Humans must die for earth’s survival – “Go Green” to the extreme

Also here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/humans-must-die-for-earths-survival-go-green-to-the-extreme/

Posted: 24 Oct 2009 10:16 AM PDT The Green Movement, enlisting humans to save the planet by “going green,” is no longer enough for some environmentalists. The fast-spreading word is that humanity must die out to save the earth. Listed with a starting date of 1996 at their website, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is several steps ahead of the old Hemlock Society. The Hemlock Society, now called Compassion and Choices, came to the forefront in the late 1950’s to advocate “death with dignity”—voluntary euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced vehement) simply suggests humans should no longer procreate. While voluntary euthanasia goes against the biblical principle of waiting for God’s timing, VHEMT simply suggests not to breed any further humans for the sake of the earth. They equate God’s leaving one family behind to re-populate earth after the flood as an “OOPS,” and state that some other “being” will be needed to help in this situation (see this page at their website, under the question “When and Where did VHEMT start?”). Well…that would definitely solve the problem of getting sick and wanting to die. But VHEMT’s purpose has nothing to do with soothing human pain and everything to do with putting the earth first, to an extreme degree. Their theory is that if we stop breeding, the Earth (a word they always capitalize) will return to its original healthy state. This isn’t a one child per family rule – it’s no breeding at all. What this reporter would like to know is…who will be around to appreciate it? Do animals appreciate things? Can animals express their appreciation? One thing’s for sure –animals won’t go around saying “Ahhhh, that’s better.” According to the Life Issues Institute, Inc.’s “Connector” October Newsletter, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not a lone wolf in their theory that humans are the worst threat to the environment. Several animal rights and earth-worshipping groups take the same view, including big names like the Sierra Club, the Cousteau Society, and the Audubon Society.  One thing can be said for VHEMT. They don’t approve of killing people to reduce the population (see here). However, their goal could be misinterpreted by madmen, much as our Christian faith’s purpose has been mishandled in the past, and genocides for the sake of population control could happen. VHEMT already had to speak out against a group called the Church of Euthanasia, whose founder advocates suicide to people who really want to save the earth (although the founder hasn’t killed himself).  Meanwhile, both Oregon and Washington State now have “death with dignity” acts for legal assisted suicide. Jack Kevorkian, once called the “Doctor of Death” for participating in assisted suicides, would never be arrested today.

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag

Abortion Amendments voted down in U.S. Senate Finance Committee

http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/abortion-amendments-voted-down-in-u-s-senate-finance-committee/

---

Two proposed abortion amendments to the working version of the Health Care Bill were defeated in the U.S. Senate Finance Committee within days of each other.  Hatch Amendment C13 would have a) prevented discrimination against health care providers (individuals like doctors or health care institutions like hospitals) who wanted to opt out of doing abortions on the grounds of moral or religious beliefs; and b) that the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services would be the assigned recipient of discrimination complaints. Hatch C14 (both amendments named for their creator, Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT) would have provided stronger language against the use of taxpayer money for abortions.  The full text of both amendments, plus which members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted for and against, can be seen here at Earth Times. Current law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions except for “rape, incest or the life of the mother.” But the wording of the Baucus Bill, which passed this week around the same time as the defeat of C14, may allow taxpayer dollars to be used for abortion due to wording which only qualifies “certain” federal funds and “certain recipients” to be exempt. Pro-life members of Congress and various pro-life organizations are worried this could possibly broad-stroke into existence a loophole to use taxpayer dollars. According to Guttmacher Institute statistics, abortions due to rape, incest or health of the mother account for only 1.5-2% of all legal abortions. However, “health of the mother” is becoming more and more subjective. What constitutes “health” is left up to abortion providers and their patients. Former Surgeon General Everett C. Koop, along with a group of hundreds of doctors called Physicians for Life, repeatedly testifies that abortion is the least safe way to save the life of a mother, and that Caesarean section delivery is always preferable.

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag

Pornography isn’t Victimless – Observe WRAP Week

Also here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/pornography-isnt-victimless-observe-wrap-week/

