December 2003 Archives

Over the next few days we will be launching a very exciting photo-journa review of the year 2003. Special emphasis is placed on the spiritual implications of 2003 for the family, the home school movement, the local church, and the state. You will be able to view it at www.visionforum.org.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 31, 2003 | Permalink

I received this note today:

Today is Christmas morning. My 7 year old daughter, Lydia, had wanted an American Girl Doll. I showed her your catalog and she thought that “Liberty” would indeed be a nice doll to have. In previous months we had already read the books that surround the life of the famous women portrayed by the doll. I wish you could have heard her squeal of delight as she opened “Liberty” and said, “She is the most beautiful doll I have ever seen.” (I have to say that truly she is beautiful and very well made!!) It was her comment after holding her new doll for a few minutes that has caused me to write. She said, “I love this doll better than the American Girl Doll... they are not Christians. Liberty is a Christian and she tells Christian stories.” Kathleen W.

Dear Kathleen:

You cannot imagine how your note blesses me. You simply cannot imagine. We really believe in the quality and message behind this doll. But the proof is in the proverbial pudding — little girls have to love the Liberty doll. My daughters had a response which was very similar to your own daughter’s. Bless you, DWP

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 29, 2003 | Permalink

This year, my staff gave me a truly remarkable and priceless gift — a first edition, original sermon delivered by pastor Jonas Clark on May 30, 1781 before the Governor, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The sermon, the first election sermon delivered for the new government in Massachusetts, specifically addressed the duty of the state to acknowledge God and of civil magistrates to follow the biblical doctrine of interposition against any and all magistrates acting contrary to the higher law or outside the scope of their legitimate jurisdiction. Pastor Clark was not only famous for his preaching and careful exposition of the Word of God, but for being a man who lived out his message. After all, as a younger man in 1775, Pastor Jonas Clark had rallied the men of his community to the green of Lexington where he and they defended their homes against the invading Lobsterbacks.

Just a month ago, I was standing on Concord Bridge and Lexington Green with my good friend Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler, the Chief Justice of Alabama and his family, and more than 150 home educators as part of the 2003 Vision Forum Ministries Faith and Freedom Tour. Below is the monument to the patriot pastors of Lexington, including Jonas Clark.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 24, 2003 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 23, 2003 | Permalink

The following are responses I received this weekend from our latest e-mail newsletter entitled “The Children’s Hour....” Oh, and here is a picture of our newborn son, and some of the children (just had to put them in, too).

Dear Doug, What a blessing to read your letter about Longfellow’s heartwarming poem! One of my dearest childhood memories is of my father reading poetry to my sister, brother and I. “The Children’s Hour” was one of our favorites. Your email served as a reminder of that special bond created when Dad reads aloud to the family. We will make a point of taking the time this week to have Grandpa read “The Children’s Hour” to my children and their cousins while we visit during the Christmas holiday. Blessings to you and your family, S.M.

YES ~I read this to my children not too long ago! I also read it to my mother, who thought it was plain precious ! T.S.

Doug and family, Thank you for the e-newsletter that you send into our home. Every reading is an encouragement to me and my family to “fight the good fight” for renewal in the American family. I heard you speak at Knoxville this past summer about Honor. It was a great message. The message of Honor that we share in our Family Renewals and Revivals is a major pillar. We have entered into our fifth year as A Heart for Home Ministries. The Lord has blessed us with a full schedule of travel and ministry through next year and into 2005. Have a very Merry Christmas and may the Lord bless you abundantly in the new year. Feel free to visit our website: www.aheartforhome.org You’re loved, Gary Thomas and family; A Heart for Home Ministries

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 22, 2003 | Permalink

Today, I preached part two of a three part message on angels. The doctrine of angels, or angelology, is one of the ten historic disciplines which make up traditional courses on systematic theology. The current angelmania gripping our nation is, by and large, driven by mysticism and pop culture, having little to do with biblical revelation concerning angels. As is true with the cartoonish images of Noah’s Ark as a Chinese junket with giraffes sticking their heads out from windows, or crèche scenes depicting wise men in the manger with the baby Jesus, so too, the popular rococo images of fat baby cherubs with wings (popularized in the eighteenth century by Reubens), of angels earning their wings (i.e. It’s a Wonderful Life), or female angels (Della Reese, et al.) — all contribute to the mythologizing of Christianity. When you couple the impact of these inaccurate and doctrinally unsound images with the popular superstitions (even floating around the Church) about the nature, function, and mission of angels, you have a formula for superstition. This superstitious attitude toward angels has resulted in the very form of false worship of angels that the Apostle warns against in Colossians.

The biblical doctrine of the angelic host of Heaven is, in fact, one of the most glorious revelations of Scripture. These non-corporeal, metamorphic, finite, but powerful beings, also known as “the sons of God” and the “morning stars,” serve as both ministers and messengers of the Lord for the benefit of the people of God. Remarkable! However, Hebrews 1 and 2 point us to the fact that these blessed messengers in all of their glory can not hold a candle to their Creator, Jesus Christ.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 21, 2003 | Permalink

On this day in 1620, the Pilgrims disembarked the Mayflower, boarded a shallop, landed on Plymouth Rock, and first set foot on the land which would not only become America’s home town, but the birthplace of civil and religious liberty for our people.

(On board the Mayflower II, during our November Faith and Freedom Tour. With sons Joshua and Justice.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 21, 2003 | Permalink

You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exodus 20:3)
By Me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. (Proverbs 8:15)

The Church is at a crossroads philosophically. To be determined is whether we believe that the Lordship of Christ is comprehensive, extending to all spheres and jurisdictions of life, or whether Jesus is Lord over our private lives but does not even want His people to declare His Lordship over this nation. We must determine whether it is our goal to acknowledge the God of the Bible, or just to join hands with the many gods of the world in common cause against “secular liberalism.”

We must determine whether He wants Christians to shelve the Bible in their public discourse and argue for general principles based on the consensus morality of the many gods of the world’s religions, be they satanic or occult, or whether we may boldly mention the name of Jesus Christ in the public square and proclaim the God of Christianity as the only true foundation of our laws and the only true God to be honored in our national landmarks.

We must decide if Messiah is THE King upon whose shoulders the government will be established, or if we are resigned to the ancient Roman notion that all gods are acceptable as long as none demand exclusivity.

One well-known writer has recently suggested that America has no claim to a distinctively Christian law system. In his view, we are a land of many gods. From his perspective, God actually wants there to be many gods running this country. He has even suggested that pluralism is “providential.”

