for free, on the church website at www.lacconline.org.
His messages can be downloaded at www.iTunes.com, by typing in "almanor" or "dubord."
Missionary Reports Severe Christian Persecution in North Korea
Missionary Reports Severe Christian Persecution in North Korea
2006-11-28 -- WDC Media News --
(AgapePress) - A missionary to North Korea says Christians are serving in that Communist nation, despite daily dangers and hardships, including the threat of death.
Recently, a veteran of more than 100 missions into North Korea reported to the ministry Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) that Christians in North Korea live under constant danger of harassment, arrest, and torture. The missionary, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the ministry that Christians under that oppressive regime must take many precautions in order to assemble for Bible study or worship, such as gathering in groups of only three or four at a time and covering all the windows.
The risks for that missionary and other believers in North Korea are high, VOM spokesman Todd Nettleton notes. "If you're going to have a Christian meeting in North Korea," he says, "you have to understand that you're taking your life in your hands. To be discovered to be a Christian can get you locked up. It can get you executed. So you're very cautious who you share that information with."
Because of the tremendous danger for Christians, that caution must even extend to family members within the same household, Nettleton points out. When North Korean Christians gather, he explains, other individuals, "especially young children, are sent out of the room, because it's simply too great a risk to have your children know you're a follower of Jesus Christ."
What would happen, after all, if these youngsters innocently said something at school that gave the secret away, Nettleton asks. "Your whole family could be arrested," he says, "and sent to one of the political prisoner camps where the average sentence for following Jesus is 15 years, but the average life expectancy in those camps is only five years."
The missionary who filed the report with VOM has herself spent time in a North Korean prison for sharing her faith. The woman, who cannot be identified for security reasons, noted that four of her friends have been executed because of their witness.
But despite the intense persecution of believers in North Korea, the missionary says people in that Communist nation are growing increasingly open to the gospel of Christ. And although tens of thousands of Christians are imprisoned for their faith in that country, Nettleton notes, faithful believers continue to persevere, gathering in secret as necessary, to share the truth of the scriptures.
2006-11-28 -- WDC Media News --
(AgapePress) - A missionary to North Korea says Christians are serving in that Communist nation, despite daily dangers and hardships, including the threat of death.
Recently, a veteran of more than 100 missions into North Korea reported to the ministry Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) that Christians in North Korea live under constant danger of harassment, arrest, and torture. The missionary, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the ministry that Christians under that oppressive regime must take many precautions in order to assemble for Bible study or worship, such as gathering in groups of only three or four at a time and covering all the windows.
The risks for that missionary and other believers in North Korea are high, VOM spokesman Todd Nettleton notes. "If you're going to have a Christian meeting in North Korea," he says, "you have to understand that you're taking your life in your hands. To be discovered to be a Christian can get you locked up. It can get you executed. So you're very cautious who you share that information with."
Because of the tremendous danger for Christians, that caution must even extend to family members within the same household, Nettleton points out. When North Korean Christians gather, he explains, other individuals, "especially young children, are sent out of the room, because it's simply too great a risk to have your children know you're a follower of Jesus Christ."
What would happen, after all, if these youngsters innocently said something at school that gave the secret away, Nettleton asks. "Your whole family could be arrested," he says, "and sent to one of the political prisoner camps where the average sentence for following Jesus is 15 years, but the average life expectancy in those camps is only five years."
The missionary who filed the report with VOM has herself spent time in a North Korean prison for sharing her faith. The woman, who cannot be identified for security reasons, noted that four of her friends have been executed because of their witness.
But despite the intense persecution of believers in North Korea, the missionary says people in that Communist nation are growing increasingly open to the gospel of Christ. And although tens of thousands of Christians are imprisoned for their faith in that country, Nettleton notes, faithful believers continue to persevere, gathering in secret as necessary, to share the truth of the scriptures.
The ACLU is at it again, aiming their sights on Christmas
The ACLU is at it again.
With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has set their sights on Christmas ...
In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU's latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech.
Let me ask you - when did a children's Christmas program become illegal?
When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional?
Because this is the dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled. A children's Christmas program has been deemed unconstitutional by the ACLU.
This is why I am asking for your help. The ACLJ is engaged in this case, so if you are as outraged as I am over this latest legal scare tactic by the ACLU, please give your most generous gift of support today to be matched by our $850,000 PROTECTING LIFE AND LIBERTY Matching Challenge for TWICE the impact!
I have assembled a senior team of attorneys to work on this case, and I will be going to Tennessee to handle this matter with ACLJ Senior Counsel Larry Crain.
The ACLU is determined to censor Christmas ...
... but make no mistake: this is a case THAT I AM DETERMINED TO WIN.
In Case #3-06-0924, Doe v. Wilson County School System, the ACLU has sued the Wilson County School District, Lakeview Elementary School, the school principal, and two teachers for what they have deemed ''illegal acts.''
The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage'' through the ''Christmas program with Christian themes and songs.'' The ACLU is asking that those actions be declared ''unconstitutional and illegal.''
This is an outrage! I urge you to help me and the ACLJ as we fight this audacious claim in federal court ... HELP ME PROTECT CHRISTMAS by giving a gift of support right now. It will be doubled, dollar-for-dollar, through our PROTECTING LIFE AND LIBERTY Matching Challenge up to the $850,000 total.
It gets even worse. The ACLU alleges that several KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus - AND HAD THE AUDACITY TO SING ''AWAY IN THE MANGER'' AND ''JOY TO THE WORLD.''
With your financial help today - which will make TWICE the impact through our Matching Challenge - I will fight the ACLU in this critical lawsuit and will represent your interests in federal court protecting Christmas ... and YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
This is the real issue at play: If the ACLU wins here, it will set a precedent across the nation.
Friends, make no mistake about it, the ACLU will not stop with this lawsuit. They will come to YOUR TOWN. They will target YOUR SCHOOL. They will march across this nation, loosening the threads of our religious heritage and chipping away at the foundation of our freedom.
So today, I am launching a nationwide campaign, ''KEEP HIM IN CHRISTMAS.'' The ACLJ will fight for freedom of speech this Christmas ... standing ready to protect YOUR children's and grandchildren's school systems, YOUR dedicated teachers and principals, and YOUR town from this type of blatant, religious censorship from the ACLU.
I will not back down. I will vigorously defend the rights of students to engage in free speech on public school campuses. Please stand with me now in prayer and giving.
Thank you!
American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
Phone: (800) 296-4529
Copyright©2006, ACLJ
With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has set their sights on Christmas ...
In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU's latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech.
Let me ask you - when did a children's Christmas program become illegal?
When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional?
Because this is the dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled. A children's Christmas program has been deemed unconstitutional by the ACLU.
This is why I am asking for your help. The ACLJ is engaged in this case, so if you are as outraged as I am over this latest legal scare tactic by the ACLU, please give your most generous gift of support today to be matched by our $850,000 PROTECTING LIFE AND LIBERTY Matching Challenge for TWICE the impact!
I have assembled a senior team of attorneys to work on this case, and I will be going to Tennessee to handle this matter with ACLJ Senior Counsel Larry Crain.
The ACLU is determined to censor Christmas ...
... but make no mistake: this is a case THAT I AM DETERMINED TO WIN.
In Case #3-06-0924, Doe v. Wilson County School System, the ACLU has sued the Wilson County School District, Lakeview Elementary School, the school principal, and two teachers for what they have deemed ''illegal acts.''
The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage'' through the ''Christmas program with Christian themes and songs.'' The ACLU is asking that those actions be declared ''unconstitutional and illegal.''
This is an outrage! I urge you to help me and the ACLJ as we fight this audacious claim in federal court ... HELP ME PROTECT CHRISTMAS by giving a gift of support right now. It will be doubled, dollar-for-dollar, through our PROTECTING LIFE AND LIBERTY Matching Challenge up to the $850,000 total.
It gets even worse. The ACLU alleges that several KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus - AND HAD THE AUDACITY TO SING ''AWAY IN THE MANGER'' AND ''JOY TO THE WORLD.''
With your financial help today - which will make TWICE the impact through our Matching Challenge - I will fight the ACLU in this critical lawsuit and will represent your interests in federal court protecting Christmas ... and YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
This is the real issue at play: If the ACLU wins here, it will set a precedent across the nation.
Friends, make no mistake about it, the ACLU will not stop with this lawsuit. They will come to YOUR TOWN. They will target YOUR SCHOOL. They will march across this nation, loosening the threads of our religious heritage and chipping away at the foundation of our freedom.
So today, I am launching a nationwide campaign, ''KEEP HIM IN CHRISTMAS.'' The ACLJ will fight for freedom of speech this Christmas ... standing ready to protect YOUR children's and grandchildren's school systems, YOUR dedicated teachers and principals, and YOUR town from this type of blatant, religious censorship from the ACLU.
I will not back down. I will vigorously defend the rights of students to engage in free speech on public school campuses. Please stand with me now in prayer and giving.
Thank you!
American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
Phone: (800) 296-4529
Copyright©2006, ACLJ
Muslim Rep. Ellison: No Oath on Bible
Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Quran instead.
The 43-year-old Minnesota Democrat, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student, won the midterm election after a campaign calling for an immediate American pullout from Iraq. And his decision to forsake the Bible at his January 3 swearing-in troubles some.
"He should not be allowed to do so,” Townhall.com contributing columnist Dennis Prager writes on the Web site.
"Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in . . .
"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
"In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”
Prager, a radio talk show host and author, concludes: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11.
"It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America.”
The 43-year-old Minnesota Democrat, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student, won the midterm election after a campaign calling for an immediate American pullout from Iraq. And his decision to forsake the Bible at his January 3 swearing-in troubles some.
"He should not be allowed to do so,” Townhall.com contributing columnist Dennis Prager writes on the Web site.
"Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in . . .
"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
"In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”
Prager, a radio talk show host and author, concludes: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11.
"It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America.”
Christians blast Chicago for 'Nativity' movie ban
Christians blast Chicago for 'Nativity' movie ban
'This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The so-called war on Christmas has been reignited with an ironic decision by the city of Chicago to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians.
"This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable," said Jay Sekulow, a Christian who is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "To suggest that a movie about the birth of Jesus Christ should not be included in a Christmas festival is absurd. This transcends political correctness and centers squarely on religious bigotry."
New Line Cinema had planned to play a loop of its film on TV monitors at the event, but the decision by government leaders has many shaking their heads.
Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and known for his MovieGuide recommendations, told WND the city's ban on the ads is "abhorrent" and he labeled Chicago officials as "corrupt."
"I'm absolutely shocked that at a Christmas festival, they would not allow commercials they could see tonight on TV," he said. "It is just more political correctness where everything is OK – except Christianity."
Chicago officials maintain the city doesn't wish to appear to endorse one religion over another.
Cindy Gatziolis, a spokeswoman for the Mayor's Office of Special Events, acknowledged to the Associated Press there is an actual nativity scene set up in Daley Plaza, but noted there will be representations of other faiths, including a Jewish menorah, all put up by private groups.
"Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza," Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.
The ACLJ said it will send a letter to city officials and festival organizers urging them to end their discriminatory practices and to permit the movie to serve as a sponsor for the festival.
"The city of Chicago and festival organizers are exhibiting an intolerance that is offensive to Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ," Sekulow said. "The city and festival organizers must respect the First Amendment and put an end to the discriminatory practices. We call on the city of Chicago and festival organizers to reverse the decision and permit 'The Nativity Story' to serve as a sponsor of the Christmas festival."
'This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The so-called war on Christmas has been reignited with an ironic decision by the city of Chicago to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians.
"This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable," said Jay Sekulow, a Christian who is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "To suggest that a movie about the birth of Jesus Christ should not be included in a Christmas festival is absurd. This transcends political correctness and centers squarely on religious bigotry."
New Line Cinema had planned to play a loop of its film on TV monitors at the event, but the decision by government leaders has many shaking their heads.
Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and known for his MovieGuide recommendations, told WND the city's ban on the ads is "abhorrent" and he labeled Chicago officials as "corrupt."
"I'm absolutely shocked that at a Christmas festival, they would not allow commercials they could see tonight on TV," he said. "It is just more political correctness where everything is OK – except Christianity."
Chicago officials maintain the city doesn't wish to appear to endorse one religion over another.
Cindy Gatziolis, a spokeswoman for the Mayor's Office of Special Events, acknowledged to the Associated Press there is an actual nativity scene set up in Daley Plaza, but noted there will be representations of other faiths, including a Jewish menorah, all put up by private groups.
"Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza," Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.
The ACLJ said it will send a letter to city officials and festival organizers urging them to end their discriminatory practices and to permit the movie to serve as a sponsor for the festival.
"The city of Chicago and festival organizers are exhibiting an intolerance that is offensive to Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ," Sekulow said. "The city and festival organizers must respect the First Amendment and put an end to the discriminatory practices. We call on the city of Chicago and festival organizers to reverse the decision and permit 'The Nativity Story' to serve as a sponsor of the Christmas festival."
45,000 terror-threat illegals released into U.S. population
45,000 terror-threat illegals released into U.S. population
Half from countries of 'special interest' let go between 2001, 2005, says report
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Half of the 91,516 illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries and those of "special interest" apprehended at the border between 2001 and 2005 were released into the U.S. population, according to a report by the inspector general's office of the Department of Homeland Security.
The report, "Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens," released earlier this year with little fanfare or attention, suggests about 85 percent of those aliens – potentially the most dangerous – would abscond and likely never be seen by authorities again.
Acknowledging the danger such aliens pose to the national security, the report cites a DHS official testifying that terrorist organizations "believe illegal entry into the U.S. is more advantageous than legal entry for operations reasons."
Budget shortfalls were the explanations for why some 45,008 potential terrorists were released by authorities over a period of nearly five years after Sept. 11, 2001. The budget crunches prompted immigration officials to place strict limits on detention bed space, recruitment, training, travel and expansion of enforcement programs, the report explained.
In addition to the release of these high-risk aliens, 27,947 known criminals were also released between 2001 and 2004 – including 20, 967 "from countries where the notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang members are know to be active."
Given that only one in four aliens attempting to enter the U.S. during this period was caught, that would suggest some 350,000 from high-risk nations entered the country through this five-year period. An additional 400,000 criminal aliens would also have made it into the country between 2001 and 2004, according to the report.
That's a total of 750,000 aliens who would be either known criminals before entering the country illegally or who originated from a terror-sponsoring nation or one in which terrorists are known to operate.
This news hits following WND's report yesterday that 12 Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003.
It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
But the terror threat posed by illegal aliens could make all those grisly numbers pale by comparison should a few succeed in conducting major operations in the U.S., say law enforcement officials.
Half from countries of 'special interest' let go between 2001, 2005, says report
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Half of the 91,516 illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries and those of "special interest" apprehended at the border between 2001 and 2005 were released into the U.S. population, according to a report by the inspector general's office of the Department of Homeland Security.
The report, "Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens," released earlier this year with little fanfare or attention, suggests about 85 percent of those aliens – potentially the most dangerous – would abscond and likely never be seen by authorities again.
Acknowledging the danger such aliens pose to the national security, the report cites a DHS official testifying that terrorist organizations "believe illegal entry into the U.S. is more advantageous than legal entry for operations reasons."
Budget shortfalls were the explanations for why some 45,008 potential terrorists were released by authorities over a period of nearly five years after Sept. 11, 2001. The budget crunches prompted immigration officials to place strict limits on detention bed space, recruitment, training, travel and expansion of enforcement programs, the report explained.
In addition to the release of these high-risk aliens, 27,947 known criminals were also released between 2001 and 2004 – including 20, 967 "from countries where the notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang members are know to be active."
Given that only one in four aliens attempting to enter the U.S. during this period was caught, that would suggest some 350,000 from high-risk nations entered the country through this five-year period. An additional 400,000 criminal aliens would also have made it into the country between 2001 and 2004, according to the report.
That's a total of 750,000 aliens who would be either known criminals before entering the country illegally or who originated from a terror-sponsoring nation or one in which terrorists are known to operate.
This news hits following WND's report yesterday that 12 Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003.
It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
But the terror threat posed by illegal aliens could make all those grisly numbers pale by comparison should a few succeed in conducting major operations in the U.S., say law enforcement officials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
