A curious episode at the state Capitol last week has us thinking of Jonah Goldberg’s book. As a favor to the CT House of Prayer (CHOP), we submitted this announcement to the legislative bulletin about an event CHOP is hosting:

National Day of Prayer Event

Mayor Eddie Perez, Police Chief Darryl Roberts and Peter Wolfgang from the Family Institute of CT will join other speakers [emphasis added] for this annual event marking the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 1st from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in Room 2A of the LOB. For further information contact coordinator Audrey Church McIntyre at 860-716-0247.

Here’s what the bulletin printed instead:


Mayor Eddie Perez, Police Chief Darryl Roberts and Peter Wolfgang, from the Family Institute of Connecticut, cordially invite [emphasis added] all legislators and staff to attend the annual event celebrating the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 1, 2008 from 11: 00 A. M. to 1: 00 P. M. in Room 2A of the LOB. For further information, please contact Audrey Church McIntyre at (860) 716-0247.

Mayor Perez, Chief Roberts and my own name were chosen for the announcement because those were the names mentioned on the National Day of Prayer’s own web site. But there’s a big difference between the language we submitted (“will join other speakers”) and the language in Friday’s bulletin (“cordially invite”), which falsely implied that the three of us were co-hosting the event.

We became aware of the error late Friday when CHOP was contacted by Mayor Perez’s office, which had received complaints about the announcement. Today’s bulletin has no mention of Mayor Perez or Chief Roberts, but is otherwise unchanged–now falsely implying that FIC is hosting the event. In fact, the event is sponsored by CHOP and I am just one of many invited speakers from all across the ideological spectrum.

But the interesting thing here is the intolerance of pro same-sex “marriage” activists.

Connecticut House of Prayer had no problem inviting Hartford’s pro same-sex “marriage” Mayor Perez to the National Day of Prayer and I had no problem with our names appearing together on the NDP web site or the legislative bulletin. It is, after all, an event focused on prayer. 

But the perception that Mayor Perez was co-hosting an event–even a prayer event!–with FIC was more than he (or his pro same-sex “marriage” supporters) could bear. “Marriage equality” activists praying with their pro-family opponents? Perish the thought!

Remember this the next time pro same-sex “marriage” activists tell you that pro-family citizens are the intolerant ones.

Update: We have just received confirmation that Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez has pulled out of the National Day of Prayer.

30 Responses to ““Liberal Fascism” and the Legislative Bulletin”

  1. on 28 Apr 2008 at 10:27 amBill

    Putting aside any political differences, I am glad to see Mayor Perez joining others at the Capitol to bring prayerful focus to Hartford’s needs. Hopefully those that distract from the common good will will give it break.

  2. on 28 Apr 2008 at 11:32 amRoger

    The CT Capitol is a frequent witness to misrepresentation.

  3. on 28 Apr 2008 at 11:45 amPeter

    I’ve just heard that the legislator CHOP booked the room through submitted an announcement to the bulletin the same day we submitted ours and they ran with his. So that’s one mystery solved. But again, the more interesting thing here is the reaction. I’ve also heard that Mayor Perez and Chief Roberts have now pulled out or are at least ambiguous as to whether they will attend…

  4. on 28 Apr 2008 at 12:05 pmBob Rice

    I find it odd, that the mayor’s office would call to complain. But I see why he would. I guess he is under a lot of pressure from those who would be offended by such a holy alliance. It might give him a good reputation if you know what I mean! One would think that “da Mayahh’”, (oops sorry, my Nooh Yawk Ax’cent Keeps poppin up) Uh, um, ahem, one would think that the mayor of Hartford would want to see his name on an announcement that would associate him with the likes of Peter Wolfgang. One would think the mayor would want to be seen as, aligned with and thought of as being a pro family man, a man of faith. One would think that he would desire to be seen in that light by the majority of the faithful Hispanics in the community that he represents, his family oriented, law abiding constituents in the city that he serves and by the salt of the earth people in the state in which he lives.

    You are right though. To those members of the radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party (a big wing it is!) it would put him at odds with his pro choice base. You see, the Party of Choice, the Democrat party, does not believe in the choice for prayer in the public square. There is no choice for religious freedom. They only choice they can tolerate is “freedom from religion”. According to enlightened Democrats, to pray in public is to be a religious fanatic who seeks to impose religious morality on others. Morality cannot be a choice for then all alternate lifestyles are seen as what they truly are…Immoral!

    The party of choice, also doesn’t want “life” to be a valid alternative of any woman’s choice and most certainly, the Party of choice also does not accept the choice of allowing the people to decide by voting on any law that affects them most directly, especially the right to amend the state constitution in order to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The only choice that the party of choice can tolerate is their own. All others are labeled as bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. Given all that, I see why the Mayor is trying to distance himself.

    Well, I guess we will have to wait and see if the Mayor and the Police Chief show up for the National Day of Prayer. It will also be interesting to see how they scramble to disassociate themselves from the likes of Peter Wolfgang and the Family Institute of Connecticut! I don’t know about you, but I would love to see a picture of the mayor, the chief of police and Peter Wolfgang embracing arm in arm in a photo-op while singing Koom-ba-Yah and swaying too and fro!

  5. on 28 Apr 2008 at 12:05 pmPeter

    It’s confirmed…Mayor Perez has pulled out of appearing at the National Day of Prayer.

  6. on 28 Apr 2008 at 12:21 pmBob Rice

    And if you want to know why Mayor Perez has pulled out of appearing at the National Day of Prayer.
    ….Read my previous post.

  7. on 28 Apr 2008 at 12:26 pmPeter

    I don’t know about you, but I would love to see a picture of the mayor, the chief of police and Peter Wolfgang embracing arm in arm in a photo-op while singing Koom-ba-Yah and swaying too and fro!


  8. on 29 Apr 2008 at 8:46 amDavid

    I don’t suppose you would even momentarily entertain the thought that it had nothing at all to do with FIC? Perhaps the complaints were that he was involved with a religious event period. Which I personally think is ridiculous. I suppose that fit into your need to feel the victim though.

    Bob, it isn’t that large parts of the Democratic part want to be free from religion, it’s that they want to be free to practice the religion of their choice. Perhaps you should consider that your particular version of Christianity – the one that says all must bow to your will – is repugnant to many of us. Religion isn’t the issue, forced religion is. When the day comes that you accept that there is a large variety of people and beliefs within Christianity, and NONE are completely right and NONE are completely wrong you might then understand why your attitude appears negative to others.

  9. on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:36 amBob

    It’s truly not the practice of the Democrat Party to allow people to be able to practice the religion of their choice. In fact it is the opposite! The last 40 years or so prove that the goal has been to prohibit any free expression of any religious belief at all! The fact of the matter is, there has been a concerted effort especially by the judicial branch to move to prohibit religious freedom, the move to trample on the first amendment of the Constitution. There now are laws restricting religious freedom. This directly goes against the Fist Amendment. There are laws prohibiting prayer from schools and the public square. There is a move to eradicate any religious symbols such as the Cross, the Ten Commandments and the like.

    Not sure what version of Christianity you are referring to. I adhere to the original version. I know of no version of Christianity that says anyone “must” bow down to any man’s will or even to the Will of God. The opposite is true.

    I do know, that every true Christian would willingly and lovingly bow before and freely lay down their own will in submission to the Will of Jesus Christ. If there is any attempt to force a bowing to any will, it is the will being imposed upon society and that is of the forced religion of secular atheism. One must look only at the way “Darwinism” has been forced upon schools to see that.

    I do realize that there is a terrible fracturing of Christian denominations. I don’t however need to accept that it should be the case. It wasn’t Jesus’ intention. When He said “I will build My Church, He did not mean thousands of different churches. At the last supper He even prayed and ever prays at the right hand of the Father, “that they may be one”. That remains our prayer. There shall be one flock and one Shepherd for it is the Father’s Will.

    Surely there is a Church whose doctrine is ALWAYS completely right. It is only when those churches that split, fracture and separate from the truth, they teach heresy. The farther the split away from the Church, the farther from the truth they are and the greater the heresies. Therefore, these denominations have some of the truth but not all. Only one Church is ALWAYS right; only one Church has the fullness of truth. It is the one that is ALWAYS being attacked and mocked.

    While some believe that there is no Objective truth, I’m reminded of a man named Pontius Pilate who once scoffed… “What is Truth!” There is Objective truth. The truth is not a thing, it is a person. His name is Jesus the Christ. While some may want me to be silent in my faith, I must listen to Jesus instead who said” Go therefore into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.

  10. on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:10 amDave


    Pardon me for jumping into this discussion between you and David, but there is something you’ve said that I feel needs to be set right – particularly as we approach the National Day of Prayer.

    When you say, “Only one Church is ALWAYS right; only one Church has the fullness of truth,” please be very careful. I fear you may be misunderstood as implying that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is this Church, when in fact the Church to which you refer is the universal “Church of Christ” that is present and operative throughout the world in various churches and ecclesial communities. No human being is perfect, and likewise no man-made framework is perfect. Even the Pope can err; according to RCC doctrine it is only when he speaks “ex cathedra” that his teachings are considered infallible. And even this occurs through the action of the Holy Spirit, according to RCC doctrine, and not of the Pope himself as a fallible human being. Since the solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I (1870) this power of “ex cathedra” teaching has only been claimed one time, in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

    To the extent that Christian communities remain fully rooted in the teachings of Jesus, the unalterable gospel message (see Galatians 1:6-12), and biblical truth of both the Old and New Testaments, we are all one church in Christ. And it is this sense of “oneness” that we should strive to uphold: unity but not uniformity. Even Paul opposed Peter, and corrected the errors of his ways, when they were in conflict with the teachings of Christ. It would be the height of arrogance for any of us to think that we have a monopoly on the truth or on the way to salvation.

    When we seek unity, we should understand that it means we will become as members of one body, but not that we will become homogenous. Just as a living organism consists of many diverse and unique parts, so too the universal “Church of Christ” consists of many diverse and unique souls who are called of God.

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8: 28-30)

    Therefore, let us not squander this opportunity to come together in prayer, despite the doctrinal divisions of our man-made frameworks. Let’s remember there is one Savior who redeems us – whether we are Republican or Democrat, whether we are black or white, and whether we call Him by the name Yeshua, Jesus or Isa. Ultimately it is the same God who is the Sovereign Lord who saves those whom He wills.

  11. on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:18 pmDavid

    “I adhere to the original version.”

    So you’re Jewish?

  12. on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:09 pmPeter

    A Left Nutmegger has commented on this post in his usual unhinged way:

    Like, it’s not the people who seek to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on society, suppressing gays and lesbians and depriving them of the rights that the majority enjoy are fascists – it’s the intolerant Legislative Bulletin printers who changed the words “will join other speakers” to “cordially invite legislators and staffers”!

    Perhaps my title threw the poor fellow off, but my “fascist” reference was aimed primarily at the complainers who didn’t want Mayor Perez praying with us, not the folks in the bulletin office. I thought it was obvious, but at MLN they tend to miss the obvious.

  13. on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:29 pmDavid

    Thanks Dave, that is an excellent explanation!

  14. on 01 May 2008 at 8:14 amBob Rice

    As you said Dave….QUOTE “No human being is perfect, and likewise no man-made framework is perfect.”

    This is exactly why I recognize as “The Church” the one that Christ Built on the Rock of Peter. Jesus is no mere man, no natural human. The Church He built is not a man-made framework, like say that of Martin Luther or later branches of Protestantism but it is “The Church” built by “The Perfect Man”, Jesus Christ, who is both God and Man; Two Natures, one perfect Divine Person. Jesus is a Supernatural Man, He is God and He is truly Man. His human Nature is perfect. In His Divinity He is perfect and cannot err. He can neither deceive nor be deceived. His Church, that He built is not of mere human origin but conceived in the mind of the Triune Godhead and fulfilled in Christ.

    I adhere to the proclamation that the True Church has the Four Marks; That it is One , that it is indeed Holy, that it is Universal (All races, peoples, classes) and that it is Apostolic in succession. It also has Seven Sacraments and the greatest of these is the Eucharist, the true presence of Jesus, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Perhaps the true arrogance would be to think that one has the fullness of truth, that one has enough when in fact one may indeed have less than the fullness. Neither is it arrogance to proclaim as in Acts 4:3 “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”

    I do also recognize the Primacy of Peter as all the Apostles did and the Fathers of the Church do and even whom Saul of Tarsus did, when he came to Peter to verify and check with Peter the Gospel he was preaching. There is no claim of perfection for Peter and Peter himself humbly exclaimed “Leave me Lord for I am a sinful man.” But as you say when he speaks with authority “ex cathedra” the Vicar of Christ is speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and cannot proclaim error in matters of Faith and Morals.

    There were of course disagreements among the apostles such as those with Paul and Peter that were resolved as I imagine were others. I do not see this as a condemnation by Paul of Peter, nor a rebuke of his primacy but merely a correction regarding Circumcision of gentile converts. As there was no “Official Doctrine” regarding this, this matter cannot prove to be a changing of any doctrine. This only proves that Peter the head of the Church in Jerusalem (Jews), is able to confer with the other apostles and even to be humbly corrected by another brother such as Paul the preacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles in the matter of circumcision. It is after all as you say, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guides the Church as promised by Christ.

    Though the discussion about a particular “version” of Christianity, that lead to my assertion to be following the original version, I as a Christian recognize that yes David, I am in essence a Jew, a wild olive branch, a gentile, grafted in to the true Olive Tree of Judaism, as St. Paul describes. For salvation is indeed from the Jews. The Gospel is proclaimed to the Jew first, then to the Gentile. I thankfully pray that the Jews safeguarded the Covenant, fulfilled in Christ Jesus and am blessed to be in Faith by Grace, a grafted in member of Christ.

  15. on 01 May 2008 at 10:15 amDave


    I’m glad you are filled with a fervent and devout faith. But let’s not work to widen the further gap between fellow Christians, when this should be a day we all come together as nation to pray to God our Father. You wrote about what YOU choose to recognize, and that’s your choice if you want to adhere to RCC doctrine. What I object to, along with so many other Christians, is the presumptuous attitude that only through the RCC can one know the fullness of Christ.

    I recognize the primacy of Christ, who alone remains undivided as the Head of His Church. As you’ve correctly noted, “there is no other name by which men can be saved”. The foundations of the church could not rest upon an imperfect human being. The Church belongs to Christ and no other. See 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17.

    Sadly the phrase “upon this rock I will build my church” has been misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented by the RCC since the time of Emperor Constantine. The rock is not Peter, if you read the story in context (Matthew 16: 13-20). The rock is the faith and revelation, brought about in his disciples by the action of God our Father, that Jesus is “the Christ, Son of the Living God”. Throughout the Bible it is clear that the rock is Christ.

    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’ (Matthew 21: 42)

    I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. (Psalm 118: 21-23)

    So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.” (Isaiah 28: 16)

    As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever
    believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed. (Romans 9: 33)

    For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (1 Corinthians 3: 11)

    … for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4)

    This is a truth that even the apostle Peter acknowledged:

    It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is “the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.” Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4: 10-12)

    As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him – you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. (1 Peter 2: 4-8)

    When we consider the divine aspect of Christ, that He is one with the Father, many other Old Testament references to “rock” align themselves with this view. Read the Psalms and what do you find? The Lord is my ROCK. The rock of refuge. My rock, fortress, and deliverer. The rock of salvation. Dozens of times repeated, God is the rock. And consequently, in the oneness of God the Father and God the Son as retold in the gospels, Christ is the rock.

    Those who seek to place themselves in between Christian believers and God, or to uphold an artificial framework that seeks to restrain our direct access to Him, would do well to remind themselves of this verse:

    For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2: 5)

    As to the false belief that that the RCC teaches about the Eucharist – that, in each celebration of the Mass, Christ once again “offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross” (in the words of Pope Pius XII) … this is an affront to the complete and finished work of Christ, which occurred once upon the cross at Calvary. Jesus is alive! He is risen! He died once for all, and He sits upon His throne in heaven at this very moment!

    For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. (Romans 6: 9-10)

    Having said all that, can we not set aside our doctrinal differences for one day of common prayer, and for organizing together in matters where we do find common ground? FIC is not an exclusively RCC-affiliated organization. Nor is it exclusively affiliated with any specific church denomination. It is centered upon the moral principles that we hold in common through our shared Judeo-Christian heritage. So let’s focus upon this common ground. On other matters of church doctrine, we’ll simply have to “agree to disagree”.

  16. on 01 May 2008 at 12:08 pmTricia

    I too am glad that Dave posted his clarification of “the universal ‘Church of Christ’.”

    However, just a comment on Dave’s last sentence in post #10—“Ultimately it is the same God who is the Sovereign Lord who **saves those whom He wills.**” Maybe I misunderstand, Dave, but this seems to imply a **limited** number of people are eligible for “salvation.”

    I don’t read the scriptures to be saying that. I read in the Bible that God commanded “all men everywhere to repent.” Also, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

    The scriptures tell me that Christ’s Atonement for the sins of mankind was (and is) INFINITE (as His love for all God’s children is infinite). That there are no limits on the numbers of those who can be “saved.”

    ALL who turn to Him in faith, repent of their sins, and obey His commandments will be accepted into His Kingdom. (And of course, ALL who have ever and will ever live are “saved” from the effects of physical death through Christ’s Resurrection.)

  17. on 01 May 2008 at 1:47 pmBob Rice

    I don’t have any Doctrinal issues that I would need to put aside in order to pray with you for our nation. That is the last thing I would think of. It seems however that you have many issues you find contention with within my Church. You opinions are very worthy of merit. While I highly regard and value your opinions, I must however defer to the early Church Fathers when it comes to dealing with these doctrinal issues. I wish however to thank you for your debate with me; I’ve enjoyed it very much. As the great G. K. Chesterton says, “there can be no debate without first having common ground which to debate”. My intention here was not to create a rift in the Christian community or to argue differences between them. Let’s instead stand on that common ground.

    I also don’t believe that this is the best forum in which to try to debate you about these things and so as far as that is concerned, my posting here regarding that ends. It is my intention to instead focus on our common ground and to keep the true goal in mind; that is defending faith, family and freedom.

    So, I take comfort from knowing that with you I also pray for the protection of Religious freedom, upholding traditional family values and enacting and upholding moral law, not only for our State, but for our Nation. To that end I would wish that you would consider me your brother in Christ.

    Thanks and God Bless you and your family.


  18. on 01 May 2008 at 6:32 pmDave

    Bob and Tricia,

    I count you among my brothers and sisters in Christ, and thank you for letting me vent a bit on the subject. Even where we may differ on matters of doctrine (and I know all 3 of us hail from different church denominations), we still have more in common than not. We are called by the same Heavenly Father; and we share a belief that Jesus is indeed Son of the Living God, through whom the gift of salvation has been made manifest. And we share in the mission to encourage and strengthen the family as the foundation of society, by promoting sound, ethical and moral values in our culture and government. That’s a lot of common ground.

    On the comment which Tricia made about my phrasing “saves those whom He wills”, I would like to clarify – and hopefully this will reassure that we are not that far apart here. It wasn’t my intention to suggest any specific limit to the number of people who might be *eligible* for salvation. The limit, sadly, is self-imposed by those who reject the gift. For as it is written:

    The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3: 9)

    God wants everyone to come to repentance. But not everyone avails themselves of this opportunity. That is the reality of the world, as Jesus affirmed:

    Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7: 13-14)

    Some may mistakenly reason, however, in this way – God is love, and God is all powerful; therefore God *could* allow everyone to be saved, no strings attached. This is the faulty thinking that is prevalent in some very liberal churches, which denies the simultaneous reality that God is just, and God is Holy Holy Holy. God’s justice and holiness requires that we actively choose the “narrow road that leads to life” in order to be saved. Consequently, as Jesus said:

    Unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13: 5)

    I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14: 6)

    Jesus told the parable of the goats and sheep, not as a meaningless story, but as the unvarnished truth of final judgment: the unrighteous will ultimately go to “eternal punishment” while the righteous will go to “eternal life”. Read it yourself in Matthew 25: 31-46

    So in my saying “God saves those whom He wills”, I’m essentially affirming that while God desires everyone to come to Him, at the same time He wills that only those who repent and come to Him through His Son will be saved – which is the same message that was taught by the apostles, and which is expressed within the Holy Bible.

    Finally, as it relates to your words of conciliation and goodwill, Bob, I thank you and accept them in the spirit of brotherly love. To be honest, I think I was reacting more to the media spin on Pope Benedict’s words about how he believes other churches “suffer from defects”, which has received so much attention of late. The spin on this story from some quarters has led to much hurt feelings, and as such is divisive rather than uniting. Moreover, from the perspective of other Christians, the RCC also “suffers from defects”. Nevertheless, I agree that dwelling upon this is not likely to be a productive thread of discussion, and it distracts from the purpose of FIC’s efforts. In the interest of standing upon common ground, I join with you in agreeing to set aside these differences here so that we can remain focused on defending faith, family and freedom.

    May God bless you and keep you!

  19. on 02 May 2008 at 6:40 amPeter

    And I’ll just chime in to thank God for all three of you. The secret to FIC’s success is visible in your exchange.

  20. on 02 May 2008 at 7:56 amBob Rice

    Truly it is the Lord’s Will that all would come to be saved, but as you so beautifully point out Dave, it is a choice about which our Savior tells us. It is of our own free will that we must accept this invitation. God has in His love and Mercy created us with a rational intellect and Free Will to choose so that all who come to Him, do so freely and out of Love for Him. As Jesus says, “Truly, if you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

    Thank you Dave for your kind words. As always, the media spin that you speak of is the attempt to cause friction among the faithful Christian Churches. It is their goal. We however are called to be in the world but not of the world as the media is of the world.

    John 15:19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

    Let us however take consolation that the world hates us, for it has hated Christ first. Knowing this, we are truly blessed by every attack on us because of His Name, Jesus Christ. Amen

    As we, all of us, truly recognize as “The Rock” and as our Head, Jesus Christ we shall stand together. For Jesus our Head, ever sits at the Right hand of the Father, ever praying and ever interceding for us. We must take solace in knowing that if our Head (Christ) is in Heaven, that he has already raised us up together, and has made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:6)

    For the Head is not separated from the body; so let us members of Christ love one another as Christ has love us. To this end I pledge my love and prayers and fasting.


  21. on 03 May 2008 at 10:18 amalis

    Did Mayor Perez communicate to you why he withdrew from your Day of Prayer?

    Who DID attend the Day of Prayer at the LOB? I have tried to find information online, but there is nothing available, not even at the Connecticut House of Prayer website. They indicate 2.5 hours of praying, but not who was in attendance.

    Was this just for Christian prayer, or were Jews and Moslems invited to pray as well?

  22. on 05 May 2008 at 9:07 amDave

    It’s important to understand the difference between the “National Day of Prayer” (NDP) – as designated by governmental agencies like the U.S. Congress and individual State Governors – and the “National Day of Prayer Task Force” (NDPTF) – which is a privately funded organization, created for the purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of value.

    The National Day of Prayer, as designated by our government, belongs to all Americans. It is not sponsored or owned by any one group. Every American can observe the NDP in his or her own way. While the NDPTF works to organize people who choose to come together freely because of a shared Judeo-Christian heritage, people with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs. This diversity is what Congress intended when it designated the Day of Prayer, not that every faith and creed would be homogenized, but that all who sought to pray for this nation would be encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate.

    The NDP is not supposed to be a political event, but rather a spiritual one that is focused upon praying for “the well-being of our nation and our leaders”. One would hope that this, at least, is a goal we can share in common – despite any other theological differences. And it is truly sad when people can’t find even this tiny patch of common ground to share for part of one day.

  23. on 05 May 2008 at 8:44 pmalis

    Were you attempting to answer my question, Dave? If so, thank you for the information (which I knew). However, it was not an answer to my question, which dealt specifically with the event Peter blogged about.

    Does anyone here know if Mayor Perez communicated with the organizers as to why he withdrew from the event?

    Does anyone know how many people participated in total, and how many of them were legislators?

    Were the prayers offered only by Christians, or were other faiths represented? Was there a rabbi in attendance and did he offer a prayer?

  24. on 06 May 2008 at 9:40 amDave


    Pardon my simplistic thinking, but maybe if you want to know what the organizers were told about Mayor Perez and his change of plans, you should ask them. As I understand it, Peter Wolfgang was just invited as a speaker. Neither he nor FIC was an “organizer” of the event. Perhaps you could contact Audrey McIntyre, who distributes the monthly newsletters for the “Connecticut House of Prayer” to inquire about it. Perhaps you could contact Mayor Perez to ask about it.

    Lately it seems that there is growing criticism, year by year, about “lack of inclusiveness” with respect to the National Day of Prayer. But whose responsibility is it to organize prayer events? Is it the government’s job? Surely not, based on the 1st amendment’s “anti-establishment” clause. Clearly then it must fall to private groups to organize their own events. Then acting as they do, not as an arm of the government but as a private group under the freedom of association, are they not entitled to structure the event under the guidance of their own conscience? People ask whether a particular faith was excluded, when they should be asking – did anyone stop members of that faith from organizing their own event?

    I personally chose to honor the National Day of Prayer in a different way, so I did not attend this event in Hartford. But as it relates to your question about how many who participated were legislators, the implication of this question is something I find troubling. Are you suggesting that a legislator somehow gives up his freedom of religion and association upon assuming his office? Are you suggesting that a legislator must sacrifice his right to worship and pray according to the dictates of his own conscience, to avoid the possibility of offending the sensibilities of others who adhere to different faiths? If that were the case, then perhaps every legislator would need to put on the mantle of atheism. And that’s ridiculous. That’s not the America I know and love. When freedom of religion was written into the Bill of Rights, it was intended to provide us with the freedom to practice religion through a diversity of faiths, not to prevent its public expression.

    In praying for our government leaders that day, I did not pray only for the leaders who shared my particular brand of faith. I prayed for ALL of our leaders, that God may guide them and lead them in wisdom. And that is the inclusiveness we should recognize in the National Day of Prayer. Rather than seeking to homogenize our faiths, we should simply understand that – despite our religious differences – we share a common interest in seeking God’s blessings upon our nation and its leaders.

    In his speech at this year’s NDP event in Washington, DC, Rabbi Bruce Lustig said “we are all equal in God’s eyes.” And as a Christian I do find truth in this remark, for as it is written (in Romans 3: 23) “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Therefore any response to our prayers and supplications comes not from our own worthiness, but through the grace of God. Therefore I welcome the prayers of all who would seek blessings on behalf of our nation, for we know that somewhere else upon this earth are those who seek quite the opposite.

  25. on 06 May 2008 at 6:32 pmalis

    No Dave, I am not at all suggesting that legislators be denied the right to participate. I was curious as to how many people who work at the LOB chose to participate.

    Why does it seem that the first instinct of everyone here, when questioned, is always to assume people are criticizing you?

    I was also curious, given that our legislators represent people of all religious flavors, if any effort was made to recognize that fact. It would have been my instinct to do so were I the organizer. But I suppose that’s just me and my pesky inclusiveness.

  26. on 07 May 2008 at 8:09 amBob

    Here’s why it seems that that when questioned, they (Dave, Peter, and other supporters if FIC) assume they are being criticized. It is because more often than not they are! I don’t believe that you understand the battle these men and women face every day on our behalf. When you live in the environment they do, you tend to become gun shy.

    These faithful warriors have to battle constant legislative barrages from a political animal that seeks to degrade family values, attempts to break up families by legislating the removal of parental rights from mothers and fathers, teach sexual promiscuity in schools and then give access to abortions for adolescent teens, force the placement of adopted children in homes without a mother and a father, seek to quell religious rights and freedoms from the public forum and political arena and who fight against an extreme pro homosexual contingent that constantly seeks to promote homosexual acceptance, sexual identity confusion, erode, demean and re define, the definition of the sacred union of a man and woman in the institution of marriage through legislative means. They must not only fight against all this, they then must go home to their families just like you and I do and not let it affect them.

    All these attempts at eroding our freedoms are being put forth in a way which the average people of this state, the constituents of such legislators are to be kept out of the political discussion. When we keep the people out of such discussions and political decisions, you get what we now have, “legislation without representation!”

    When you yourself don’t face the onslaught these people face every day, when you don’t realize what these people must deal with day in and day out, year after year it is hard to understand why they feel criticized. It is the few, the dedicated and the faithful individuals that safeguard our freedoms in a spiritual and social war to take back our society from the mess that 50 years of liberalism, apathy and faithlessness have given us.

    People would be better to concentrate on virtues such as prayer, fasting and almsgiving (monetary support for such individuals) instead of being so concerned about inclusiveness. Inclusiveness while being a “nicee nice” feel good idea has nothing to do with fairness or tolerance. Neither does it have anything to do with ecumenism.

  27. on 07 May 2008 at 9:02 amDave

    As the saying goes, “an elephant never forgets”. Keep in mind that this is the same “alis” who tussled with Tricia about the parenting ability of “loving lesbian couples”. It’s the same person who first appeared on our blog last October, falsely accusing another blogger of fabricating their story on how homosexual activism was unduly influencing their newly formed union. It’s the same person who has repeatedly commented in unfavorable ways about FIC and its activities.

    While I don’t presume that everyone who asks a question is criticizing, an ongoing pattern of behavior tends to become noticeable. To borrow another metaphor, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to convince me it’s not a duck! And it’s OK, you don’t need to masquerade as a neutral party if you want to express your opposition. We know we have some vocal opponents, and yet they’re still welcomed to comment (in a civil manner) on the blog. Dialogue is valuable, but even more so when the participants are forthright about their positions.

  28. on 07 May 2008 at 11:45 amPeter

    you don’t need to masquerade as a neutral party if you want to express your opposition

    Dave, you certainly nailed Alis’ m.o. Here’s her response to me in an exchange we had last Christmas season:

    Ah Peter. To be branded an “opponent” when you don’t know me? I had hoped to be a friend.

    As Dave says, opposing comments are welcomed here. But please don’t pretend to be something you’re not.

  29. on 07 May 2008 at 6:41 pmDavid

    Bob, as the saying goes “he who lives by the sword…”

    When a person or group chooses to go on the offensive against innocent people and uses every method short of violence to do so (and note I said SHORT of violence) then that person or group should expect that there will be a reaction and not all of it will be joy and happiness. Judgement, condemnation, exagerration and outright lies are what flows from the pages and mouths of “family” groups who are so caught up in their crusade that they have lost sight of the true issues. It’s sad because they are capable of much good but have chosen a different path. You say they have to then go home to their families and not let it affect them, quite true but what about the families that are in the cross-hairs of these groups. Do you ever wonder what it’s like to have your family called evil, not an environment to raise children in properly, a danger to the family, a danger to marriage, a danger to the country, a danger to civilization? Because that is what is said, and those are ideas that you yourself have presented. Have you ever thought of the affect of constantly hearing that since you are gay you must be promiscuous, disease ridden, a spreader of such diseases, a child raper, half a man, evil, unholy, abomination and an all around yukky person. That you should hide your life – never mention your loved ones or what you do in your social life (because we all know that that social life is only sex, drugs and certainly there’s no love), be kept away from children, be quarantined, be outlawed and be fair game for verbal and physical attacks because you are flaunting your “lifestyle” or any of the reasons listed above”? Oh, and I musn’t forget the constant (false) predictions from loving Christians that most of us will die in our early 40s because our “lifestyle” is so harmful.

    Once you have considered these things and your part in them, then come back and explain why these noble people on a holy quest are met with opposition. I’m not saying that anyone here sas said or done all of the things listed above but that IS the result of so-called pro-family actions and beliefs. I admit that what I said above it painting a whole group with a very large brush and many don’t fit the description, but it is the same brush that I and other LGBT people are painted with so please forgive my generalization.
    If there was a shred of respect given then it would be received but it seems that many “family” oriented people are simply unable to do so.

    Bob, again I say, you have chosen to view us as the enemy and a threat to all that is sacred and civilized. That’s your right of course but by doing so you have blocked yourself from ever seeing the good in us, the contributions we make to society and the importance of our lives. Ultimately it’s your loss, not ours.

    I feel confident that I have not come to this board with any false pretences, which I think is spelled wrong. 🙂

  30. on 09 May 2008 at 12:34 pmBob

    Dear David, no one here considers you an enemy. I’m sure you see us as such and since we oppose your ideology we are seen also as the obstacle to what you desire. Where we differ is in ideology. It is in the arena of ideas that we battle. While you may lament over what the findings conclusively show, that is, the environment “best suited” for raising and educating children is that of the loving stable relationship of a family composed of a married mother and a father. It might hurt to hear that fact put forth, but we cannot change that fact, nor can we change what is best for children.

    We cannot put what is best for children aside to make a same sex couple feel better or equal. Even in the name of nice sounding words such as fairness, diversity or tolerance could we accept anything less than what is best. No amount of good intentions can change this fact. You too should desire what it best.

    To deny this is to deny reason. To want something different for children is to desire something less than the best for them. When you put your own desires above that which is best for another human person, you disregard the dignity of the other and impose your wants and needs as a selfish pursuit. While you may be well intentioned, it is still wrong. Anytime a person or a couple, puts their own desires about that of another human person, it is wrong. This is why abortion is always and by its very nature intrinsically evil.

    The mess we are now reaping in our society with homosexuality pervasive in today’s culture is men do not want to be men. Women do not want to be women. Masculinity and femininity are seen as unnecessary and unessential. Men are called to be husband, fathers, sons, and brothers. Women are called to be wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. Each sex created with specific unique and complimentary gifts that they are endowed with by their creator in which to best serve their family, children, the human family and the Kingdom of God. Each sex has a vocation in which they are called to. Not all are called to marriage; some are called to the single life, some to the religious life. In all, each man and woman is called to live their specific vocation in a state of holiness. That state of holiness is best achieved in fulfilling their specific vacation in which God is calling them.

Leave a Reply