As to the issue of what God has allowed, there is a sense in which this man is absolutely right. God has providentially allowed different influences to arise in our nation. This is providence. Providence refers to the Lord Jesus’ sovereign direction and control over His creation and man. God providentially directs all events. He is Lord over every detail of time, space, matter, and reality. He literally upholds the universe by the power of His word.

In another sense, this brother has made several key mistakes: First, he has wrongly concluded that, because God has providentially allowed evil to prosper, that therefore we are to work to maintain the status quo. Second, he has confused the claims of the many gods with the rights of Jesus Christ over our land. If every man in America was a raging Zoroastrian, Christians would still have to declare that our government is required by the higher law, as revealed in Scripture, to “kiss the son.” Furthermore, the fact that fewer Americans are Christian in the twenty-first century than in the nineteenth century does not mean that our distinctively Christian charters, common law, law systems, and covenants are null, void, or unenforceable.

Providence — there is a great mystery here that we may never fully understand. Though God is not the author of sin, yet he allows for sin and directs every sin and act of evil for His own glory. He is sovereign! So when somebody says that pluralism is providential, we may respond: “In one sense, yes. But only in the sense that the rise of the Nazi Third Reich, the death of Able, the boils of Job, the presidency of Bill Clinton, and the horror of 9/11 were also providential events.”

The fact that God allows and providentially directs even Satan himself does not mean that He approves of or will tolerate the behavior of Satan. Similarly, the fact that, providentially, many gods have emerged as “pretenders” seeking to displace the One True God from His throne as Lord over this nation certainly does not mean that we should declare the defeat of Christianity in America, and theologically, philosophically, and practically cop-out, capitulating to the claims of these false gods. Truth is not determined by majorities. Covenants, charters, and law systems are not rendered invalid by the fiat claim of the invading worshippers of false gods.

God has providentially allowed America to suffer for our sins. An evidence of this providential judgment is the surrender by Evangelical leaders of the rights of Messiah the King, in favor of their desire to sit at the table with the petty potentates who think they are running the show, and to give obeisance to the many gods of popular culture. These Evangelical pluralists claim that they can privately worship Jesus Christ, but that it would be wrong to mention His name in the public square or declare His exclusive Lordship over the nation, unless such references are merely historical that in no way, shape, or form are meant to imply exclusivity.

We must pray that God will providentially wake up our brothers in the Church so that they will no longer be ashamed of the Gospel when it comes to the history, leadership, and the laws of this land. We must pray that, instead of sounding retreat or making common cause with philosophies utterly foreign to Christianity, these men will once again earnestly call for our nation to acknowledge the God of our charters and our covenants and honor the faith of our fathers.

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; yes, let him recount it to Me in order, from the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place.’ (Isaiah 44:6,7)

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 20, 2003 | Permalink

Three enormous cheers for Ann Coulter and Human Events Magazine (I worked for them twenty years ago hosting a radio show called “Dateline Washington: News and Commentary from Human Events”) for their heroic stand declaring Roy Moore, “Man of the Year.”

In sharp contrast, WORLD Magazine thumbed their nose at Moore and selected as “Daniel” of the Year, Dr. Philip Johnson, for his work in the field of “Intelligent Design” (a philosophy which believes that atheism is wrong, but the Bible must not enter into scientific discussions). Johnson is a man who is on record advocating (a) the belief that God may have used evolution to create the world; (b) belief in billions of years; and (c) worst of all — he has repeatedly apologized for the Gospel by insisting that neither Jesus nor the Bible have any proper place in the public scientific discussion over origins. The decision by WORLD was sadly consistent with their philosophy of pluralism and cultural surrender which was brazenly heralded throughout their “Daniel of the Year” edition. Stay tuned for more in-depth analysis...

In the meantime, I want to treat you to some nuggets from Miss Coulter’s outstanding essay, found at www.HumanEventsOnline.com:

...Only the attack on Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments got national attention. And it was a newsworthy event: When liberals attacked, Moore didn’t fold...

...But if I were a man rather than part of the frivolous, nonproductive chattering class, Roy Moore is the man I’d like to be. He lost his judgeship because he did what was right. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold whatever blather a liberal judge manages to put on paper. He followed the real law, not liberals’ make-believe law. He put principle above his personal interest or comfort. He was actually brave — and this is the only newspaper in the country that will say so. The Ten Commandments monument was removed, but this time, not without a fight.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 19, 2003 | Permalink

‘Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam,
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home;
A charm from the sky seems to hallow us there,
Which, seek through the world, is ne’er met with elsewhere.
Home, home, sweet, sweet home!

There’s no place like home, oh, there’s no place like home!
An exile from home, splendor dazzles in vain;
Oh, give me my lowly thatched cottage again!
The birds singing gayly, that came at my call—
Give me them—and the peace of mind, dearer than all!
Home, home, sweet, sweet home!

There’s no place like home, oh, there’s no place like home!
I gaze on the moon as I tread the drear wild,
And feel that my mother now thinks of her child,
As she looks on that moon from our own cottage door
Thro’ the woodbine, whose fragrance shall cheer me no more.
Home, home, sweet, sweet home!

There’s no place like home, oh, there’s no place like home!
How sweet ‘tis to sit ‘neath a fond father’s smile,
And the caress of a mother to soothe and beguile!
Let others delight ‘mid new pleasure to roam,
But give me, oh, give me, the pleasures of home,
Home, home, sweet, sweet home!

There’s no place like home, oh, there’s no place like home!
To thee I’ll return, overburdened with care;
The heart’s dearest solace will smile on me there;
No more from that cottage again will I roam;
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.
Home, home, sweet, sweet home!

There’s no place like home, oh, there’s no place like home!
John Howard Payne

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 18, 2003 | Permalink

Beacuse of their strong stand on behalf of the public acknowledgement of God, Focus on the Family will no longer be aired by “contemporary Christian” radio station WMHK in Columbia, South Carolina. Columbia Christians for Life comments: “As a result of a difference in biblical worldview concerning what programming is appropriate to be carried by ‘Focus on the Family’ for airing on WMHK ‘contemporary Christian’ radio, the ‘Focus on the Family’ program will no longer be carried on WMHK after January 2, 2004. Dispute over the programming content of four ‘Focus on the Family’ programs in late October and early November 2003 resulted in WMHK’s refusal to air Dr. James Dobson’s November 12 program. The four programs covered several culturally relevant, current-events issues, including the courageous stance of (now former) Alabama State Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore in his attempt to acknowledge God in the public square by displaying the Ten Commandments; and, the urgent need for action in Florida to save the life of Terry Schiavo, who was threatened with death by dehydration and starvation (whose life has been spared for the moment).”

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 17, 2003 | Permalink

The man who never reads will never be read. He who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read.... My books are my tools. They also serve as my counsel, my consolation, and my comfort. They are my source of wisdom and the font of my education. They are my friends and my delights. They are my surety, when all else is awry, that I have set my confidence in the substantial things of truth and right. —Charles Spurgeon

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 17, 2003 | Permalink

In my recent email broadcast entitled “Boys at Work and Play,” I make the case that not all violence is sinful. Some violence, in fact, is obedience to God. My article stated:

From time to time, Vision Forum receives letters from well-intentioned Christians concerned that we would advocate training boys to be hunters, defenders, and protectors of the home. The opposition to hunting is usually rooted in evolutionary assumptions about the nature of animal life and its relationship to human life (for a response to this line of thinking, see my article on “Fluffy Bunnies”). The opposition to weapons and defense of others is Anabaptist in origin. This view maintains that Jesus changed the rules so that violence against evil is now morally wrong. To reach this conclusion, its proponents posit a radical disconnect between Old and New Testament which includes a God whose standards have changed. It also means that there must be a distinction between the training of men in the Old Testament and that of the New. They assume that it was fine and well for Abraham to send his household to physically battle in defense of his family, but it is a sin for New Testament believers to do the same. They believe that the manhood training of David as a young boy with actual weapons may have been fine then, but would now be unacceptable

The God who “teacheth my hands to war” expects that men will learn the difference between ungodly and godly violence. There is a difference between training boys to be wrongfully violent and training them to be defenders of the home. The difference is found, not so much in the tools we set before our children, but the vision, the mission, and the supervision we give to our children, especially as they use these tools. The tools do matter, but the vision for the tools is the defining issue. To put it another way, a slingshot can be used to persecute little animals for no good reason whatsoever, or it can be used to develop precision skills which will enable a son to better take dominion over the family homestead by ridding it of pests.
In response to this we received some of the following letters:

Dear Doug and Staff,
Thank you for providing the material for us to raise our families as we believe God intended. I can’t articulate the immense pride and joy that I am feeling just knowing that there are these resources, coupled with scripture that will not only equip me but also encourage me to raise my boys to be manly men, Godly men.
Regards, The B. Family

Bless You B. Family. Thanks for your encouragement! DWP

Vision Forum, I disagree with your arguments and am surprised that “literal” interpretists of the Bible would try to convince anyone that Jesus didn’t REALLY mean “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” And it is ridiculous to assign evolutionary thinking to those who see the cruelty in hunting animals for “fun.” There’s no way Jesus would have even thrown a rock at a squirrel, let alone whipped out a slingshot and picked one off. God counts the sparrows, remember? Please don’t send me any more of this. J. W.

Dear J. W.

First, you will note from my article that I oppose torturing or abusing animals. Killing, whether with bow and arrow, slingshot or something else, does not have to be abusive or torturous. Hunting for fun is legitimate as long as there is a biblical “dominion” orieinted goal in mind. That dominion goal might be animal husbandry, training, or provision for food, clothing and shelter. Aniumals are resouces to be used by man for the glory of God.

Your statement “God counts the sparrows” is irrelevent to the issue of hunting. God also counts the sheep and the doves, but he commended their execution for temple sacrifice. You argue that Jesus would not throw a rock at a squirrel. What is your Scriptural basis for such a statement? Jesus not only called for the violent removal of thousands of fish from their natural habitat, but he ordered their execution for the simple goal of feeding a bunch of hungry Hebrews on a hillside.

Dear Vision Forum
You and I are on the same wave length regarding boys, masculinity, weapons, and manhood. However, please do not overlook the following. As an ophthalmologist, an eye surgeon, having treated the devastating consequences of ricocheting (or directly aimed) slingshot, bow and arrow, and toy gun (dart and BB) injuries, P L E A S E provide safety glasses <(PMMA) safety glasses> as part of all orders of these sight threatening weapons. These clear safety glasses can be provided for about $7.00 each and do protect the frontal and sides of the eyes. Remember the medical dictum, “Primo non nocerum”, or “First, do no harm.” If requested, I can help you obtain large quantities of these safety glasses if you do not have a source.
Sincerely, S.N, M.D.

Dear Doctor, Well said. Thank you for this wise counsel. Doug

Dear Sirs,

You have done a good job of describing reformed theology relative to Christians and war, etc. You apparently do not have an accurate understanding of our beliefs as Anabaptists. The “radical disconnect” between the Old and New Testaments was made by Jesus himself, not by us. “You have heard... but I say unto you...” Of course, Jesus will some day return with a sword but for now “vengeance is mine I will repay saith the Lord.”

For us to argue would not be profitable. You are defending a particular ideology and we another. The two ideologies are not reconcilable. They were incompatible from the days of the Reformation and will remain so. We appreciate your emphasis on integrity and virtue. We believe that God rewards His principles where they are honored. We agree that America is in serious spiritual decline. We want to be part of revival if God should grant it. Meanwhile we will quietly try to be a “city set on a hill” and “light” no under a bushel. We attempt to show the love of Christ to the country and the world by meeting needs in times of natural disasters. We want to thereby show that we are children of our “Father in Heaven who makes His sun to shine on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” It is our attempt to live Kingdom values here and now so the “world” can see what God’s Kingdom should be. For the Mennonites, Amish and Brethren among you, F. R.

Dear Frank:

While we do have a fundemantal difference in our hermeneutical view of Scripture, a difference that leads us to take very different paths on questions of the defense of the innocent, our family and our homeland, as well as our broader view of the Christian’s duty within culture and societry, I believe that the “Reformed” community has much to learn from the Anabaptists on the issues of the practical aspects of covenant living, at least in terms of the laudable community spirit of helps and one-anothering which is a strength of the Mennonites, the Amish and the Brethren. Having grown up near a Beechy Amish community, read much of the literature of the Anabaptist movement, and counted many of the members of the local community my friends, I have always found that my strong theological disagreement with your view of Scripture, in no way diminishes my appreciation for my Anabaptist friends. I will continue to preach against what I believe to be serious error. I know you and your brethren will do the same. May God help all of is in a spirit of humility to grow closer in the Truth, and to show increasingly greater love for one another in Christ, during this process.

Yours in Christ, Doug

Dear Vision Forum,
I just wanted to say how thankful I am for your views on boys and girls. My children do not hunt, but they have genuine hand-made recurve bows and arrows. We take them to a range a few times a week. My son also has a replica sword that he practices “fighting” with. We have gotten a lot of strange comments about allowing him to have “weapons”, but as mentioned, if boys are taught correctly the “weapons” are a learning process. My son would like to learn how to fence, but its almost impossible to find schools that teach this. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for your stand. My son’s plans are to enter the Air Force and go into law. L.H.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 16, 2003 | Permalink

Phillip Jauregui, a tremendous Christian and heroic attorney, offered the following statment in his capacity as lead attorney for Chief Justice Moore:

Rather than rule on our motion to disqualify Justice Houston, the court let him lead the charge in selecting new justices to hear the appeal. His involvement affected the process. The process produced at least two additional justices where questions of impartiality will likely require their recusal or disqualification from this appointed court. One of them was removed as a paid, retired member of the court by Chief Justice Moore and the other was on the Judicial Inquiry Commission during their famous witch hunt of the Chief Justice where the Chief Justice in turn had to sue the JIC for illegally investigating him. Clearly, Justice Houston should not have been involved.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 15, 2003 | Permalink

This is the precious cry of all my children, especially the girls. Our seventh child, a son, was born yesterday at home. It has been a father’s joy to see how my daughters cannot stop talking about being a mother just like their mommy. This image was taken this morning. You can see that even two-year-old Honor (who has just been deposed as the reigning prince) gets into the act.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 12, 2003 | Permalink

We love to hear from those dear Christian families who are aware of the rich generational heritage given to them by the Lord. Vision Forum is especially proud of our own, Miss Tracy Leininger, the author of four wonderful works of historical fiction in our Beautiful Girlhood Collection, as well as a book about her own ancestors: Alone, Yet Not Alone: The Story of Barbara and Regina Leininger. This letter came in from another relative of Barbara Leininger:

Dear Vision Forum: A couple weeks ago I received your Vision Forum Catalog in the mail. I was glancing through it and saw some things I would like to purchase for one of my grandsons. I then wondered, do they have things, and books especially for girls. Well, you can’t imagine my suprise and joy at seeing “Alone, Yet Not Alone” listed there. I did not even know of the book. You see, Barbara Leininger was my 5th great grandmother, and her mother, Regina, my 6th great grandmother. I knew the story but did not know there was a book. I got one for each of my granddaughters for Christmas. I want them to know more of the godly heritage which is theirs. Thank you for sending me the catalog! I can’t wait for the book to arrive and read one before giving them as gifts. In Jesus, S.G.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 12, 2003 | Permalink

We truly appreciate the many thoughtful and insightful letters we receive from our friends — and we receive thousands of these. The following letter and subsequent response from me was recently exchanged. They refer to the Vision Forum Ministries (www.visionforum.org) special “hot topic” called “The Gauntlet is Thrown,” on the subject of women in the military.

Sir, I wholeheartedly admire your courage in taking on such a pertinent topic. I would like some clarification on your stand and to possibly point out another consideration. Do you believe that the United States of America is worth defending by serving in her military? The answer to the question is important because the recent military success in Iraq was not due to a vast “overnight” mobilization of all able bodied men. The success was due to a well trained and prepared VOLUNTEER force. Will Christian men still young enough to join be encouraged to serve a tour of duty in the military? Will Christian fathers be asked to encourage their sons to serve a tour of duty in the military? If men will not be ENCOURAGED to serve, then we will not have a sufficient workforce for our volunteer military without women. Although the responsibility of men acting as protectors is discussed, the concept of actually encouraging men to serve was not addressed. Sincerely, D.C.

Dear Mr. C.:

Thanks for your note. God will bless this nation when we always set our eyes on doing the right thing. The defense of the nation is a biblical goal which must always be accomplished God’s way, consistent with the clear principles of warfare outlined in Scripture. I would respectfully suggest, however, that the question is more complicated than simply urging all men to serve a tour of duty. We will always support the cause of a just war, including the necessity of having able bodied men rise to the service of their nation. We will always oppose unbiblical or unconstitutional wars, and will never encourage our sons or anyone else to engage in them. As an attorney who was on the support staff in the Michael New case, I can say, for example, that I would actively oppose our sons putting on United Nations insignia and serving under United Nations commanders by risking their lives in non-declared wars which are outside the scope of that which is either constitutional or biblical. On the other hand, the Second Amendment and the United States Code presuppose that all able bodied men will serve as part of the militia and bare arms against tyranny, foreign or domestic, in defense of their homes and homeland. Were America to (a) focus on only fighting legitimate wars, thus avoiding the inappropriate role of being yoked with those who despise us and would destroy us (the U.N.), and making sure that we only fight or commit troops where the biblical requirements of just war theory have been met (i.e., we are not the policemen of the world, nor do we initiate aggression where we have not been attacked); and (b) fight such wars God’s way (i.e., no more Jessica Lynches); we would discover ourselves victorious in battle, and blessed of God, who is more powerful than all the armies of the world.

Thanks again, Doug Phillips

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 12, 2003 | Permalink

Judie Brown, president of American Life League and a longtime friend of the Phillips family, announced on Wednesday that:

“Warning signs should be posted in every airport.... But unbelievably, the news that women on the birth control pill are at increased risk for potentially deadly blood clots on long airline flights is being ignored. The Federal Aviation Administration should be ordered to disclose this important information to all female passengers. It could save lives.” The story reported in Newsmax.com and on the Associated Press, reveals that these findings are contained in a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

“Once again, medical science is echoing a genuine concern of the pro-life movement: that use of birth control pills is dangerous to the health, safety and lives of women,” said Brown, “and the risk will be even greater if high-dosage birth control pills are sold over the counter as is currently proposed.”

Newsmax.com writes:

This information about air travel comes to light as the Women’s Capital Corporation, a group closely associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is seeking Food and Drug Administration approval to make one morning-after pill formulation — known as Plan B — available as an over-the- counter medicine. While Plan B, a regimen of four birth control pills per dose, does not present the specific problem noted in the air travel study, there are many other health concerns associated with this formulation. “If taking a daily dose of one birth control pill presents a significantly increased health risk to women taking long airline flights, then taking mega doses of chemicals like Plan B provide even great health concerns,” said Brown. “There’s a bundle of money to be made by ignoring scientific studies and health concerns. Planned Parenthood and other like-minded groups repeatedly prove that their true concern is not preservation of women’s health but generation of huge organizational profits. And, if they get their way, and the FDA does approve over the counter status for Plan B, others are certain to follow. Sales of birth control pills, including the morning-after abortion pill, are becoming a significant profit center for Planned Parenthood. Each year, the organization makes more money from pill sales. These sales helped Planned Parenthood net a $36 million profit in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, according to the organization’s own annual report. “As long as these pills help bring in the money, the high priestesses of contraception and abortion will never admit there’s even a hint of risk,” said Brown. “The birth control pill is simply bad medicine, regardless of how you look at it. And now we learn that from 35,000 feet, the view is even worse.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 12, 2003 | Permalink

From the bottom of my heart, I give thanks to the Lord for answering my prayers. At 4:35 am, this morning (December 11), God brought forth a son into the Phillips family. He is beautiful. My bride Beall is well. She was courageous and persevering throughout the birth. I can barely believe how blessed we are. He is our seventh child — a son with a head of black hair, who weighs in at seven pounds, fifteen ounces, and measures twenty-one inches. We will announce his name later in the week, probably at the time of his circumcision. Special thanks also go out to our wonderful midwives.

As is our tradition, we brought all of the children in at the same time about an hour after the baby was born. What a glorious and unforgettable blessing to watch them rejoice in their new brother.

Baby takes one of his first looks into the wide world.

Honor meets the baby for the first time.

Jubilee and Liberty take turns holding their brother.

Faith is grateful to be a big sister again.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 11, 2003 | Permalink

What a wonderful time the 2003 Faith and Freedom Tour had in Plymouth this year for Thanksgiving. Our team of more than 150 rejoiced in the Lord for His many, many blessings and kind providences in our lives. On Thanksgiving we feasted. Below are some images of our “Pilgrim Girls” who joined us for dinner.

Faith Evangeline Phillips

Honor and Liberty Phillips

The Alan Hand Family

The Sherman Ladies

Faith Evangeline, Jubilee, and Honor

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 10, 2003 | Permalink

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE / DISQUALIFY
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE J. GORMAN HOUSTON, JR.

COMES NOW Roy S. Moore (hereinafter, “Chief Justice Moore”), Defendant below, and submits the following memorandum in support of the Motion to Recuse / Disqualify Alabama Supreme Court Acting Chief Justice and Associate Justice J. Gorman Houston, Jr.

I. Justice Gorman Houston Has Made Improper Public Comments Regarding Chief Justice Moore’s Case.

Justice Gorman Houston has made public statements (1) that he will not recuse himself if Chief Justice Roy Moore appeals the Court of the Judiciary decision to the Alabama Supreme Court; (2) that, if Justices of this Court recuse themselves, Justice Houston will likely be involved in the process of finding replacement Justices; (3) that, should Chief Justice Moore be unsuccessful in the appeal of his removal from office, Justice Houston will “assist” Governor Bob Riley in determining Chief Justice Moore’s replacement. (See Exhibit 5, 7, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) These statements about an impending case before the Alabama Supreme Court require Justice Houston to recuse and/or disqualify himself from Chief Justice Moore’s appeal.

In August of 2003, Justice Houston discussed Chief Justice Moore’s actions with the Mobile Register shortly after he and the associate justices of this Court ordered the monument removed. Justice Houston explained that he did so because “it was important, he said, to avoid fines and preserve the rule of law, the concept that the law applies equally to every person.” (See Exhibit 4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Justice Houston continued:

“‘Somebody is disappointed in almost all those cases in the way it came out,’ Houston said, adding that he wondered what would happen if those unhappy plaintiffs and defendants tried to follow Moore’s lead and defy court orders affecting them. ‘It would be chaos.’”

(Id.) At trial and even before, Chief Justice Moore’s argument as to why he did not remove the monument was, in part, that he did not believe that the court order to remove the monument was legal, constitutional, or binding upon him. His defense in this case directly addressed the concern that Justice Houston expressed about parties “follow[ing] Moore’s lead,” a concern expressly raised by the prosecutor, Attorney General Pryor, before the Court of the Judiciary. The Court below rejected Chief Justice Moore’s argument that he was upholding his oath and complying with the law, i.e., the Constitution, which would therefore generate greater public respect for the law and the judicial system. Justice Houston’s public criticism of Chief Justice Moore’s actions — actions that were scrutinized at trial and will be reviewed on appeal — and his concern expressed about the “chaos” he believes would ensue, plainly demonstrates Justice Houston’s predilections about the merits of Chief Justice Moore’s case.

Less than a week before Chief Justice Moore’s notice of appeal or this memorandum was filed, Justice Houston told the Huntsville Times that he would not recuse himself from this case and that, indeed, “any questions about possibly appointing temporary justices could be worked out between the governor’s office and [Justice Houston].” (See Exhibit 5, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Justice Houston even offered the suggestion that, if Supreme Court justices recuse themselves, their replacements be chosen by randomly drawing names from a hat. (Id.) Justice Houston’s public statements about how he would involve himself in the selection process for replacement justices is entirely improper.

In an interview with WSFA Channel 12 News, Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston, was asked: “If Chief Justice Moore appeals to the Supreme Court, would you recuse yourself?” Houston replied:

“Oh, heavens no! Why? Because I don’t have any reason to recuse myself. You try the case based on the evidence that was before the lower court, not based on something we know. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe we didn’t have to remove the monument, or maybe if I wasn’t wrong, maybe he was right and justified and maybe that’s in the record - something that shows that, and if it does, I’ll certainly give him every benefit of the doubt on it.”

(See Exhibit 7, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Additional examples of Justice Houston’s numerous public statements about Chief Justice Moore’s case are provided in Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, and 25, (all attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

Canon 3A(6) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that “a judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court ....” Though “abstract legal explications” are not forbidden, “[a] judge is strictly prohibited from public comment on the merits of a pending case.” In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 355 (Ala. 1984). Justice Houston’s detailed comments about Chief Justice Moore’s case went well beyond “abstract legal explications.” Justice Houston has repeatedly offered public comments to the press about Chief Justice Moore’s case, including the merits thereof, which is now before this Court. “[A] reasonable person [would] question [Justice Houston’s] ability to ‘hold the balance.’” Id. at 356. In light of Justice Houston’s disregard for Canon 3A(6) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, he should recuse himself from the case about which he is so eager to publicly discuss.

II. Justice Houston Has a Direct and Significant Interest in the Outcome of Chief Justice Moore’s Appeal That Requires His Disqualification and Recusal.

Justice Houston’s vote or involvement in this case would have a direct effect on his status and authority on the Alabama Supreme Court. As the Senior Associate Justice, Justice Houston is currently operating in the capacity of acting Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, with all attendant powers and responsibilities. See Ala. Code 1975 § 12-2-6. He will retain said powers until Chief Justice Moore is returned to office or another Chief Justice is appointed because Justice Houston, being over 70 years of age, is ineligible by law to be elected or appointed to a judge’s position. See Ala. Const. of 1901, amend. 328, § 6.16. Therefore, if this Court restores Chief Justice Moore to office, Justice Houston immediately loses his status and authority as acting Chief Justice. If, however, this Court affirms the decision to remove Chief Justice Moore from office, Justice Houston retains his status and authority until such time as a Chief Justice is appointed or otherwise installed. Any involvement by Justice Houston in this case — by a vote cast on the merits or otherwise — will therefore significantly and directly affect his own status, power, and authority on this Court.

Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that a judge “disqualify himself in a proceeding in which disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including where he has “any ... interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” As Justice Houston noted in 1994, “[t]his Court recognizes the importance of judicial impartiality: ‘Implanted in the foundation of public policy is the general rule that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, and independent.’” Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332 (Ala. 1994) (quoting Ex parte White, 53 Ala. App. 377, 386, 300 So. 2d 420, 429, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 778, 300 So. 2d 439 (1974)) (emphasis added). Due to the direct and substantial interest that Justice Houston retains in the outcome of Chief Justice Moore’s case, Canon 3 requires that Justice Houston disqualify himself from the appellate proceedings.

Justice Houston should also recuse himself, notwithstanding his personal opinion about whether he could somehow be fair and impartial on this case. Justice Houston has publicly stated, in regard to this case, “So far as I know, I have no reason to recuse myself.” See Huntsville Times article. Nine years ago, however, Justice Houston, writing for this Court, laid out the actual test for recusal: “The question is not whether the judge was impartial in fact, but whether another person, knowing all of the circumstances, might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality — whether there is an appearance of impropriety.” Duncan, 638 So. 2d at 1334. The standard for recusal is not subject to the individual judge or justice’s opinion about his own objectivity; rather, the standard “is an objective one: whether a reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a ‘reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.’” Ex parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39, 41 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Ex parte Cotton, 638 So. 2d 870, 872 (Ala. 1994)) (Houston, J.). Justice Houston is not only disqualified by his direct interest in this case, but the objective appearance of impropriety that would arise from Justice Houston’s sitting on this case requires that Justice Houston recuse himself from all proceedings in this matter.

III. Justice Houston’s Actions and Statements In Recent Months Indicate That His Impartiality May Reasonably Be Questioned or That He Has a Personal Bias or Prejudice Concerning Chief Justice Moore.

As a colleague of Chief Justice Moore, and as acting Chief Justice, Justice Houston, over the past few months, has made numerous comments and has taken actions demonstrating that his impartiality may reasonably be questioned or that he has a personal bias or prejudice against Chief Justice Moore.

On or about August 21, 2003, Chief Justice Moore was in Gadsden when Justice Houston ordered that the Ten Commandments monument be “shrouded” from view by tall office dividers. Upon learning of Justice Houston’s actions, Chief Justice Moore contacted Justice Houston and a heated verbal exchange occurred that resulted in the shroud being removed. The conflict that arose over this incident may cause Justice Houston to be personally biased against Chief Justice Moore. Justice Houston’s personal involvement with the monument, however, was not confined to shrouding it from public view.

On August 14, 2003, immediately after Chief Justice Moore publicly stated that he would not move the monument in the Alabama Judicial Building, Justice Houston handed out to the press a statement that he was convening at 2:00 p.m. that day a conference of the associate justices to “take whatever steps are necessary” to comply with the orders of the federal courts. (See Exhibit 25.) (See also Exhibits 12 & 15.) Justice Houston, of course, was also one of the associate justices that issued the August 21, 2003 order to have the monument removed. (See Exhibit 8, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Justice Houston’s direct involvement in removing the monument was not lost on Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who, in a August 25, 2003 Washington Post article, commended Attorney General Bill Pryor — the prosecutor below — for his “actions behind the scenes to orchestrate the state officials handling these things ....” (See Exhibit 24, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) (emphasis added). Justice Houston was one of “the state officials handling these things” and orchestrating “behind the scenes,” including the exchange of letters between Justice Houston and Attorney General Pryor. (See Exhibit 22, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Since the instant appeal involves matters directly related to Chief Justice Moore’s decision not to remove the monument, Justice Houston’s open involvement with the removal of the monument, and his orchestration behind the scenes with the prosecutor below to accomplish the same, add to the appearance of impropriety that would result from Justice Houston’s failure to recuse himself from this case.

Justice Houston, when he assumed the duties of acting Chief Justice, also exercised authority over, and reassigned or fired several of Chief Justice Moore’s office staff, including Chief Justice Moore’s only security officer. (See attached affidavit of Leonard Holifield, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 23.) Andrew Dill and Benjamin DuPré were part of Chief Justice Moore’s legal staff until shortly after Chief Justice Moore was disqualified from acting as a judge, when Justice Houston instructed Messrs. Dill and DuPré to sign his office policy which would have, in effect, transferred their oath of loyalty from Chief Justice Moore to Justice Houston. Instead of signing the policy, Messrs. Dill and DuPré resigned. Mr. Dill is now representing Chief Justice Moore on this appeal. Additionally, the very day after the Court of the Judiciary removed Chief Justice Moore from office, Justice Houston fired two of the highest-ranking officials in the Judicial System because of their association with Chief Justice Moore: Dr. Rich Hobson, Administrative Director of Courts, and Tom Parker, Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of Courts. (See affidavit of Richard L. Hobson, Jr., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 21.) Justice Houston’s actions against Chief Justice Moore’s employees, and the fact that one of them — Andrew Dill — now represents Chief Justice Moore before this Court, may raise the appearance of impropriety on the part of Justice Houston if he remained on this case.

Justice Houston has also demonstrated his attitude toward Chief Justice Moore through the medium of drama. On November 5, 2003, at a banquet dinner at the University of South Alabama in Mobile (the night before the Alabama Supreme Court was to hold oral arguments there), attended by the associate justices, attorneys, and citizens, Justice Houston organized and participated in a drama characterizing himself and the other associate justices as “modern day Sir Thomas Mores.”[1] Such statements are entirely inappropriate under the circumstances before the Court and raise an appearance of impropriety requiring Justice Houston’s recusal.

Finally, Justice Houston has publicly stated that he will require Chief Justice Moore to pay the cost incurred by Justice Houston for the movement of the Ten Commandments monument to a locked closet or room. (See Exhibits 14, 16, and 20, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) Therefore, if Chief Justice Moore returns and is vindicated, Justice Houston would have to account for his costly decision to move the monument.

Canon 3C(1) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics states that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding where “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” because of “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” or because of any other reason. Justice Houston’s recent actions and statements strongly suggest that his impartiality might be reasonably questioned and have also demonstrated a significant personal bias and prejudice against the appellant in this case, Chief Justice Moore.

IV. Justice Houston Should Recuse, As He Has Done Before, Because He Contributed to the Campaign of One of the Parties On Appeal and the Appellant Objects to Him Hearing the Case.

Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston made monetary campaign contributions to Chief Justice Moore’s campaign for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court on the 24th day of August, 2000. (See Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) It should be abundantly clear that Chief Justice Moore objects to Justice Houston hearing this case. Such facts have led Justice Houston to recuse himself in the past.

In the 1995 ballot controversy involving former Chief Justice Perry Hooper, Sr. and former Chief Justice “Sonny” Hornsby, Justice Gorman Houston recused and disqualified himself from the case and filed a formal recusal statement. See Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd., 676 So. 2d 1206, 1234-1242 (Ala. 1995). (See also Exhibits 2 & 3, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) In his papers filed to explain his recusal, Justice Houston made it clear that he recused because, in 1993, he “contributed $500 to the Chief Justice Sonny Hornsby Reelection Campaign,” id. at 1237, and because, in light of that fact, the appellants expressly asked Justice Houston to recuse, id. at 1239. (See Exhibit 2.) In fact, the issue of his campaign contribution to Hornsby arose only because Justice Houston issued a memorandum, before he decided to recuse, disclosing the fact of his campaign contribution, and in that memorandum stated that, notwithstanding the campaign contribution to one of the parties in the case, he “believe[d] that [he could] keep the balance nice, clear, and true in answering the certified question addressed to the Supreme Court of Alabama....” Id. at 1238. However, when Algert Agricola, attorney for the appellants, answered with a letter expressing their opinion that Justice Houston should recuse because of the appearance of impropriety, id. at 1239, and attaching a Motion to Recuse to that effect, Justice Houston complied and both recused and disqualified himself from the case. Thus, despite his initial stance that he need not recuse, Justice Houston acquiesced, recused and disqualified himself in a case where (1) he had contributed to one of the parties before the Court and (2) one of the parties objected to Justice Houston sitting on the case because of the appearance of impropriety.

Justice Houston’s determination to stay on this case would further heighten the appearance of impropriety because he once recused and disqualified himself in Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd., supra, a case presenting a need to recuse very similar to this case. In the present case, Justice Houston donated money to the campaign of one of the parties on appeal — in this case, Chief Justice Moore. Justice Houston has stated, before the instant motion to recuse was filed, that he did not think he had a reason to recuse. However, one of the parties on appeal — Chief Justice Moore — has now objected to Justice Houston remaining on the case, in part because of Justice Houston’s campaign contribution. As Justice Houston has written for this Court, “Recusal is required ... when the facts are such that it is reasonable for a party, for members of the public, or for counsel to question the impartiality of a [] judge.” Bryant, 682 So. 2d at 41 (quotations and citations omitted). “The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is not whether a particular judge is or is not biased toward the petitioner; the focus is instead on whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question.” Id. See also Duncan, 638 So. 2d at 1334. For Justice Houston to have removed himself from a case just like this one, but to remain on this one, would cause the reasonable person to question Justice Houston’s motives and impartiality in this case. To maintain judicial consistency, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is incumbent upon Justice Houston to remove himself from this case — by recusal and/or disqualification.

CONCLUSION

Justice Gorman Houston, when writing for the Court, once quoted Justice Jones for “eloquently stat[ing]” the standard a judge must uphold to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

“Paramount to any system of justice is the total impartiality of the court which sits in judgment of any controversy. The appearance of fairness is virtually as important as is fairness itself. One of the essential ingredients of an effective judiciary is the high level of respect afforded it by the citizenry. Except for the impartiality of those who occupy the role of judge, both in act and [in] appearance, the level of respect necessary to a strong and effective judiciary will fail. It is the essence of the system that any position of interest or bias is sufficient cause for disqualification or a judge, and the right to raise and insist upon the causes of disqualification must be zealously guarded.”

Ex parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39, 41 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala. 300, 312, 293 So. 2d 830, 840 (1974)).

For the foregoing reasons, Justice Gorman Houston should recuse / disqualify not only in the instant case as a sitting Justice, but also should recuse / disqualify himself in all proceedings involving the instant case, including any selection process or method to choose any special Judges or Justices to hear the appeal of Chief Justice Moore. If Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston fails to recuse or disqualify himself as requested, this Court should disqualify him.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of December, 2003.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 10, 2003 | Permalink

When I was a new Christian at the age of fourteen, my pastor urged me to begin the daily practice of praying for my wife. By and large, I kept this practice for more than a decade. When I married Beall, the two of us began the practice of praying for the salvation of each of our children, even those yet to be born. It is my firm conviction that parents must not only cry out for the hearts of their children, impress upon their children the necessity of fleeing to Christ, but daily go before the Lord on behalf of the souls of their children. I am reminded that Job continually made sacrifice on behalf of his sons (Job 1:5).

God answered the years of prayer of a young man by sending my bride Beall into my life, and blessing us with marriage. God has now answered the prayer of a father with the salvation, public profession, and faithful testimony of my sons Joshua and Justice. Recently, I had the blessing of baptizing both sons in the Guadalupe River, with our local body of believers gathered around us. Below are some of the images of the baptism.

Beall and my girls are accompanied by Bob Renaud and Rachel and Ruth Short on the journey to the river.

Joshua and Justice prepare for their baptism.

The week before the river had been flooded, but God gave us a great day.

Thank you Lord for saving my son Justice.

Our local assembly is gathered for the special occassion. Two other believers are baptised this day as well.

Joshua shares a testimony of faith in Christ and a scripture from God’s Word.

I baptize my firstborn son.

Our friend Rick Huber prays over the boys.

Thank you, Lord.

The Dr. Mo Gill family gathered with us at the river. They are very dear friends and Mo is part of the leadership of our local church.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 9, 2003 | Permalink

...In Their Continued Efforts to Persecute Chief Justice Moore

During the trial of Chief Justice Roy Moore, I sat next to Alabama Assistant Attorney General Charles Brinsfield Campbell, one of the men responsible for orchestrating the trial of Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Mr. Campbell and I sat and listened to his boss, Bill Pryor, three times ask the Chief Justice if he would “continue to acknowledge God” even if he was ordered by an “official” not to do so. Three times we heard the Chief Justice say he would never deny God. We further heard the Chief Justice explain that his job and the very court systems required the acknowledgement of God.

For his refusal to deny God, Bill Pryor declared the Chief to be “unrepentant” to the imperial judiciary.

But for Mr. Campbell, such a declaration was not sufficient. Mr. Campbell declared the Chief Justice to be in a state of open sin before Jesus Christ. Here is what happened:

During Bill Pryor’s closing comments, Campbell, a professing Christian, with malice and anger exclaimed to me “Roy Moore is unrepentant to his God!”

I responded: “Sir, how remarkable that you can look into the heart of the Chief Justice and know where he stands before his God.”

After the trial I shook Mr. Campbell’s hand, and tried to extend Christian charity by exclaiming that I had no hard feelings against him for his comments. He tried to backpedal on his declaration of spiritual unrepentance, but the force of his words continued to ring in the ears of those of us who actually heard this professing Christian (who helped to orchestrate the persecution of Chief Justice Moore) attempt to judge the very soul of a man who had just refused to deny God.

Last week Mr. Campbell and the Attorney General brought the charade of claiming a Christian high ground for their open persecution of the Chief Justice to another nadir when they issued a statement openly mocking Chief Justice Roy Moore and categorizing Roy Moore with Ted Kennedy.

In another attempt to mock the Chief Justice for his uncompressing stand for the Lord, Attorney General Bill Pryor’s office has sent out an invitation for a Media Bagel Breakfast to be held in the Attorney General’s office on December 10. The fax states in big, bold type that Roy Moore and Ted Kennedy will attend the breakfast. However, in microscopic print between the two names, it actually says “they are not expected.” There is an asterisk after “Attend” which states: “When dealing with lawyers always read the fine print.”

The Chief Justice’s spokeswoman said: “This is just another example of the Attorney General mocking Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, who was elected by the people of the state of Alabama. It is an example of his arrogance and disrespect for the elected officials of this state and nation.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 8, 2003 | Permalink

Many thanks for the wonderful feedback we get from our friends. Christine writes to Vision Forum:

Hi — we just viewed Raising the Allosaur and we loved it! We have five awesome, fantastic, wonderful arrows for the Lord (children) and we all decided our next family adventure needs to be digging up evidence of our Creator! Thank you for all you do, and don’t you dare stop! I can’t wait to see my son’s face when he gets a T-rex tooth in his Christmas stocking :-)

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 6, 2003 | Permalink

The year 2003 will be remembered for many things. For the purpose of this blog, let me just focus on Christianity and the state. In terms of this issue, we can boldly declare that 2003 was the best of times, and it was the worst of times.

It was the best of times because God raised up a mighty standard in the person of Chief Justice Moore to remind us of the historic doctrines of interposition, the authority of God over the state, and the necessity that believers give their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for Christ. It was the best of times, because for many 2003 was the year of epiphany — a time when politics and political wranglings were set aside to return to first principle. The blinders were removed from the vision and thinking of many Christians — and the light that they saw was not only beautiful, but liberating. It is beautiful to see the providence of God in a nation, His laws, and the hope that we have when a dedicated minority remains faithful. But even more than beauty is the liberation one feels when you are no longer a slave to compromise. This great epiphany has resulted in many Christians desiring to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, but throwing off the chains of partisanship, and once again acting like people who are Christ’s representatives on earth. This means proclaiming truth and holding leaders accountable whether they are a D or an R or a G or an I or a C.

But it was also the worst of times. Amidst the backdrop of heroism of the few, was the shamful behavior of others. I am not referring to the world of the ACLU and their minions, but to those who professed the name of Christ, and who used this profession to criticize the heroes of the day, to reject the faith of our fathers in favor of pluralism, and who fundamentally conceded the war before the first missle of freedom was even deployed.

I am grateful for this recent article by R.C. Sproul, Jr., on the compromise within that camp of believers known as the Reformed. He correctly observes that all such compromise leans to the Left, and that those who obsessively desire to sit at the table, and forget God’s proverbial admonition that they put a knife to their necks, ultimately have neither a place at the table, nor a message worthy of emulation.

Finding a “Reformed” Place at the Table
By R.C. Sproul, Jr.

It’s not easy getting a place at the table. The masters of the feast are a rather particular bunch, who, for all their broad-minded posing, don’t much care for our kind. Still, every now and again, someone makes the grade. You can always spot this person, because of the way the powers-that-be speak about him. Senator So-and-So, once considered to be a knuckle-dragging rube, is now described as having “grown.” Strangely they never grow up, they always grow to the left.

To put it still another way, because you are so desperate for that place at that table, you end up telling the real Master of the real feast that you can’t make it right now — but you’ll come as soon as you can.

R.C. Sproul, Jr. is the editor of Tabletalk magazine, a pastor of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church in Southwest Virginia, and the director of the Highlands Study Center. Best of all, when he’s not busy teaching, playing with the children, churning butter, or tending to the chickens, he is making his widely-acclaimed homebrew.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 5, 2003 | Permalink

Chief Justice Roy Moore will be appealing the kangaroo court which threw him out of office after Attorney General Bill Pryor thrice asked him to deny his God. The appeal will be filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, but at least two of the members of the court, if not all, have a duty to recuse themselves because of their involvement. In the case of Senior Justice Gorman Houston, recusal is mandatory, because (a) he stands to benefit personally from the outcome; and (b) has fired people because of their relationship with the Chief Justice and made clear his opposition to the Chief Justice. Houston, however, has already indicated he will not recuse.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 4, 2003 | Permalink

Dear Vision Forum, I received you production, The Law of the Land in the mail today. I am already watching it for the second time. This is a well produced video which every Christian teacher, lawyer, and judge should watch over and over.

I am a 33 year old youth pastor, father of three, and a part-time law student who has found in Roy Moore a man I can emulate as a future lawyer. I had been in the midst of an identity crisis as a Christian and a lawyer until I found men like Roy Moore who showed that it was still possible to be a lawyer in the U.S. and stand up for God’s law. Thank you for producing this video. I hope to buy copies for all my friends in law school eventually. God Bless you and your ministry.

E.H.

Posted by Doug Phillips on December 3, 2003 | Permalink