The perversion of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been a cause of controversy for years. I am not as concerned about the traditional arguments here and in fact wish to turn the refocus how the church has abdicated its roles and broke down the walls of separation. The focus on this is not the constitutional aspects, which I believe could debunk most of modern opinions of the court by examing the federalist papers and the writings of the founders, but the aspect of the church and its relationship to the state via its own abdication of authority by choice.
My thesis is actually that it is the church who has broken down the barrier wall between itself and the state and it’s willingness to throw it’s responsiblity to it’s flock off onto the state and the heathen, as well as its willingness to take money from the state in exchange for their union.
Starting at the “New Deal”, social security and social assistance programs, the church should have been up in arms in protest. (Maybe a step backward, starting at the prohibition, it should have been in protest of legislating “alleged Christian principles” but was in support of it-with the exception of J. Grescham Madchen. ) But it gladly ceded it’s responsibility to the widows, the infirmed, the orphans and to the needy to the state.
The principle of teaching someone to fish , rather than to merely give fish lost out. We find in Acts where the burden of meeting the needs and serving the tables interfered with the evangelistic and ministerial aspects of the apostles (now transfer to elders), so there were among them those chosen to meet those needs. That office has all been lost today.
How did the church ever allow this to happen? Disorder in the offices is one of the quickest ways to destroy a church and make it unhealthy. Non- functional offices in the church is the norm, not the exception.
The diaconal concept is skewed into distribution only, and the modern day deacon takes care of books, and does labor in the church, cut the lawn, paint the building, clean the church. What does he do with the flock? Maybe a household chore or a ride to the store or doctor or to the state office to sign someone up for benefits? And that is a healthy deacon in today’s church. But, I see this as one of the core problems in todays church.
A deacon must be one who can counsel and instruct and discern. When a deacon cares for the needy, by a members submission to the authority of the church, a deacon should be helping to set up budgets, and look for root causes of the need, not only to “give fish”. When the church gives assistance to a member, it has the responsibility to ascertain why that need is there, and how to overcome the need for assistance. This sets the stage for interaction between the deacon and the member in need?
Is the member terrible with handling funds? Is the member lacking discipline in his own life? Is the member tithing? Is the member involved in some habit that is causing them to deprive their family of their needs to the point the church has to step in? Does the member lack direction in life? Or are they just lazy? Or is there a disability that will exist for a more permanent need for assistance from the church? These are issues that the biblical deacon looked at and it was a way of direct ministry to the flock. Sometimes there is nothing but circumstances beyond their control. In that case, the church would have to make longer term plans and solutions to meet the need and to adjust the members needs downward into what is needed, not just what is comfortable.
But, by abdicating the responsibility of the needy (same principles apply to widows and orphans and the church) to the state we eliminate an entire area of ministry and oversight the church is responsible to its members for. While there are qualifications and programs the government has to support the member, the government does not provide ministry to the flock. Well yes it does, but not a biblical one. How can you legitimately ask a member to see their finances when the state is helping them meet their needs. They can keep getting fish and never need to learn to fish themselves.
We will take a look in the near future about other areas of church offices and members roles, and to see where we have strayed and how (and if we are willing) to correct the error of our abdication and restore our churches to biblical roles .
While we have many issues with the workings of our government that deserve attention, perhaps it is time we start getting the log out of our own eyes before dealing with the governments problems. Our governance is from God as expressed through our roles as priests in our own families, and from the local church to which we are to submit to its biblical authority.
If we want a change in how things are going in our government, perhaps the way to institute that is to get our churches and homes in order first, the ones in which we have the greatest chance of effecting change. When we accomplish that, we can turn our eyes onto the world.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The State-Church
A State-Church is any of the following:
An incorporated church
An incorporated 501c3 church
A 501c3 “unincorporated association” church
A corporation sole church (contrary to the myths promulgated by the corporation sole peddlers, a corporation sole is a corporation, and it makes little difference whether or not it is also a 501c3. A corporation sole church is a State-Church).
A great many of the church’s problems today are a direct result of the church “taking” and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and a subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and the tax-exempt 501c3 status (federal jurisdiction).
Scripture simply does not support the notion that the church is an inferior institution to the State. Nor, for that matter, is the church a superior institution to the State. God has ordained both the church and the civil government as His “ministers.” The church is the minister of grace, while the State is the minister of justice. Church and State are two distinct and independent spheres of authority (jurisdictions) ordained by God.
However, no church can remain separate and distinct from the civil government when it incorporates and/or accepts 501c3 status. For legal purposes an incorporated 501c3 church has subordinated itself, by contract, to the civil government. For theological purposes, that church has made a covenant with the State, a covenant which Scripture in no way supports.
What is the solution to the church’s current messy state of affairs? It must cease operating as an underling of the State. The solution is for the church to legally operate as it once had in America (and we might add, quite successfully so). Rather than operating as “tax-exempt nonprofit religious corporations,” churches once functioned as “free-churches.” Just what exactly is a free-church? A free-church operates independent of, and is in no way subordinate to, the civil government.
It is the right of any church to operate free of the corrupting and compromising influence and control of the State; and it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
A free-church is not some radical-fringe concept. Rather, the free-church was one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most common, institutions in early American history. The worldview of those men who fought for America’s independence embraced an uncompromising belief that the church was not an underling, a vassal, or in any way subordinate to any king, parliament, or any other civil government body.
