Government-Categorized Homegrown Terrorists

Government-Categorized Homegrown Terrorists
by Carl Parnell 
01/13/12
Free to Share

Since the terrorist attack on New York City on September 11, 2001, the federal government has worked vehemently to prevent any future terrorist attacks on American soil. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department have categorized groups of people who should be considered “potential terrorists.” Therefore, if all Americans knew the characteristics of “potential terrorists,” it would make it much easier to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, the list of those who have been categorized as “potential homegrown terrorists” by the federal government is ludicrous. Also, the least likely Americans have been labeled as the most likely to attempt to destroy America from within. But, based on the actions of the three branches of government, since the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City, it is the federal government that should be viewed as the group that is most responsible for sponsoring and supporting homegrown terrorism for the purpose of preventing Americans from showing outright dissent toward their federal government.

But, first, let’s look at the groups that the federal government has classified as dangerous, “potential terrorists.” The first and most dangerous group, according to the federal government, consists of any person who professes to be a born-again Christian. As a result, in the years to come, Christians in America will most likely face severe persecution from the government, and possibly incarcerated in prison without a trial, if they dare voice their opposition to America’s elected leaders who are determined to undermine the U.S. Constitution. Of course, most Christians would not agree that the federal government has categorized them as “potential terrorists.” But, several whistleblower messages from the White House prove that the federal government have labeled Christians as stated. However, on April 7, 2009, a Department of Homeland Security report classified Christians as “potential terrorists.” Three main provisions of this unclassified document as reported in WorldNetDaily were:

1. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing ( illegal immigration )

2. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing (abortion )

3. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing (federal taxes )

Therefore, Christians in America must become aware of the anti-Christian sentiment that exists in the federal government’s attack against terrorism in America. As stated earlier, just imagine having to spend most of your life in prison just because you were a law-abiding Christian who just happened to be against illegal immigration, ungodly abortion, and extremely high federal taxes. But, it could very well happen if America’s elected leaders continue to usurp the authority of a Judeo-Christian based U.S. Constitution and continue to promote an un-American, socialistic agenda.

The second most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are veterans of the Afghanistan War and the Iraqi War. Of course, it is an absurdity to label the men and women who risked their lives on foreign soil to defend America’s way of life. But, obviously, most people would refuse to accept that the federal government would categorize America’s veterans as has been stated. However, in the same Homeland Security report mentioned previously, America’s veterans were classified as having the ability to become homegrown terrorists. The
report stated:

*The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

*Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities

Therefore, United States military veterans must become aware of the anti-veteran sentiment that exists in the federal government’s attack against terrorism in America. But, why does the federal government fear the very people that it trained to protect the United States from its bonafide enemies? What is the federal government hiding that would ultimately cause veterans to take up arms against them. Could it be the nationalization of the National Guard? Could it be the passage of legislation that is on the verge of elimination the rights given to Americans by the Bill of Rights? Could it be the passage of the recent Senate Bill 1867 that would give the military permission to arrest any “potential terrorists” anywhere in the world and put them in prison without the right of habeas corpus (the right to a hearing and trial)? Could it be the running of the government by a president who has decided to bypass Congress? Ultimately, could it be that the federal government is attempting to get non-veterans to worry more about so-called disloyal veterans than some members of the federal government who are attempting to destroy the freedoms and sovereignty of the United States through legislation, regulation, and taxation. Of course, regardless of the reason for labeling veterans as “potential terrorists,” the federal government’s rationale is undeniably and unequivocally wrong.

The third most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are those people who complain about the federal government’s drive for more nationally-centralized authority over the states and the masses of people. This can easily be seen in the attacks by the current administration toward the Tea Party Movement. According to Wikipedia,

The Tea Party Movement is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as a conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

In its attacks against the Tea Party Movement, the federal government constantly depicts members of this political movement as “potential terrorists” whose main goal is to overthrow the very government that they are attempting to restore to its original glory. In fact, according to Jeffrey T. Kuhner in a Washington Times article,

Leftist expediency now requires that the most heinous, reckless and degrading comments be used. Tea Parters are not simply being slandered, they are being dehumanized. Ironically, it is liberals who are paving the way for potential political violence. Terrorists, hostage-takers, suicide bombers, neo-Nazis, the Christian Taliban- all of the epithets regularly thrown at Tea Party members by rabid progressives-eventually foster one overriding emotion: hatred.

Therefore, this progressive hatred is the driving force that unifies members of the current administration in their effort to possibly silence America’s last line of defense against the left-wing, Democratic agenda to turn America into a European-style, socialistic utopia.

The fourth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are those people who purport the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the right to bear arms. In fact, based on several documented sources, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Attorney-General Eric Holder do not support the Second Amendment fully, as written by the Founding Fathers. Basically, they believe that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear arms. They believe that the U.S. Constitution just gives the military and law enforcement agencies the right to bear arms. As a result, they support various types of gun control legislation, even working with the un-American United Nations to pass an international Small Arms Treaty. According to a MarketWatch article, The National Association For Gun Rights stated that if passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

2. CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

3. BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

4. Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION…”

Therefore, if America’s leaders give in to the demands of the United Nations, America’s days as a free nation will be numbered, since only an armed citizenry can defend itself against those who want America to lose its sovereignty and god-given constitutional rights. But, why would the federal government attempt to amend the Constitution in order to prevent America citizens from owning weapons in order to protect their personal property and personal lives? Why would the federal government attempt to deny millions of people the opportunity to hunt deer and other wild game for sport and for food? Could it be that the federal government is afraid that these gun owners would be able to possibly defend America from those in the federal government whose major agenda is to take the United States government hostage from within? Regardless of the rationale for attempting to deny Americans their god-given, constitutional rights, the federal government must realize that Americans have owned guns for too long to haphazardly give up their guns to a governmental entity for any possible misguided reason.

The fifth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are a group classified as “Preppers.” According to Wikipedia, preppers are individuals or groups who are actively preparing for future possible disruptions in local, regional, national, or international social or political order. They often prepare for this anticipated disruption by having emergency medical training, stockpiling food and water, preparing for self-defense and self-sufficiency, and/or building structures that will help them survive. Anticipated disruptions include the following:

1. Natural Disasters
2. Manmade Disasters
3. General Collapse of Society
4. Economic Collapse
5. A Sudden Pandemic
6. Widespread Chaos

However, according to Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, the federal government now considers anyone who has more than a week’s supply of food on hand as a “potential terrorist.” If that is the case, all shoppers at Sam’s Club or Costco are “potential terrorists.” On the surface though, that seems rather humorous. But, in reality, it isn’t as a result of Senator Paul’s other warning. He “warns that under the new provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, which just passed Congress resoundingly, the federal government could lock you up indefinitely without due process and without being convicted of a crime.” As is obvious, it really does not matter who a person votes for any longer. Apparently, most of America’s politicians have a strong desire to keep their political positions until they die and, at the same time, deny the very people that they represent their basic freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, will American citizens be able to keep their constitutional rights? Of course, even more importantly, what can be done to reverse the current trend in America to create a full-fledged socialist nation? Ultimately, could it possibly be too late?

The sixth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are home schoolers. Of course, it is obvious that home schoolers are parents who teach their children at home because their belief system is completely opposite of the federally-sponsored and funded public school systems. According to WorldNetDaily, there are several major reasons why parents teach their children at home and keep them out of the public school systems in their states. They are:

1. Concern about the School Environment (Safety, Drugs, and Negative Peer Pressure)

2. Able to Instruct Children in Religious and Moral Issues

3. Dissatisfaction with Academic Instruction

4. Using a Nontraditional Approach to Children’s Education

As a result, the federal government has targeted home schoolers as “potential terrorist.” Basically, the federal government is upset that these home schoolers are not being taught from curriculums that promote the government’s anti-Christian, pro-homosexual, politically-correct agenda. Therefore, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D. C. are working overtime to make home schooling against the law in America. In fact, there are bills in Congress, that if passed, would force Christian schools and home schoolers to teach the same curriculums as public schools. Also, the federal government might just be upset because home schoolers tend to do better on standardized tests than their public school counterparts. According to three studies completed in the United States and two studies in Canada, public school students have average scores in the 50th percentile, where as, home schoolers have average scores in the 65th to 80th percentile.

However, the main rationale for attacking home schoolers and classifying them as “potential terrorists” is the federal government’s desire to force home schoolers back into public school classrooms in order for them to be indoctrinated to a humanistic, atheistic belief system that is contrary to their parents Judeo-Christian belief system. In fact, John Dewey, the Father of Progressive Education in America, made a provocative anti-Christian quote that appeared in The Humanist Magazine in 1983 that should give home school parents one more vital reason for keeping their children out of public schools. He said,

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.

Needless to say, it is rather obvious how John Dewey felt about America’s public school system and the purpose of education in America. Sadly, as is obvious, too, there are many politicians and educators in the United States who feel the same way today. Therefore, home schoolers should keep molding and developing minds that fear God and that promote the way of life guaranteed to all American citizens by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.

Finally, despite the attacks against home schooling, there have been many famous and successful men and women who were home schooled. Some of the more prominent are:

*Abraham Lincoln-Sixteenth President of the United States

*Andrew Carnegie-Carnegie Steel Company

*Booker T. Washington-Teacher, Author, and first President of Tuskegee Institute

*Woodrow Wilson-Twenty-Eighth President of the United States

*C. S. Lewis-Writer, Critic, and Theologian

*Joseph Priestly-Father of Modern Chemistry

*Frank Lloyd Wright-Iconic Architect

*Albert Einstein-Theory of Relativity

*Pearl S. Buck-Pulitzer and Nobel Prize-winning Author

*Tim Tebow-Christian Professional Football Quarterback

In conclusion, the sand in America’s “freedom” sand clock has almost emptied from the top into the bottom. If America is to remain free from the tyranny of those who would destroy it from within, a miracle must take place. Therefore, Christians of all faiths must once again pray to the God of the Founding Fathers and ask Him to forgive them of their individual and collective sins. Then and only then will He turn America’s “freedom” sand clock upside down again so that the sands of “freedom” will once again move slowly and continually throughout America. As stated in II Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” If not, America’s governmental obituary would be written very soon. This obituary would read,

Today, Uncle Sam died. He was 235 years old. His death was seemingly a shock to most people who loved him so dearly. However, there were many warning signs that he was on the verge of dying, but most of his friends ignored these warnings. As a result, nothing was done to prevent the demise of their “freedom-loving” friend. Therefore, with the death of Uncle Sam, those who cherished the life that he lived would only have a memory to look back on. Then, the sands of time of America’s constitutional republican form of government, that Uncle Sam promoted and lived on a daily basis, would forever be blown away by the “winds of governmental change,” a change from individual rights for all Americans to complete governmental control of the masses.

http://drcarlsterlingparnell.wiki.zoho.com

Attack on Christianity in America

As has been predicted, there is a major assault on Christianity right here in America. We’ve already wrote about the Bible Study in CA, the Crosses in Texas and NH, the Chuch in upstate NY. Now we have a direct assault on faith through Obama’s regime via ObamaCare. They feel it is their right to tell religious entities what they can and cannot believe.

Regardless what denomination you are or your personal beliefs towards the Catholic church may be, it is important the entire Christian Church comes together on this and joins the Catholics in the fight against this new law.

Spiritual Messiah Ministries, in the fight for Truth, Justice, and Freedom, join the Catholic Church in this fight against being forced to do what it is we are against. No religious or spiritual entity should be forced to do anything by anyone that goes against their belief’s.

Below are a few links to news stories covering this topic:

Obamas Attack On Faith

The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control

Chris Mathews Calls Obamas War On Catholic Church Frightening

Texan Catholics Fight Back

New Jersey Catholics Join National Outcry Against Obamas Health Bill

Catholics, Contraceptives, and the Heretic Faithful

George Washington vs Barack Obama

NWO: Immortality Through TransHumanism

NWO: Immortality Through Transhumanism

By Rev. Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.

Everyone wishes they were healthier in one way or another. Most would like to stop or slow-down the aging process. Many would like to see an end to cancers and diseases. Many even dream of immortality. But how far are you willing to go to achieve such a feat?

Many understand you can become healthier and live longer through taking care of your body and eating the right foods. Preferrably Organic, no GMO’s. People also realize that they can reverse damage done on the cellular level by taking in foods that contain anti-oxidants such as Resveratrol, which can be found in grapes and some exotic berries. So through eating healthy and organically and taking care of the body we can live long healthy lives.

But what about the whole immortality thing? Scientists are trying to come up with ways we can literally live forever. The DoD (Dept. Of Defense) is going as far as seeking out technology and drugs to create “Super Soldiers” that can run for 168hours (7 full days) without any sleep. Scientists say that with the technological advances we could see this become a reality within the next 10yrs (that would be by the year 2021). The suggestion is being made that humans will literally be able to re-grow lost parts or replace bad organs as necessary. Thats right, we will be able to regenerate ourselves. If it comes to a point where our bodies can’t handle the stress, no worry. Mechanical replacements.

There is already work being done to literally transfer the human consciousness into a robotic body. It is being suggested that humans will have the option to be cyborgs (half-human and half-machine) by replacing parts with mechanical equivalents or implanting mechanical technology into the body. They say one problem they are seeing is that they will need donors. But not to worry because the first people “downloaded” will most likely be in artificial bodies. These scientists seem to feel they are creating a better and invincible species of human.

Whatever happened to God? Did He not promise us eternal life; you know, immortality? The thing is, us Israelites (Children of God (Christians, Jews)), are not of this world. We were told not be concerned with things of this world. We are to live by the Commandments, and upon Judgement we will return home. It is all in the Holy Bible. So if Israelites are not to be concerned with worldly things, why would we want immortality in the physical world? The answer is simple, we don’t.

These scientists who are working on making this new species of human to achieve immortality in the physical world are simply not Israelites. They are spawns of Satan. They are trying to act as if they are God Himself. They feel if they can achieve immortality they can escape God’s judgement and avoid eternal damnation.

They may be able to achieve such technology and feel as though they have won. But what they fail to realize is that everything is happening as it has been written. They cannot avoid judgement and they will not avoid damnation. The only way to achieve immortality and avoid damnation is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. The Jesus Christ of the Bible, Son of God. Not the Jesus Christ of these false religions or mainstream society.

Whereas immortality in this life might look like a good idea, I’d rather stick to the certainty of the promise made us by God. I also don’t really like the idea of being “downloaded”. Im a creature created by God, why would I want to downgrade myself to a creation of man?

I understand this sounds sci-fi to you. As a matter of fact numerous tv shows and movies have made this a theme. Such tv shows and movies include ‘Universal Soldier’ and ‘Sliders’. But this is not coming out of a script for a show or movie. This information I set before you comes from real news. Actual scientists. Yesterdays science-fiction is todays science-fact.

For further information on this topic, all you need to do is Google the term “TransHumanism”

rameView Rev. Dr. Red  Conrad, D.D.'s LinkedIn profileView Rev. Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.’s profile

(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Ending The Christian "Pacifist" Argument On Firearms

By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel

It is not uncommon, when concealed carry laws are debated before legislative bodies, for representatives of liberal organizations such as the National Council of Churches to show up and announce the “moral” opposition to concealed carry on behalf of “the religious community.” But reflexive hostility to the lawful use of force for legitimate defense is hardly the only moral position that may be held by a sincerely religious person.

The Book of Exodus specifically absolves a homeowner who kills a burglar.  The Sixth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.  A little bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, the father of the Hebrew nation, learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Abram (later to be renamed “Abraham” by God) immediately called out his trained servants, set out on a rescue mission, found his nephew’s captors, attacked and routed, rescuing Lot. (Genesis 14). The resort to violence to rescue an innocent captive is presented as the morally appropriate choice.

Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5: 38-39); “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5: 43); and “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Romans 12: 17).

None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life. Reverend Anthony Winfield, author of a study of Biblical attitudes towards weapons, suggests that these verses command the faithful not to seek revenge for evil acts, and not to bear grudges against persons who have done them wrong. He points to the passage “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone” (Romans 12: 18), as showing an awareness that in extreme situations, it might not be possible to live in peace.

Further evidence that the New Testament does not command universal pacifism is found in the missions of John the Baptist and Peter, both of whom preached to soldiers who converted. Neither John nor Peter demanded that the soldiers lay down their arms, or find another job. (Luke 3: 14; Acts 10: 22-48).

John did tell the soldiers “Don’t extort money, and don’t accuse people falsely,” just as he told tax collectors “Don’t collect any more than you are required to.” The plain implication is that being a soldier (or a tax collector) is not itself wrong, so long as the inherent power is not used for selfish purposes.

Of course most gun prohibitionists do not see anything wrong with soldiers carrying weapons and killing people if necessary. But if–as the New Testament strongly implies–it is possible to be a good soldier and a good Christian, then it is impossible to claim that the Gospel always forbids the use of violence, no matter what the purpose. The stories of the soldiers support Winfield’s thesis that the general Speace and love” passage are not blanket prohibitions on the use of force in all circumstances.

Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles begin: “When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” the apostles answer.

Jesus continues: “But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” He ends by observing “what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The apostles then announce, “Lord, behold, here are two swords,” and Jesus cuts them off: “That is enough.” (Luke 22: 36-38).

Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were “enough.”

More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion. The metaphorical interpretation is supported by scholarly analysis, and seems to best account for the entire conversation.

Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry demonic statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.

A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said “No more of this” (Luke 22: 49-51) or “Put your sword away” (John 18: 10) or “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”) [129]

Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was “not leading a rebellion.” The most immediate meaning of these passages is that Jesus was preventing interference with God’s plan for the arrest and trial. Additionally, Jesus was instructing the apostles not to begin an armed revolt against the local dictatorship or the Roman imperialists. Jesus had already refused the Zealots’ urging to lead a war of national liberation.

Do the passages also suggest a general prohibition against drawing swords (or other weapons) for defense? The versions of the story recounted in Luke and John do not, but the version in Matthew could be so read.

If Matthew is analyzed along the lines of “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword,” the passage is an admonition that a person who centers his life on violence (such as a gang member) will likely perish. On the other hand, a translation of “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” could be read as a general rule against armed violence in any situation.

The best way to understand the Bible, most theologians would concur, is not to look at passages in isolation, but instead to carefully study passages in the context of the rest of the Bible. If the single line in Matthew were to be read to indicate that to draw the sword is always wrong, then it would be difficult to account for the other passages which suggest that drawing a sword as a soldier (or carrying a sword as an apostle) is not illegitimate. Looking at the passage of Matthew in the context of the rest of the Bible would, therefore, look to the passage as a warning against violence as a way of life, rather than as a flat-out ban on defensive violence in all situations.

A 1994 document produced by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states:

In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.

The Catholic Church recognizes people as saints because (among other reasons), the lives of saints are considered to worthy of study and emulation. February 27 is the feast day of Saint Gabriel Possenti. According to The One Year Book of Saints, as a young man in 19th-century Italy, Francesco Possenti was known as the best dresser in town, as a “superb horseman,” and as “an excellent marksman.” The young man was also a consummate partygoer, who was engaged to two women at the same time. Twice during school he had fallen desperately ill, promised to give his life to God if he recovered, and then forgotten his promise. One day at church, Possenti saw a banner of Mary. He felt that her eyes looked directly at him, and he heard the words “Keep your promise.”

Possenti immediately joined an order of monks, taking the name Brother Gabriel. The main incident for which Saint Gabriel Possenti is remembered was this:

One a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock [Possenti] stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun….

[W]hen Garibaldi’s mercenaries swept down through Italy ravaging villages, Brother Gabriel showed the kind of man he was by confronting them, astonishing them with his marksmanship, and saving the small village where his monastery was located.

Saint Gabriel Possenti’s “astonishing marksmanship” was displayed after he had just disarmed the soldier. The mercenaries’ leader told Possenti that it would take more than just one monk with a handgun to make the mercenaries leave town. The saint pointed out to the mercenaries a lizard which was running across the road. Possenti shot the lizard right through the head, at which point the mercenaries decided that discretion was the better part of valor; they obeyed Possenti’s orders to extinguish the fires they had started and to return the property they had stolen. They then fled the village, never to be heard from again.

Jewish law comes to the same conclusion as the Vatican Pontifical Council: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” commands the Talmud.  Bystanders are likewise required to kill persons who attempting rape.  While there is a duty to self-defense, the duty to defend others is seen as prior.

The view that forcible resistance to evil attack is itself evil has serious implications: Patrick Henry and the other founding fathers were wrong to urge armed resistance to the British Redcoats; the Jews who led the Warsaw Ghetto revolt against Hitler were immoral; Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims would have been wrong to use a weapon to protect themselves; Saint Gabriel Possenti was a paragon of evil; Abraham should not have rescued his kidnapped nephew; and police officers who fire their guns to protect innocent people are sinful.

Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house. The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police will arrive. Is the woman’s moral obligation to murmur “violence engenders violence,” and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother’s moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?

The view that life is a gift from God, and that permitting the wanton destruction of one’s own life (or the life of a person under one’s care) amounts to hubris is hardly new. As a 1747 sermon in Philadelphia put it:

He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. 
 

Whatever their disagreements on other matters, the natural rights philosophers who provided the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution saw self-defense as “the primary law of nature,” from which many other legal principles could be deduced.

As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force…”

Leading criminal law scholars have emphasized a different, less philosophical, point: that victims protect the entire community when they kill a dangerous criminal rather than leaving him free to prey on others. To theorists such as Bishop, Stephens and Pollock “Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not merely a thing to be tolerated …as a necessary evil [but is] a just and perfect” right. A good citizen attacked has “a moral duty” to use all force necessary to apprehend or otherwise incapacitate criminals rather than to submit or retreat.

Underlying the assertion that use of force to defend innocent life is immoral is the presumption that persons who use such force are “selfish.” To the extent that social science can shed any light on this presumption, the presumption turns out to be exactly backwards. A study of “Good Samaritans” who came to aid of victims of violent crime found that 81% “own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don’t believe they will be hurt if they get involved.”  Are these people inferior moral beings who “engender violence”?

In any case, the claim that as a moral or practical matter a crime victim should rely on the government for protection can be raised only if the government has an obligation to protect the victim. And quite clearly under American law, the government has no such obligation.

Additional Reading:
Does The Bible Tell Us To Disarm?
View Rev. Dr. Red  Conrad, D.D.'s LinkedIn profileView Rev. Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.’s profile

Volunteers/Staff Needed

Volunteers are needed to assist Spiritual Messiah Ministries and the Spiritual Truth Movement & Coalition. Volunteers will have the opportunity to take on part-time or full-time positions in the future, if they wish to. Volunteers are required only to give us one solid hour of their time a week. Your one hour will help us immensely. You may also choose to volunteer additional time; but only 1hr/wk is required.

You do NOT have to live local to us in order to volunteer. There is plenty you can do from your area, in some cases your own home. Between the mininstry and the Coalition, there are numerous tasks and departments you can assist us with.

A list of positions is as follows:
Spiritual Messiah Ministries-
Blogger
Church-planting (will help you with the process)
Public Relations
Event organizer

Spiritual Truth Movement & Coalition-
Blogger/Journalist
Podcast Reporter
Videographer
Marketing/Advertising
Event Organizer
Public Relations

We are looking for Christians and Jews to volunteer 1hr per week of their time to one of these positions. If you wish to volunteer more time, it will be greatly appreciated. All volunteer’s will have the ability to become part-time or full-time paid staff of the Ministry and/or the Coalition.

All responsibilities of the positions will be explained to you upon applying. If you are able to help us with just 1 hour per week, please email us spiritualmessiahministries@gmail.org
In your email please state your Name, Age, City/State currently residing in, position you seek, amount of time per week you have available to help us, days of the week you are able to help us.

Thankyou and God Bless

%d bloggers like this: