Education. Will Choice Be A Better Choice For All?

How will our children be educated in America? Will tax dollars continue to go to union members? Or will tax dollars actually be used to support the in class education of our children? I draw this out because in one Midwestern school district (Peoria District 150, Peoria, IL) 80% of the education budget funding is used to pay teacher's salaries and benefits. Although the total budget is only $179 Million and deposits in the education fund are unknown at the time of this writing, it was interesting to note in that district, that although every area of education was cut, including busing expenditures the teachers recently were able to negotiate a 3% pay raise and were still not satisfied saying that the increase was not enough. 

This is how the modern union works. It is no longer about fairness and holding administration accountable and protecting the small guy, they are about lush, benefits, expenditures, position and opportunities at all costs, even against public dissent.

School Choice

What may be the answer to this is school choice. Criticized by teacher's unions, and those who support unions, school choice has become the primary conversation around the nation in light of President Trump's recommended Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is a staunch school choice advocate.  The critic are already at it pointing to "little" improvement in test scores in Detroit schools under Devos's ideas. However, the same critics don't see a problem with schools basically falling down around the students both physically and educationally. It is usually the unions and their constituents that inadvertently claim that even failing schools are somehow good for the community and students. 

The URBAN CURE

Star Parker and the leadership of The Urban CURE have taken on this issue for a long time and thank God have very much to say on the subject.

Blessed!   

Read more!

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 16: CAIR Calls Franklin Graham "Un-American"

It HAS to be Friday the 13th to read and hear about this story. It all begins with participants selected to serve at the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump. 

It seems that Franklin Graham, the son of renown Evangelist Billy Graham was selected by Team Trump to pray at the inauguration.  Not so fast says the nations leading Muslim Advocacy group:

"If President-elect Trump truly seeks to unite our nation as he promised in his acceptance speech, he will limit the list of those offering prayers at the inauguration to religious leaders who work to bring us together, not to create divisions between faiths,"..."Rev. Graham's ill-informed and extremist views are incompatible with the Constitution and with American values of religious liberty and inclusion." ~ Nihad Awad CAIR National Executive Director

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urged President Elect Trump to can Graham from ceremonies if the aim is to unite the country because of past statements of Graham. Pointing to statements such as "Islam is not compatible with American values" and "Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad." CAIR claims that statements such as these show that Graham is intolerant and therefore unworthy to pray at an American function designed to support the highest office in the land. 

Does CAIR Have A Valid Point?

In my opinion DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

First, every Muslim would agree that, according to their scriptures, the practice of Islam is not just something that can be shrugged off as a fancy way to pass time. Islam is an all life encompassing faith. A way to live and view the world. 

As we have noted on this BLOG, America is a place that traditional Muslims believe is a mission field, to be "settled". In addition, the ultimate aim of Islam and the highest goal in any society is Sharia. Sharia, also known as "Sharia Law", is the all encompassing guide to life as interpreted by Muslim Clerics imploring the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia also includes elements of concensus by Clerics on issues and analogy. From this combination of what are considered holy and inspired scriptures, and additional holy sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and other aspects, Sharia Law takes shape and is established. 

The website of the Interfaith Alliance, largely driven by liberal and inclusionist religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, faith and law, states the following regarding Sharia law:

19. What is Sharia?

Sharia stands for Islamic or sacred law. It is an Arabic word meaning “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith.
The general definition of Sharia as understood by most American Muslims is as follows:
Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance. It may be generally defined as the Islamic law revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That divine law was then interpreted by Muslim scholars over the centuries. Among the primary aims of the Sharia are the achievement of justice, fairness and mercy.
The five major goals of the Sharia are the protection of sound religious practice, life, sanity, the family, and personal and communal wealth. The acknowledgement of sound local customs throughout the world is one of the five basic maxims of the Sharia according to all Islamic schools of law.

They go on to say:

"Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."

Thus, by admission, Sharia not only judges conflicts based on religion or moral meta-ethics. It is Sharia that decides matters of family and life in civil and even secular society. It is Sharia that is the ultimate authority and way to live. All other governmental systems are secondary to Sharia and at the very least should incorporate some aspects of Sharia. So the aim is to slowly make each state or situation, one that can be ultimately governed by Sharia itself.

I know, my Muslim readers take aim at my statements here and will jump up and down to say that I am intolerant also. But unlike them in their dissent, I think there is ample proof that what Graham says and what I am contending here is totally true if getting to the truth is the aim. 

On the Interfaith Alliance website, the question regarding the compatibility of American Civil law and Sharia is ashed:

22. Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?

Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.

If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.

Now, this is very smart. By using analogy (a tenet of Sharia) the question is kind of turned on its head. It is certainly true. The government cannot simply upend religious freedoms and laws, however, 

according to what has already been said, Sharia is "sacred law". Now if religion means anything at all, what is "sacred" is at the highest point of the practice of religion and religious values. 

Such conflicts do not exist within Christianity to the degree that they exist in Islam. The bible condones and encourages "good citizenship" even in the face of what is ugly and uncomfortable. It does not teach to "uproot" as teaching exist in Islam to do the same.

We can speak much more on this in the comments, but to examine Franklin Graham's statements and to declare those statements as Un-American demand that the issue of what is American be examined as a whole. 

Since the State cannot establish religion, then how is it that it is American for any religion to have their law code, as interpreted or otherwise, in their legal system based on itself? 

I understand that American society, at least most would like to think, is based on Judeo-Christian values emanating from the bible and what we view as "sacred scriptures" as well. However, the difference here is that the concepts from the scriptures are the guide as opposed to the chapter and verses themselves. 

Conclusion
I certainly have oversimplified the argument, and will be more detailed in the comments if necessary, but I hope that this provides good food for thought. Franklin Graham is certainly American and what he believes about those who are dedicated to and bound to the practice of what is becoming a very diverse religion of Islam (as the difference between fundamental and liberal Islam is really beginning to display itself) must also know that Islam, as practiced and encouraged by the majority of Muslims who read and interpret the same book as American liberal Muslims do, have very different ideas about the methods that should be used to bring about Sharia, but share equally in embracing the goal of Islam and that goal is to bring about Sharia, or a state that is subject to and under the rule of Allah. 

I don;t think that there is a question about that to any Muslim faithful to their faith. Whereas, the Christian already knows that there is NO KINGDOM on Earth that is the final place of God's rule. Jesus said that HIS Kingdom was not of this world and one day there will be a new kingdom where there will be rest. Though every Christian strives every day to make this world better and to do as much good in this world as possible, we do not demand by any means necessary that all men are subject to us or what we believe. We see evidence of that in education, social life and all, YET we know that Christ reigns anyway, in spite of what men do or think. 

Blessed! 

   

Read more!

Happy New Year...Kim Burrell & Ye Shall KNOW The Truth!!!

Well, Happy New Year readers of The Dunamis Word. I trust that God blessed and is blessing  each of you with comfort and joy in this New Year.

Evidently, the devil is stirred up once again to attack and take to task anyone who dare say that homosexuality is a SIN.

Pastor Kim Burrell in her New Year's Eve service preached that homosexuality is a perversion and that it is a sin..Now the liberal elite and others are jumping out of the woodwork to claim that Kim and what she teaches is wrong...

Now, I will say for sure, Kim is problematic. I have documented her love for the late "Prince", even having called him "anointed" and her lingerie posing on the video of her song "Sweeter" on THIS BLOG. I don't have too much confidence in Kim, but not too much more of a complaint either. She is somewhat like a broken clock, but with that said... even a broken clock is RIGHT twice a day!

Well, she is RIGHT about this one, and I certainly stand by her. Here is her video and the part that sent some up in arms and her recent public address regarding the issue:

Although I was busy doing many other things, I happened to read the commentary of a blogger on the Huffington Post (the most liberal news possible). He was stating and explaining away the biblical thought and teaching that homosexuality is a sin and wrong. He, like most, attempt to draw a sharp contrast between Old Testament and New Testament command and morality, assuming that New Testament morality somehow overlooks that homosexuality is wrong and or a sin and that all things, including the sin of homosexuality, can be chalked up to the "grace of God". 

Like most that hold his position, he has no clue as to what God was saying either in Corinthians or Romans and ultimately, if left to him and others with his views, homosexuality would be some sort of unregulated activity among men, that "God just doesn't care about one way or another"

In my opinion, sentiments such as the one's espoused display that there is simply no or very little understanding or truth or how we come to understand and define truth. If something can be wrong, as the critic readily points out to every one that speaks and preaches against homosexuality, then something can be right as well. The question is, how does the critic know that what they believe is right? In fact, how does the critic know that what Burrell, I and others like us, believe is wrong? What is the basis for their understanding of truth, right and wrong? 

Here is my response to the Article:

To the writer of the article: No, you can't get an amen from me because you are espousing GARBAGE!!!

The problem is that you don't believe that homosexuality is SIN. Well, IT IS!!! It is sin because as the pastor said, it is a perversion of truth.

The issue of truth, right and wrong are at issue here.

Now, I suspect that your idea of truth and what is true is flexible to the degree of what you "agree" to be truth or what makes sense in your mind. That is called subjectivism. Under subjectivism, or relativism, truth, right and wrong, is only stacked up to your opinion or the opinion of a group. Close examination of this paradigm reveals that relativism is the most confused way to understand the world. Why? Because noone creates their own world of truth. Truth exists whether outside or inside of your world. For example, gravity works in your house just like mine. With the exception of building an anti-gravity chamber, gravity exists everyplace and in every time frame here on earth. No matter how you attempt to avoid it, it simply is. So there are some overarching truth's that just are. Truth, whether your opinion of it is true or not, is called objective truth.

How one comes to know truth, right or wrong is called epistemology. Christians believe that the only way we can know truth is through God. We believe that God has imparted the ability to know and discern truth, right and wrong into man, as a part of his design. Truth can be "known" and or perceived. With that said, peole can be oblivious to that truth for an number of reasons including 1- self deception and 2- actual deception. Either way, this is what it means to be "blind" or blind to sin.

In your article, you take time to say that Kim Burrell's statements and worldview are wrong, because you interpret truth to mean something different than what she is saying. Only where is YOUR basis for what you believe to be true? Is that a product of your mind, or a declaration of God or something outside of yourself? If you are right, what is the basis for your view? The Christian has ours, but where is yours? Is it a convention of your mind or the mind of others? Then by what means and what is the determining factor if you or any who agree with you is right?

Now, this does not mean that you and others with your opinion cannot perceive truth as it pertains to sex. Both you and I would agree that any so called "love" that a pedophile has for a child is wrong and that acting out upon their inclinations, whether seemingly invited to do so or not, is vile and sick. There is nearly total agreement upon that. However, you are "blind" to the application of the same standard towards homosexuality because you are "blind" to that sin. In fact, from reading the article you would have to believe that homosexuality is simply a "diversity" or even an innate part of the being of them that are homosexuals. Again, where is the basis for any of that, IF that is what you would hold as true.

To the point: Your acceptance of homosexuality as right and or acceptable with God is not rooted in God's word, nor is it consistent with HIS grace as you contend. If we examine your premise, we find that your basis appears to come from your own mind. There is no more than what you feel and what others around you who accept what you feel and believe and aspire to. There are many people, who we perceive as "good" that are blind to sin to one degree or another and that is usually because they are either "deceived" into their actions or that they "love" their sin. A heterosexual adulterer or fornicator is in no better position. Most in this sin do it because they "love" the sin of adultery to some degree to continue to do it. No matter how many adulterers around them agree to say that it is OK, the adultery is still wrong, and it is still sin. Believe me, the adulterer feels "good" about his adultery while he is in it, considering it, and acting out upon it, but none of that makes his acts and or actions right.

The fact is that in the Christian worldview, GOD is the ultimate authority and truth giver. HE has delivered instructions regarding sex and sexuality establishing clear boundaries both according to his word and nature. He has also set up a standard whereby the world and humanity exists. This is called natural law. The world (that is biological life) could not exist with same-sexism.

In addition, we can study the correlation between health and sexuality to find that homosexuality has a physiological and psychological consequence that are undesirable to varying degrees.

God has defined sex, love and sexual activity as acceptable between men and women not to kill our joy, but to enhance and increase it.

Because what she and others faithful to truth teach, is contrary to homosexual desire does not make her wrong. Her preaching and the preaching of others is the greater display of LOVE because LOVE intervenes and does not allow wrong to continue to harm and defile.

Obviously, because the homosexual rite expanded so vastly under the last 4 years of the Obama administration, the assumption has been that anyone who defies this sin and those who promote this sort o sin is out of touch with reality. I beg to differ vastly.

While every homosexual has the right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, every Christian and those who don;t agree with the homosexual lifestyle has that right as well. I will fight for the rights o all, including the homosexual, but I will not be subject to honor and or even endorse any lifestyle that is sinful and contrary to the Word of God. One does not have to be a homosexual to have an undesirable lifestyle. There are plenty of heterosexuals that live undesirably and in sin...but be clear, all sin and all sinner, those who practice sin, will NOT enter the Kingdom of God.

Don't hate the message or the messenger. Hate the sin. For every homosexual there is help and hope and it begins first with denying self and building a relationship with Christ. HE can set you or any sinner free from their sin. Jesus has come that we might LIVE, and he has no pleasure in our death and unhappiness.

Don't be deceived. God says LIVE and live according to HIS word!

Blessed!

Read more!