The church is the religious institution ordained and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and Christ has never delegated His authority to the civil jurisdiction to rule in the affairs of His church.
A free-church is the opposite of a State-Church. The Church Of England is a State-Church system. State-Churches are well known throughout Europe, and there have been State-Churches there for many centuries. Rather than being quick to criticize the Europeans for not attending church, we should ponder whether their contempt for the State-Church system isn’t well deserved.Americans, on the other hand, are generally offended by the notion of the State creating or controlling their churches, or that their churches would be subordinate to the State. However, this is exactly what has occurred in recent years as a direct result of churches incorporating and seeking a 501c3 status — they have become State-Churches.
A free-church is a church that is truly separate, independent and autonomous from the State. It is established by a local body of Christian believers, or chartered or “planted” by another church body or denomination, without the permission or sanction of the State. The only “sovereign” of the free-church is the Lord Jesus Christ. A free-church cannot incorporate, it cannot seek a 501c3 status, it cannot become a tax collector for the State (withholding agent), it cannot accept government-issued tax numbers (EIN).
The term “free-church” was widely used by the American colonists. It was not a term that they coined, but one which they inherited from their fathers and forebears such as the Scottish Covenanters, and the “non-conformist” English clergy, both of whom fled the persecutions of the Anglican State-Church and it’s “sovereign head” the British monarchy.Even after American independence there continued to be Christians who fled the religious persecution of their State-Church systems for the freedom of religion America offered them. They too often used the term “free-church” to describe the churches they organized. Such an example of this would be the Evangelical Free Church, which was founded by a group of Scandinavians who settled in America in the mid-nineteenth century.
Tragically, the Evangelical Free Church In America today has become a “Free Church” in name only. By incorporating and becoming a 501c3 they, some years ago, decided to abandon those principles that their Swedish, Danish and Norwegian forefathers endured great persecution for.Equally tragic is the demise of the so-called “Free-Church of Scotland.” Were they honest it would be renamed the “State-Church of Scotland.” So thoroughly has it become a State-Church that Scottish pastors receive their paychecks from the government (and it happened because the Scottish clergy insisted upon it). He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The church must cease operating as an underling, subordinate to the State, or in any way dependent upon the State for “privileges and benefits.” The solution rests in the church organizing and operating as a church — the ecclesia, not as something other than what the Lord Jesus Himself ordained and specified. Jesus spoke of the church as a “body” with Himself as the “head” of His church, and we as various “members of the body.” The church is, therefore, not an “organization” (a “legal entity”) but a living, breathing “organism.”
This should not be a difficult biblical doctrine to grasp, particularly for the Pastor. Sadly, however, ever since local churches started organizing as tax-exempt non-profit corporations in the mid-twentieth century, and since the incorporated 501c3 church is now the status quo, many folks have a hard time conceiving of the church operating as just a church. For some odd reason, just being a church isn’t good enough anymore for too many Christians.
The thinking today appears to be that we must somehow be smarter than Jesus and His disciples were. They refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution (incorporation of all “spontaneous collectivities of persons” became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D.). We’re told that we live in a far more complex world than the first-century church, and so the church too must inevitably become more complex and just adapt to the complexities of the modern information age. The simplicities of the organizational infrastructure (polity) of the early church are no longer adequate to address the complex world in which we live.
Those who hold to such beliefs, whether in word or deed, are in reality, making a public proclamation that Jesus Christ is no longer competent to govern His own church and provide for, and protect it. The courts well-understand that “a church is not an entity recognized in law,” meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the church. However, organizing a church as a church is an especially difficult concept for attorneys to grasp. Few attorneys can comprehend that there are things and issues completely outside the purview and jurisdiction of the civil government, nor do they much care for the idea. After all, it’s hard to get many billable hours out of those churches that understand that the civil government has no jurisdiction over them. A free-church needs an attorney like a fish needs a bicycle.
The legal support for the State’s lack of jurisdiction over the church in America is not only the Word of God, but the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
No church in any nation at any point in history can lay claim to the freedoms and liberties that are guaranteed the church in America. The First Amendment is an act of God’s Providence to safeguard His church and maintain its independence from the State. The First Amendment is the highest form of real protection the church has ever known in history.The solution rests in the church abandoning the phony third-rate protections and benefits of the State and returning to those real protections and benefits that are ours in Christ Jesus.
An incorporated church
An incorporated 501c3 church
A 501c3 “unincorporated association” church
A corporation sole church (contrary to the myths promulgated by the corporation sole peddlers, a corporation sole is a corporation, and it makes little difference whether or not it is also a 501c3. A corporation sole church is a State-Church).
A great many of the church’s problems today are a direct result of the church “taking” and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and a subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and the tax-exempt 501c3 status (federal jurisdiction).
Scripture simply does not support the notion that the church is an inferior institution to the State. Nor, for that matter, is the church a superior institution to the State. God has ordained both the church and the civil government as His “ministers.” The church is the minister of grace, while the State is the minister of justice. Church and State are two distinct and independent spheres of authority (jurisdictions) ordained by God.
However, no church can remain separate and distinct from the civil government when it incorporates and/or accepts 501c3 status. For legal purposes an incorporated 501c3 church has subordinated itself, by contract, to the civil government. For theological purposes, that church has made a covenant with the State, a covenant which Scripture in no way supports.
What is the solution to the church’s current messy state of affairs? It must cease operating as an underling of the State. The solution is for the church to legally operate as it once had in America (and we might add, quite successfully so). Rather than operating as “tax-exempt nonprofit religious corporations,” churches once functioned as “free-churches.” Just what exactly is a free-church? A free-church operates independent of, and is in no way subordinate to, the civil government.
It is the right of any church to operate free of the corrupting and compromising influence and control of the State; and it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
A free-church is not some radical-fringe concept. Rather, the free-church was one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most common, institutions in early American history. The worldview of those men who fought for America’s independence embraced an uncompromising belief that the church was not an underling, a vassal, or in any way subordinate to any king, parliament, or any other civil government body.
The church is the religious institution ordained and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and Christ has never delegated His authority to the civil jurisdiction to rule in the affairs of His church.
A free-church is the opposite of a State-Church. The Church Of England is a State-Church system. State-Churches are well known throughout Europe, and there have been State-Churches there for many centuries. Rather than being quick to criticize the Europeans for not attending church, we should ponder whether their contempt for the State-Church system isn’t well deserved.Americans, on the other hand, are generally offended by the notion of the State creating or controlling their churches, or that their churches would be subordinate to the State. However, this is exactly what has occurred in recent years as a direct result of churches incorporating and seeking a 501c3 status — they have become State-Churches.
A free-church is a church that is truly separate, independent and autonomous from the State. It is established by a local body of Christian believers, or chartered or “planted” by another church body or denomination, without the permission or sanction of the State. The only “sovereign” of the free-church is the Lord Jesus Christ. A free-church cannot incorporate, it cannot seek a 501c3 status, it cannot become a tax collector for the State (withholding agent), it cannot accept government-issued tax numbers (EIN).
The term “free-church” was widely used by the American colonists. It was not a term that they coined, but one which they inherited from their fathers and forebears such as the Scottish Covenanters, and the “non-conformist” English clergy, both of whom fled the persecutions of the Anglican State-Church and it’s “sovereign head” the British monarchy.Even after American independence there continued to be Christians who fled the religious persecution of their State-Church systems for the freedom of religion America offered them. They too often used the term “free-church” to describe the churches they organized. Such an example of this would be the Evangelical Free Church, which was founded by a group of Scandinavians who settled in America in the mid-nineteenth century.
Tragically, the Evangelical Free Church In America today has become a “Free Church” in name only. By incorporating and becoming a 501c3 they, some years ago, decided to abandon those principles that their Swedish, Danish and Norwegian forefathers endured great persecution for.Equally tragic is the demise of the so-called “Free-Church of Scotland.” Were they honest it would be renamed the “State-Church of Scotland.” So thoroughly has it become a State-Church that Scottish pastors receive their paychecks from the government (and it happened because the Scottish clergy insisted upon it). He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The church must cease operating as an underling, subordinate to the State, or in any way dependent upon the State for “privileges and benefits.” The solution rests in the church organizing and operating as a church — the ecclesia, not as something other than what the Lord Jesus Himself ordained and specified. Jesus spoke of the church as a “body” with Himself as the “head” of His church, and we as various “members of the body.” The church is, therefore, not an “organization” (a “legal entity”) but a living, breathing “organism.”
This should not be a difficult biblical doctrine to grasp, particularly for the Pastor. Sadly, however, ever since local churches started organizing as tax-exempt non-profit corporations in the mid-twentieth century, and since the incorporated 501c3 church is now the status quo, many folks have a hard time conceiving of the church operating as just a church. For some odd reason, just being a church isn’t good enough anymore for too many Christians.
The thinking today appears to be that we must somehow be smarter than Jesus and His disciples were. They refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution (incorporation of all “spontaneous collectivities of persons” became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D.). We’re told that we live in a far more complex world than the first-century church, and so the church too must inevitably become more complex and just adapt to the complexities of the modern information age. The simplicities of the organizational infrastructure (polity) of the early church are no longer adequate to address the complex world in which we live.
Those who hold to such beliefs, whether in word or deed, are in reality, making a public proclamation that Jesus Christ is no longer competent to govern His own church and provide for, and protect it. The courts well-understand that “a church is not an entity recognized in law,” meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the church. However, organizing a church as a church is an especially difficult concept for attorneys to grasp. Few attorneys can comprehend that there are things and issues completely outside the purview and jurisdiction of the civil government, nor do they much care for the idea. After all, it’s hard to get many billable hours out of those churches that understand that the civil government has no jurisdiction over them. A free-church needs an attorney like a fish needs a bicycle.
The legal support for the State’s lack of jurisdiction over the church in America is not only the Word of God, but the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
No church in any nation at any point in history can lay claim to the freedoms and liberties that are guaranteed the church in America. The First Amendment is an act of God’s Providence to safeguard His church and maintain its independence from the State. The First Amendment is the highest form of real protection the church has ever known in history.The solution rests in the church abandoning the phony third-rate protections and benefits of the State and returning to those real protections and benefits that are ours in Christ Jesus.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Time to End the African Genocide Project
Today’s headlines from Reuters tell us President Bush is making a commitment to bring malaria under control in Africa. Good heart but terrible methodology.One must remember the true history of this to understand if President Bush wants to end the genocide or just appear compassionate and line some pockets. Lets remember the history:
In the 1960’s the World Health Organization sentenced children in African to death by malaria in the name of population control. Intentional Calculated Genocide . Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.“
Zero Population Growth
In effect, banning DDT was a zero population growth tool used on third world
Africa by the World Health Organization in the name of environmentalism. Lapkin sees these questions through the prism of a new form of First World vanity. “The anti-DDT crusade is made all the more outrageous by the distinct taint of neo-colonialism that is its indelible accompaniment. In a way, the push to ban this insecticide represents the ultimate in modern Eurocentric arrogance, the newest form of imperialism.”
He likens it to the “we know what’s best” Kipling version of taking up the white man’s burden imposing a green, insecticide-free colonial ideology of primal, untainted nature. Given the Herodian consequences, it seems to me that the more fitting analogy is with the Belgian than theBritish empire, and with Joseph Conrad’s Mister Kurtz. Still there can be no doubting his conclusion that “hubris, folly and ethnocentrism…spawned this unnecessary tragedy”.
Crichton says the most imperative of contemporary challenges is to retrieve responsible environmentalism from the clutches of those zealots for whom it has become a substitute faith and return to scientific discipline. He said, “I am thoroughly sick of politicised so-called facts that simply aren’t true. It isn’t that these ‘facts’ are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organisations are spinning their case… in the strongest way. Not at all — what more and more groups are doing is putting out lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false. This trend began with the DDT campaign and persists to this day.”
Feigned Concern for cancer
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), DDT is classified as Group 2B carcinogenicity; that is, there is an admitted insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity. On the other hand, a report issued by the IARC classified combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives, the most widely prescribed contraceptive on the market, as Group 1 carcinogenicity.In other words, oral contraceptives, which the WHO claims over 100 million women worldwide regularly ingest, are by this classification defined as definitely carcinogenic. The WHO therefore justifies downplaying the immediate risk to hundreds of millions of women worldwide because “it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial.” No again, population control is at the core.DDT has saved millions of lives, and the ban, based upon long disproved claims of carcinogenicity, is perpetuating the annual death of millions. Talk about a beneficial “overall net public health outcome”! “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.” *According to
Africa News, January 27. 1999, “It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years”.
False Solutions are diversions
What Africa needs is water and DDT, not bed blankets and vaccines.
In Graham Greene’s 1949 thriller classic, The Third Man, Harry Lime — “the dirtiest racketeer who ever made a dirty living” — peddles diluted penicillin through the sewers of occupiedVienna.
During the film’s famous scene atop the city’s Great Wheel, Harry’s friend Holly Martins, played by Joseph Cotten, asks, “Have you ever visited the children’s hospital? Have you ever seen any of your victims?” “Victims?” replies Orson Welles as Harry, pointing to the tiny figures moving far below them. “Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving — forever? If I said you can have £20,000 for every dot that stops, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money — without hesitation?”
Africa needs clean water, food and drugs for diseases like malaria and cholera, yet Bill Gates and Gordon Brown want to vaccinate them all, while the WHO wants to give them AZT & Viramune (nevirapine). Go figure
Environmentalism as a Religion
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western world is environmentalism. Environmentalist many times have convictions immune to rational scrutiny. The question becomes whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Environmentalists must be so proud. They are. Their heroine’s propaganda material and their own efforts managed to kill more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.The Green having long ago bested the Red’s murder of innocents high score, they now turn their attention to the biggest achievement of all: eliminate humans.
It is ironic that the industrialized world has eradicated malaria at home, and got the benefits of DDT, before we banned it and then campaigning to have it banned everywhere else. The leadership of Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund unconscionably turned a blind eye to an African malaria catastrophe that was a direct outgrowth of their own advocacy which costs millions of human lives each year in a completely preventable epidemic.
Smoke and Mirrors
Offer Real Hope
I am all for offering Africa real hope and real help and ending the genocide in
Africa. Lets start a malaria eradication program with spraying DDT and killing the malaria at its source. Constant pressure from concerned scientists and public interest groups appears to be paying off for the people of Africa, as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has endorsed the indoor spraying of DDT to battle malaria in sub-Saharan Africa.
Let’s help them drill wells so they can drink clean water. You start by helping people with the basics.I would encourage you personally to support charities like Blood Water Mission : http://www.bloodwatermission.com/ and to urge congress to lift the ban on DDT.
Edit: I am for environmental responsibility. I have lived in Estes Park, CO (Rocky Mountain National Park), I have lived in Old Florida in fragile areas (Homosassa, Crystal River and Ocala) and I live a couple miles from the Eastern Continental Divide in the mountains of Pennsylvania because of my affinity for nature. Respecting , enjoying and admiring God’s creation in nature does not mean you accept everyones solution to perceived problems. I do not accept that the solution to third world country populations is death by malaria by removing products that fight malaria. I do find pantheism is dangerous and misleading and many fall victim to the misinformation given to the well meaning.
More on the subject:
1.Kenney, Richard, “What Kills More: Ideology or Religion?” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411041/posts, 2005.
2. Kristof, Nicholas, “It’s Time To Spray DDT” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D12FE355D0…“>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D12FE355D0…, 2005.
3. Seavey, Todd, “The DDT Ban Turns 30 — Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths Likely” http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_deta…, 2002.
4. Makson, Lisa, “Rachel Carson’s Ecological Genocide” http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169“>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169, 2003.
5. Crichton, Michael, State of Fear, (Harper Collins, 2004) Pg. 487
6. Edwards, J. Gordon, “DDT: A Case Study In Scientific Fraud” http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/Edwards%20-%20DDT%20Frau…, 2004.
7. Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897.
8. Cashill, Jack, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…“>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…, 2005.
9. IARC, “DDT and Associated Compounds” , http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol53/04-ddt.htm, 1997.
10. IARC, “IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives and Menopausal Therapy are Carcinogenic to Humans”, http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html, 2005.
11. Tren, Richard and Bate, Roger, “Malaria and the DDT Story” . IEA Research Paper No. OP 117. http://ssrn.com/abstract=677448.
12. Cashill, Jack, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…“>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…, 2005.
13. Foreman, Dave. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. (New York: Harmony Books), 1991.
14. Shellenberger, Michael and Nordhaus, Ted. “The Death of Environmentalism” http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmental…, 2004.
15. Galton, Francis, Memories Of My Life, http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/memories/galton-memories-1u…, 1908. (Emphasis mine)
16. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/9/173940/4293
17. http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm
18. What the World Needs Now is DDT http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0DEEDA1738F932A25757C0A9629C8B63
In the 1960’s the World Health Organization sentenced children in African to death by malaria in the name of population control. Intentional Calculated Genocide . Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.“
Zero Population Growth
In effect, banning DDT was a zero population growth tool used on third world
Africa by the World Health Organization in the name of environmentalism. Lapkin sees these questions through the prism of a new form of First World vanity. “The anti-DDT crusade is made all the more outrageous by the distinct taint of neo-colonialism that is its indelible accompaniment. In a way, the push to ban this insecticide represents the ultimate in modern Eurocentric arrogance, the newest form of imperialism.”
He likens it to the “we know what’s best” Kipling version of taking up the white man’s burden imposing a green, insecticide-free colonial ideology of primal, untainted nature. Given the Herodian consequences, it seems to me that the more fitting analogy is with the Belgian than theBritish empire, and with Joseph Conrad’s Mister Kurtz. Still there can be no doubting his conclusion that “hubris, folly and ethnocentrism…spawned this unnecessary tragedy”.
Crichton says the most imperative of contemporary challenges is to retrieve responsible environmentalism from the clutches of those zealots for whom it has become a substitute faith and return to scientific discipline. He said, “I am thoroughly sick of politicised so-called facts that simply aren’t true. It isn’t that these ‘facts’ are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organisations are spinning their case… in the strongest way. Not at all — what more and more groups are doing is putting out lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false. This trend began with the DDT campaign and persists to this day.”
Feigned Concern for cancer
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), DDT is classified as Group 2B carcinogenicity; that is, there is an admitted insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity. On the other hand, a report issued by the IARC classified combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives, the most widely prescribed contraceptive on the market, as Group 1 carcinogenicity.In other words, oral contraceptives, which the WHO claims over 100 million women worldwide regularly ingest, are by this classification defined as definitely carcinogenic. The WHO therefore justifies downplaying the immediate risk to hundreds of millions of women worldwide because “it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial.” No again, population control is at the core.DDT has saved millions of lives, and the ban, based upon long disproved claims of carcinogenicity, is perpetuating the annual death of millions. Talk about a beneficial “overall net public health outcome”! “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.” *According to
Africa News, January 27. 1999, “It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years”.
False Solutions are diversions
What Africa needs is water and DDT, not bed blankets and vaccines.
In Graham Greene’s 1949 thriller classic, The Third Man, Harry Lime — “the dirtiest racketeer who ever made a dirty living” — peddles diluted penicillin through the sewers of occupiedVienna.
During the film’s famous scene atop the city’s Great Wheel, Harry’s friend Holly Martins, played by Joseph Cotten, asks, “Have you ever visited the children’s hospital? Have you ever seen any of your victims?” “Victims?” replies Orson Welles as Harry, pointing to the tiny figures moving far below them. “Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving — forever? If I said you can have £20,000 for every dot that stops, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money — without hesitation?”
Africa needs clean water, food and drugs for diseases like malaria and cholera, yet Bill Gates and Gordon Brown want to vaccinate them all, while the WHO wants to give them AZT & Viramune (nevirapine). Go figure
Environmentalism as a Religion
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western world is environmentalism. Environmentalist many times have convictions immune to rational scrutiny. The question becomes whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Environmentalists must be so proud. They are. Their heroine’s propaganda material and their own efforts managed to kill more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.The Green having long ago bested the Red’s murder of innocents high score, they now turn their attention to the biggest achievement of all: eliminate humans.
No, the time for bolder self-sacrifice has arrived. The only real, long term hope for the eco-sphere is a massive human population collapse, hopefully leading to the voluntary extinction of the human race. Already, a new urgency and groundswell of support is building for the idea that humans are a type of super toxin which the planet cannot sustain or support in the longterm. Cogent support for the voluntary extinction of the human race is well-articulated in all its ramifications and implications here : www.vhemt.org.
It is ironic that the industrialized world has eradicated malaria at home, and got the benefits of DDT, before we banned it and then campaigning to have it banned everywhere else. The leadership of Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund unconscionably turned a blind eye to an African malaria catastrophe that was a direct outgrowth of their own advocacy which costs millions of human lives each year in a completely preventable epidemic.
Smoke and Mirrors
Paul Driessen, (Green Power, Black Death) remarks, They show incredible disregard for the rights, aspirations, and even lives of the world’s poorest people. They constantly hammer on the supposed risks of using chemicals, fossil fuels, and biotechnology—and never mention the far greater risks that those technologies would reduce, or the lives they can save. And they have tax-exempt status, and get literally billions of dollars a year from foundations, and even government agencies, to promote their agendas and lies, despite their lethal consequences.
Their disregard for the poor, especially dark-skinned people in developing countries, is frightening. They’ve never apologized once for the deaths their anti-DDT policies have caused, never even admitted they were wrong, never offered any form of aid or compensation to victims or their families, and certainly they’ve never been held accountable.
During the World Trade Organization conference in Cancun a few years ago, the head of a major Mexican environmental group told a friend of mine: “We don’t care at all about the poor. We don’t want them to become rich or middle class, because then they will become consumers and that means you have to take more resources out of the ground to meet their demands, and that’s bad for the Earth. It’s better to keep them poor.”My Zero Population Growth days involved a lot of concern about the supposed population bomb, and then I started reading things from Julian Simon and other people, who raised questions that Paul Ehrlich [author of The Population Bomb and other environmentalists just couldn’t answer.
It became apparent that there was an environmental agenda that I was very uncomfortable with: keeping poor people poor, being so concerned about population that they were promoting anti-DDT, anti-biotechnology, anti-fossil fuel development, anti-economic development policies, that ultimately meant the poor were going to be kept poor, diseased, and dying prematurely.
Jacques Cousteau said we have to find a way to “eliminate” 350,000 people a day to stabilize global populations. And Prince Philip said he wanted to come back as a particularly deadly virus, and take out large segments of the Earth’s population. Club ofRome co-founder Alexander King wrote, “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.” And former Sierra Club president Mike McCloskey said, “by using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without considering how to support the increase in populations.”
Offer Real Hope
I am all for offering Africa real hope and real help and ending the genocide in
Africa. Lets start a malaria eradication program with spraying DDT and killing the malaria at its source. Constant pressure from concerned scientists and public interest groups appears to be paying off for the people of Africa, as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has endorsed the indoor spraying of DDT to battle malaria in sub-Saharan Africa.
Let’s help them drill wells so they can drink clean water. You start by helping people with the basics.I would encourage you personally to support charities like Blood Water Mission : http://www.bloodwatermission.com/ and to urge congress to lift the ban on DDT.
Edit: I am for environmental responsibility. I have lived in Estes Park, CO (Rocky Mountain National Park), I have lived in Old Florida in fragile areas (Homosassa, Crystal River and Ocala) and I live a couple miles from the Eastern Continental Divide in the mountains of Pennsylvania because of my affinity for nature. Respecting , enjoying and admiring God’s creation in nature does not mean you accept everyones solution to perceived problems. I do not accept that the solution to third world country populations is death by malaria by removing products that fight malaria. I do find pantheism is dangerous and misleading and many fall victim to the misinformation given to the well meaning.
More on the subject:
1.Kenney, Richard, “What Kills More: Ideology or Religion?” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411041/posts, 2005.
2. Kristof, Nicholas, “It’s Time To Spray DDT” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D12FE355D0…“>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D12FE355D0…, 2005.
3. Seavey, Todd, “The DDT Ban Turns 30 — Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths Likely” http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_deta…, 2002.
4. Makson, Lisa, “Rachel Carson’s Ecological Genocide” http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169“>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169, 2003.
5. Crichton, Michael, State of Fear, (Harper Collins, 2004) Pg. 487
6. Edwards, J. Gordon, “DDT: A Case Study In Scientific Fraud” http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/Edwards%20-%20DDT%20Frau…, 2004.
7. Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897.
8. Cashill, Jack, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…“>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…, 2005.
9. IARC, “DDT and Associated Compounds” , http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol53/04-ddt.htm, 1997.
10. IARC, “IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives and Menopausal Therapy are Carcinogenic to Humans”, http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html, 2005.
11. Tren, Richard and Bate, Roger, “Malaria and the DDT Story” . IEA Research Paper No. OP 117. http://ssrn.com/abstract=677448.
12. Cashill, Jack, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…“>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=450…, 2005.
13. Foreman, Dave. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. (New York: Harmony Books), 1991.
14. Shellenberger, Michael and Nordhaus, Ted. “The Death of Environmentalism” http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmental…, 2004.
15. Galton, Francis, Memories Of My Life, http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/memories/galton-memories-1u…, 1908. (Emphasis mine)
16. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/9/173940/4293
17. http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm
18. What the World Needs Now is DDT http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0DEEDA1738F932A25757C0A9629C8B63
Friday, February 15, 2008
Grassley should re- focus on the political speech by a 501 c 3
Grassley should Focus on the Family
02/12/08 07:52 ,
Last November, Senator Grassley (R-IOWA) (a), opened an investigation on six major television evangelists and their lifestyles(b). This came on the coattails of the Oral Roberts University scandal and lawsuit this fall(c). A friend of mine e-mailed me a article about the investigation knowing my interest in church-state matters.
Understanding that the ministries are not required to file 990’s, I figured it wouldn’t amount to anything so dismissed it. I had done some quick research on Seanator Grassley and found he is no fan of disclosure himself, so to want television evangelists to provide him information beyond what the government requires makes we wonder just how conservative he is. (This letter is unbelievable.)(d)
It is ironic that the senior senator seeks people to cooperate upon his request when he himself will not. Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST. Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY:
Major News Organizations and key national leaders of both parties including,
John McCain, Republican SenatorGeraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic CongresswomanMichael Dukakis, Former Democratic GovernorBill Frenzel, Former Republican CongressmanRichard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President.
One starts to ask why Grassley is investigating the televangelists all of a sudden and then it becomes a bit clearer. Many of the television evangelists were part of the Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University . In May 2006, ORU was contacted by the Internal Revenue Service over a complaint about the school’s involvement in a local political campaign in potential violation of its 501(c)(3) status(e). Now that is fair game. If a organization wants a 501 (c) (3) exemption, and especially a religious organization, it should abide by the rules of the law it places itself under (f), and if they violate it , be subjected to the penalty of the law.
Now to the rescue of the televangelists comes Garry M CCaleb : “We’re not representing any of the parties involved, but when I see a senator charging into organizations, wielding this kind of budget ax and laying bare religious figures and expenditures, huge constitutional questions are being raised,” said Garry McCaleb, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty legal group founded by Focus on the Family and other influential evangelicals. Interesting to find, Robert “Bob” S. Waliszewski ,Media and Culture Director, Focus on the Family, sits on the Board of Oral Roberts .(g)
Where Senator Grassley gets legal authority to conduct such an investigation og lifestyles of televangelists is beyond me (though abuse of power has been the trend in government ); investigating tax exempt organizations that abuse their status and disregard the spirit of the law is quite another. Last week I was listening to the news and on comes Dr. James Dobson(h), (introduced as founder of Focus on the Family), claiming to speak as a private citizen(i), not just endorsing a candidate, but also speaking against another. Now of course, CitizenLink (j) makes sure it is “not really” the voice of Focus on the Family, so that Dr. Dobson can speak as a private citizen and thereby skirts the rules of the internal revenue service. But when someone hears Dr. Dobson, it carries the weight of “Focus on the Family” with it , disclaimer or not.
I have no problem if Dr. Dobson wants to register as a 527, register as a lobbyist, or be part of a political organization of his choice. That is HIS right. However, his feigning of speaking as a private citizen reminds me of “it depends on the meaning of is”(k).
Focus on the Family’s Dr. Dobson Says GOP has Abandoned Values Voters
Tuesday’s Losses Suggest “The Big Tent Will Turn into a Three-Ring Circus”
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/797901467.html
Contact: Gary Schneeberger, Focus on the Family, 719-548-5853, culturalissues@family.org
COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 9 /Christian Newswire/ — Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today on the results of Tuesday’s election:
“Laura Ingraham said it best. When Congressional Republicans wait until the First of October to begin reaching out to their base, they are destined to lose. That was the GOP’s downfall. They consistently ignored the constituency that put them in power until it was late in the game and then frantically tried to catch up at the last minute. In 2004, conservative voters handed them a 10-seat majority in the Senate and a 29-seat edge in the House. And what did they do with their power? Very little that Values Voters care about.
“Many of my colleagues saw this coming. I said in an interview with U.S. News and World Report shortly after the 2004 elections, ‘If Republicans in the White House and in Congress squander this opportunity, I believe they will pay a price for it in four years — or maybe in two.’ Sadly for conservatives, that in large measure explains what happened on Tuesday night. Many of the Values Voters of ‘04 simply stayed at home this year.…Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be President and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in ‘04. In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus…."
Senator Grassley, it is not your place to dictate lifestyles and salaries of televangelists, no matter how distasteful their message may be to your Baptist theology. Constrain yourself to the law.
Dr. Dobson, please quit giving religion a black eye with your lack of forgiveness to Senator Mc Cain for tagging some evangelical leaders ” the ‘’self-appointed leaders” of the religious right, depicting them as intolerant empire builders who ”have turned good causes into businesses” while trying to exclude all but ”card-carrying Republicans” from the party.
Mr. McCain singled out for criticism two of the Christian right’s best-known leaders, Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority. He compared Mr. Robertson to ”union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own ambitions,” and he accused both men of trying to distort his opposition to abortion and ‘’smear the reputations of my supporters.”
”The politics of division and slander are not our values,” Mr. McCain said in a somber address to some 4,000 people who packed a high school gymnasium here only a few miles from the headquarters of the Christian Coalition. ”They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.” The names of the ”agents of intolerance ” in 2000 may have changed but the description is spot on.. You are making his case for him and endangering legitimate non-profits tax exempt status by abusing yours. Please stop the transparent power struggle and Focus on the Family, not republican politics. God is not a republican and isn’t draped in a American Flag.
References
a) http://grassley.senate.gov/public/
b) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/cbsnews_investigates/main3456977.shtml?source=mostpop_story
c) http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19595/oral-roberts-university-4
d) http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2007/110620072.pdf
e) http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=071016_1_A1_spanc85083
f) http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-tege/exec__summary_paci_final_report.pdf
g) http://www.oru.edu/boardoftrustees/reference.php
h) http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/480457.html
i) http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006474.cfm
j) http://www.citizenlink.org/
k) http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/
02/12/08 07:52 ,
Last November, Senator Grassley (R-IOWA) (a), opened an investigation on six major television evangelists and their lifestyles(b). This came on the coattails of the Oral Roberts University scandal and lawsuit this fall(c). A friend of mine e-mailed me a article about the investigation knowing my interest in church-state matters.
Understanding that the ministries are not required to file 990’s, I figured it wouldn’t amount to anything so dismissed it. I had done some quick research on Seanator Grassley and found he is no fan of disclosure himself, so to want television evangelists to provide him information beyond what the government requires makes we wonder just how conservative he is. (This letter is unbelievable.)(d)
It is ironic that the senior senator seeks people to cooperate upon his request when he himself will not. Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST. Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY:
Major News Organizations and key national leaders of both parties including,
John McCain, Republican SenatorGeraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic CongresswomanMichael Dukakis, Former Democratic GovernorBill Frenzel, Former Republican CongressmanRichard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President.
One starts to ask why Grassley is investigating the televangelists all of a sudden and then it becomes a bit clearer. Many of the television evangelists were part of the Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University . In May 2006, ORU was contacted by the Internal Revenue Service over a complaint about the school’s involvement in a local political campaign in potential violation of its 501(c)(3) status(e). Now that is fair game. If a organization wants a 501 (c) (3) exemption, and especially a religious organization, it should abide by the rules of the law it places itself under (f), and if they violate it , be subjected to the penalty of the law.
Now to the rescue of the televangelists comes Garry M CCaleb : “We’re not representing any of the parties involved, but when I see a senator charging into organizations, wielding this kind of budget ax and laying bare religious figures and expenditures, huge constitutional questions are being raised,” said Garry McCaleb, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty legal group founded by Focus on the Family and other influential evangelicals. Interesting to find, Robert “Bob” S. Waliszewski ,Media and Culture Director, Focus on the Family, sits on the Board of Oral Roberts .(g)
Where Senator Grassley gets legal authority to conduct such an investigation og lifestyles of televangelists is beyond me (though abuse of power has been the trend in government ); investigating tax exempt organizations that abuse their status and disregard the spirit of the law is quite another. Last week I was listening to the news and on comes Dr. James Dobson(h), (introduced as founder of Focus on the Family), claiming to speak as a private citizen(i), not just endorsing a candidate, but also speaking against another. Now of course, CitizenLink (j) makes sure it is “not really” the voice of Focus on the Family, so that Dr. Dobson can speak as a private citizen and thereby skirts the rules of the internal revenue service. But when someone hears Dr. Dobson, it carries the weight of “Focus on the Family” with it , disclaimer or not.
I have no problem if Dr. Dobson wants to register as a 527, register as a lobbyist, or be part of a political organization of his choice. That is HIS right. However, his feigning of speaking as a private citizen reminds me of “it depends on the meaning of is”(k).
Focus on the Family’s Dr. Dobson Says GOP has Abandoned Values Voters
Tuesday’s Losses Suggest “The Big Tent Will Turn into a Three-Ring Circus”
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/797901467.html
Contact: Gary Schneeberger, Focus on the Family, 719-548-5853, culturalissues@family.org
COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 9 /Christian Newswire/ — Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today on the results of Tuesday’s election:
“Laura Ingraham said it best. When Congressional Republicans wait until the First of October to begin reaching out to their base, they are destined to lose. That was the GOP’s downfall. They consistently ignored the constituency that put them in power until it was late in the game and then frantically tried to catch up at the last minute. In 2004, conservative voters handed them a 10-seat majority in the Senate and a 29-seat edge in the House. And what did they do with their power? Very little that Values Voters care about.
“Many of my colleagues saw this coming. I said in an interview with U.S. News and World Report shortly after the 2004 elections, ‘If Republicans in the White House and in Congress squander this opportunity, I believe they will pay a price for it in four years — or maybe in two.’ Sadly for conservatives, that in large measure explains what happened on Tuesday night. Many of the Values Voters of ‘04 simply stayed at home this year.…Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be President and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in ‘04. In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus…."
Senator Grassley, it is not your place to dictate lifestyles and salaries of televangelists, no matter how distasteful their message may be to your Baptist theology. Constrain yourself to the law.
Dr. Dobson, please quit giving religion a black eye with your lack of forgiveness to Senator Mc Cain for tagging some evangelical leaders ” the ‘’self-appointed leaders” of the religious right, depicting them as intolerant empire builders who ”have turned good causes into businesses” while trying to exclude all but ”card-carrying Republicans” from the party.
Mr. McCain singled out for criticism two of the Christian right’s best-known leaders, Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority. He compared Mr. Robertson to ”union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own ambitions,” and he accused both men of trying to distort his opposition to abortion and ‘’smear the reputations of my supporters.”
”The politics of division and slander are not our values,” Mr. McCain said in a somber address to some 4,000 people who packed a high school gymnasium here only a few miles from the headquarters of the Christian Coalition. ”They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.” The names of the ”agents of intolerance ” in 2000 may have changed but the description is spot on.. You are making his case for him and endangering legitimate non-profits tax exempt status by abusing yours. Please stop the transparent power struggle and Focus on the Family, not republican politics. God is not a republican and isn’t draped in a American Flag.
References
a) http://grassley.senate.gov/public/
b) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/cbsnews_investigates/main3456977.shtml?source=mostpop_story
c) http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19595/oral-roberts-university-4
d) http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2007/110620072.pdf
e) http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=071016_1_A1_spanc85083
f) http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-tege/exec__summary_paci_final_report.pdf
g) http://www.oru.edu/boardoftrustees/reference.php
h) http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/480457.html
i) http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006474.cfm
j) http://www.citizenlink.org/
k) http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)