---

The porn industry would have us believe that pornography is a harmless, victimless crime – and they even go so far as to say pornography “empowers” women (see this previous Underground article). Purveyors of porn title theirs a “Business of Pleasure” as seen in a July 2009 CNBC special, where one female porn star says “I just treat it like any job.” Women are now producing and directing pornographic films. If porn takes no victims, then we wouldn’t need “Victims of Pornography Month,” which happens in May each year, and we wouldn’t need “White Ribbons Against Pornography Week” (WRAP) – taking place Sunday, October 25 through Sunday, November 1, 2009. WRAP is sponsored by the Morality in Media organization. For decades, numerous reports and articles have offered real statistics about porn’s victims: -Ruined marriages from addiction to print and Internet porn; -Abuse and violence after viewing porn videos; -Addiction to porn in magazines leading to visiting strip clubs and eventually adultery; -Adult pornography leading to sexual exploitation of children and sex trafficking; -Teens and children becoming addicted to porn found on parents’ and friends’ computers or in hidden magazines; -Roughly 93% of boys and 61% of girls have seen online porn; -Clergy and youth leaders unable to resist the temptation of porn films in hotel rooms; -Soft porn working its way toward hard porn in major Hollywood films and TV soap operas (not just “B” videos). (Visit the Morality in Media website linked above for evidence of these statements. Click on “Effects of Pornography” in the column at right side.) � One of the latest phenomena is that tweens and teens don’t see the harm in porn because “everyone’s posting nude pictures” on their cell phones. Michael Leahy, author of Porn Nation – Conquering America’s #1 Addiction and himself a one-time porn addict, calls pornography the “crack cocaine of sexual addiction.” “Porn is protected by free speech” – myth becomes truth The Supreme Court has ruled often that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. But because today’s “politically correct” philosophy tells us that there are no absolute truths and nothing is right or wrong, good or bad, the subject of what is obscene has become relative. Laws are thrown out the window in favor of doing what feels good and allowing others to do so because we mustn’t appear judgmental.  � Is all of porn’s harmful evidence falling on deaf ears where laws are concerned? Enforcement of U.S. Federal Obscenity Laws has long been declining in the name of free speech. Despite a 2005 Harris Poll showing 77% of American adults would support efforts to enforce federal obscenity laws, and in 2008 that 75% would support similarly, it still isn’t happening. There is stronger federal willingness to look into sex trafficking since it’s become such a huge, un-ignorable problem; but print and video pornography still isn’t getting much attention. How can you help? -Read some of the stories at the Victims of Pornography website. -Participate in the WRAP campaign as an individual, or enlist your church or any other group to do so (get all instructions at the Morality in Media website under the first right-bar link “Wrap Campaign”). -PRAY for victims of pornography and their families. -PRAY for a miraculous downfall to the $100 billion porn industry. -RESIST temptation and help your family to resist it. Study Matthew 6:13, 26:41; Luke 22:46, 1 Corinthians 10:13, James 1:2-3. (This writer is not receiving any remuneration or compensation from organizations mentioned in this article.)

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag

Plastic Church, Part 3: Elements of a Healthy & Relevant Church

Originally here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/plastic-church-part-3-elements-of-a-healthy-relevant-church/

---

Posted: 12 Oct 2009 07:46 PM PDT A healthy church seeks to exalt the Cross of Christ to the highest place in everything it does. So What’s the Point Anymore? Fed up. Tired. Burnt out. These and countless other phrases have become the norm for describing the vast majority of today’s churchgoers. Some are unable to find a sense of belonging and are thus content to hop from one community of believers to the next. Others have been burned. They are the victims. They have suffered undue emotional pain and judgment at the hands of fellow congregants and have shunned the very notion of church altogether. So by now you are likely asking yourself, “What’s the point of corporate church attendance? If every church is as dysfunctional as these, I want no part of it.” As is the case with so many of life’s conundrums, the answer is not as simple as many would prefer it to be. However, healthy church functionality is not only possible, but can leave lasting results on a community of believers. Remember Justin Nguyen from last week (see Plastic Church Part 2); the once-angry teen who had been burned by a church? Fortunately, Justin’s story ends on a positive note. Justin spoke of the church he attends now by saying, “It’s amazing to be able to walk into a church and know that everyone’s got problems and you’ve got problems and nobody cares other than the fact that they want each other together as a collective to get better and stronger and then go out and help those that are dealing with the same thing. You’ve got drug addicts and sex addicts and all these different things and everybody knows it.” Justin’s words reflect one of the several essential elements of a healthy church: transparency. A healthy church is open, honest and transparent about their brokenness, their struggles and their weaknesses, both as individuals and as a collective. This not only applies to church attendees, but to pastoral leaders, volunteers, ministry staff, etc. as well. Secondly, a healthy church should exhibit a genuine realism in their affection toward newcomers and each other. Pat Howell (see Plastic Church Part 1) agrees. “It’s all about being genuine. And there are several genuine people here at this church [I attend now] and in this community of believers. I know that I have personal issues inside of me. I am 60 years old. I’ve been through a lot of stuff. I have things going on in here. But I’m not so stupid as to say that there is nothing wrong with me or that I am the same as everyone else. I’m not. I see these things in other people [too].” Finally, a healthy church should earnestly desire to reach the lost and raise up a Biblically functioning community. This was and is the Great Commission Christ gave to His disciples before leaving Earth and ascending into Heaven: “And Jesus spoke to them [the disciples], saying ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20, NASU, emphases added). When it comes to church function and dysfunction, these few elements are just the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned for all subsequent pieces and spinoff series of Plastic Church, which will address many issues facing today’s modern churchgoers.

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag

Mojave Desert Cross has its day in U.S. Supreme Court

Originally here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/mojave-desert-cross-has-its-day-in-u-s-supreme-court/

---

Most American Christians, unless they’ve been in a frozen cryotherapy container for fifteen years, have heard of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross controversy; a monument caught in the cross-fires of the First Amendment religious free speech battle. On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court finally heard the Mojave Desert Cross case, and will decide in a few months, once and for all, if the cross violates the First Amendment’s “separation of church and state” clause. The fact that this “separation” clause is an invisible phrase invented by a court interpretation that may itself violate the First Amendment is very ironic. But we must put that aside for a moment. Here’s some background to the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross case: In 1934, an eight-foot cross was erected in California’s Mojave Desert as a memorial to the soldiers who fought in World War I. It sits in the middle of the desert, where cars may drive by quickly, and one would have to look right at it to notice it. The problem is, it’s on government property and permission wasn’t sought for its erection. In 1994, the National Park Service acquired the land with the Mojave cross. This increased the profile of the cross. Within a few years, a Buddhist organization wanted to put up a shrine near the cross, and was refused. A lawsuit was filed with the help of the ACLU. This quickly transformed from being a case of discrimination to questioning the legality of the cross’s existence on the property. In and out of courtrooms for nearly a decade, the Mojave cross was deemed illegal by a federal court, but a judge decided to just keep it covered; first with cloth, then with plywood. In 2001, Congress, now Republican-led after President George W. Bush was elected, refused the federal dollars it would have cost to remove the cross. An attempt was made in California court to transfer the plot of land on which the cross sits to private ownership, in exchange for other land, but it was turned down on the basis that the “separation” issue would not be solved by that action. In June 2009, Liberty Counsel filed a brief in support of the cross. Those interested can see the law firm’s efforts so far in the Mojave case (legally, Salazar v. Buono) here. So, the case for removal of the Mojave Desert cross, covered with a wooden box to this day, finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 6, 2009. The Supreme Court has been handling Christian monuments on a case-by-case basis, giving some the thumbs up for historical value, and others a thumbs down for encroaching on the “separation” clause. Countless polls by religious and non-religious organizations show the majority of Americans don’t mind religious symbols like crosses, menorahs and Christmas trees in public places. It remains to be seen if an activist Supreme Court will see it the majority’s way.

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag

Renowned Atheist Richard Dawkins Appears on the O’Reilly Factor

Originally here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2009/10/atheist-richard-dawkins-appears-on-the-oreilly-factor/

Posted: 09 Oct 2009 10:04 PM PDT FOX News: Fri. October 9, 2009 Atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins attending the 35th annual Atheists Convention. Evolutionary scientist, best-selling author and self-professing atheist Clinton Richard Dawkins has a new book out. And you should know about it. In an exclusive appearance on the FOX News Network’s The O’Reilly Factor today, Dawkins debated with conservative political commentator Bill O’Reilly about the existence of God, evolution versus Creationism and everything in between. The discussion also included news of his most recent bestseller “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” Dawkins has a longstanding history of adamantly speaking out against the theory of Intelligent Design in nature and is known for criticizing religion and faith in a “higher power” at every opportunity. And he is good at what he does. In the 2008 documentary film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, longtime actor and comedian Ben Stein investigated the controversial issue of academic freedom in regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Dawkins was interviewed by Stein, among several other notable scientists, on the possibility of Intelligent Design in nature. The famed atheistic professor naturally denied any such notion. However, by the end of their intense discourse, even Dawkins was unable to account for the origins of certain microbiological processes in creation. He did, however, remain steadfast in his belief that faith in an intelligent Creator is complete lunacy. In his previous book “The God Delusion” (2006), Dawkins went so far as to claim that the very notion of the existence of a supernatural Creator is absurd and actually qualifies as a psychological delusion. Today’s mainstream media and the education establishment of the U.S. are becoming increasingly intolerant of professors and scientists who assert even the possibility of Intelligent Design in nature. Countless university level teachers, professors and faculty have either been reprimanded or completely cut for merely suggesting such a theory. We live in a world where science and God, science and religious faith, have been separated. Many believe the conjunction of the two is simply politically incorrect. Unfortunately, you cannot have science without God or God without science. Not to mention that any science professor has the right to at least present Creationism in their classroom as a possibility for the origins of life, just as Evolution is presented. There is a cultural call to Christians everywhere to guard their minds against Dawkins and others like him and to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” and “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). Research, study, learn and be prepared to defend your beliefs and faith whenever needed. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction…Happy is the man that finds wisdom and gains understanding.” (Proverbs 1:7 and 3:13).

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag