Rebuttal To EXMinistries Regarding Kim Davis’ Civil Disobedience

Unknown

There is an interesting article from one of the most powerful ministries that was posted on my FB comment.

EXMinistries has been on the cutting edge of uncovering the secrets behind HIP HOP music. In particular Christian HIP HOP and other areas, such as The Illuminati, Greek Letter Sororities, Freemasonry, Catholicism, Thieves In The Temple regarding praise and worship “artists,” and other areas as it relates to the conduct of Black people, & pastors in our churches today.

We are grateful for their insights to help us understand how demonic activity has invaded some segments of the Christian church.

The last thing that we need is for Christians to disagree. However, we are aware that disagreements is part of the territory.

In their latest article regarding “Christian Disobedience?,” I do have to share a word that will rebut EXMinistries’ article.

However, before you read my rebuttal, EXMinistries‘ article could be read here.

Having just read the article, I disagree. I believe that we are to be law abiding citizens but not when there is a blatant law against following the Word of God.

And we should never follow a law where a law doesn’t exist.

Here is why.

1. Kim Davis did follow the law.

She is an elected official that followed the law to the letter. There is no law specifically ordering a clerk to issue a marriage license to homosexuals. 

1. The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say on marriage between one man and one woman. 

2. There is no law in the U.S. Constitution authorizing homosexual marriage. Therefore, there is no law on homosexual marriage for the Supreme Court to rule on.

3. Kentucky law has nothing to say about ordering the clerk to issue a license to homosexuals.

4. There is no law in Kentucky authorizing homosexual marriage.

WHY?

Here is the law in Kentucky.

402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. Effective: July 15, 1998 History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

2. 5 Justices hijacked the 14th Amendment.

What is the purpose of the 14th Amendment?

Here is the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a nut shell.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

The Equal Protection clause is about equal treatment of races, not sex or as they would put it “sexual orientation.”

The Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is about homosexual marriage certificates being honored irrespective of States’ laws on marriage. That homosexual marriages are to be honored on the same level as heterosexuals.

Hence, marriage equality.

In other words, to accomplish equality, they must suppress the ageless institution of marriage between one man and one woman as inerrantly given by God as taught in the timeless infallible Word of God.

Why?

Because certain states have laws on the books that prohibit homosexual marriage and the elite leaders of homosexuality knew that this is a major problem in their pursuit of dominance and control in the United States.

We all know that this homosexual agenda is a clear and present danger to the United States.

How is it a danger?

1. Homosexual marriage re-writes the rules of traditional Biblical marriage as we know it.

2. It is a danger to Christians practicing their faith which brings the convicting power of the gospel.

We must remember Paul’s word in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16.

“Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.”

They are trying to stop this aroma for a long time.

In essence, what 5 justices have accomplished is to give practicing homosexuals a race status by invoking the power of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuality is not a race. 

Homosexuality is a sin. 

Homosexuals are not a race. 

Homosexuals are people that practice the vile, disgusting, and nasty sin of homosexuality.

This propels polygamy into a race status. This propels pedophilia into a race status. This propels zoophilia into a race status, equally protected by the law.

The moment sin is legal, it brings every illegality into the status of the 14th Amendment. Equal Protection.

Man did not make up marriage. Marriage is the ageless institution from God to one man and one woman.

The argument of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a flawed argument for well known monumental reasons.

What the world is telling the child of God to do is when you come to work, leave Jesus and His standards at the door. You are not permitted to live by your Bible.

You are commanded to live by our rules irrespective of your conscience. Respect our rules and laws while we disrespect your moral conscience and God’s law.
The 1st Amendment gives us this protection against governmental tyranny.

Here is the 1st Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is what Judge Bunning did to Kim Davis.

In essence, because there is no law stating that a clerk MUST give a license to homosexuals, the judge legislated from the bench, stating that this is the law of the land, where there is no law made by Congress, and incarcerated Kim Davis for contempt of court. This intimidation tactic was designed to suppress her right to exercise her religious objection to issue a marriage license to practicing homosexuals.

Homosexuality is condemned by God in the Scriptures and there is no need to run references with the exception of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:18-32.

We must also remember the Civil Rights movement was born out of civil disobedience to laws that were already in the books in the states. 

Again, I remind you that there is no law in the books regarding homosexual marriage in the U.S. Constitution or Kentucky law, but in the Civil Rights movement, civil disobedience was warranted because there were laws in the books. Hence, the Civil Rights laws were created by the only law making body in the United States.

Congress.

So how can Kim Davis be illegally tried and unlawfully incarcerated for a law that doesn’t exist?

It’s judicial tyranny.

Finally, the “law of the land” argument is a “phantom law” argument.

Congress can draft and make laws. Not any judge and not the president.

There is no “law of the land” made by Congress for homosexual marriage to be legal in the United States.

Kim Davis did her job and she is to be commended for civil disobedience to a law that doesn’t exist.

I can understand the intent behind “Christian Disobedience.”

Lately BLM (Black Lives Matters) has been approving the killing of police officers, unlawful uprisings to destroy property, and other vicious forms of destruction to make a point.

With the Kim Davis incident, there is no comparison.

She did what Acts 5:29 says, “We rather obey God than man.”

Romans 13 teaches every born again believer to follow the laws of God’s appointed ministers that oversee the orderly activities of man. When the laws of man conflict with the Word of God, we cannot uphold, support, or obey a law of man that clearly violate the Scriptures. Even if it means losing our job, incarceration, or death.

In the 1600’s the puritans came from England to America to avoid religious persecution.

Now this persecution is about to engulf this once great land where freedom was sought. We do not pay enough attention to why they came. We are only interested in turning this once great nation into a land of immorality. For this to happen, morality must now be a thing of the past and anyone that says anything about God or the Bible must be snuffed out.

This only brings the wrath of God on this nation. As Christians, we must guard ourselves from anything that demands the suppression of the right to exercise what we believe in the Word of God.

God would never instruct us to disobey Him and obey the devil. And God would never instruct us to disobey man’s law that is in harmony with God’s Word.

Again, it is not lawful or right to tell Kim Davis to quit her job because she did her job in accordance with the law. As Kim Davis said, she was voted in as an elected official. Only the people that voted her in can vote her out. The judge has taken a page out of persecution, we respond according to Matthew 5:43-48. But we also respond by honoring God and His Word above man’s unjust laws.

We must also remember that the children of Israel perverted justice and changed the commandment of God by upholding their traditions. For this, they are severely judged, even to this day.

Until there is a specific law stating very clearly that a clerk MUST issue a marriage license to homosexuals, and until there is a change in the law from the Kentucky legislators of 402.005 Definition of marriage, civil disobedience is a page out of Acts 5:29 and commendable of the greatest Civil Rights struggle in US history.

We must remember that homosexuals are also liars in accordance with John 8:44.

They will go to great lengths to get a child of God to compromise. It is best to err on the side of the Word of God against the sin of homosexuality than to accommodate the sin of homosexuality.

Man’s temporary persecution is far better than God’s hot displeasure.

The Homosexual Movement Is Picking Up Steam To Suppress Churches

images-16

The elite of LGBT is expediting the prosecution of Christians that refuse to perform same sex marriage to make a point.

Complete submission to their will.

In a War College book by Carl von Clausewitz “On War,” the definition of war is “The use of force to compel your enemy to submit to your will.”

Whether people realize it or not, we are in a Constitutional war over free speech and freedom of religion.

As I have said, the gains given to homosexuals is not enough.

It’s about taking control of true pastors and believers that hold fast to the Biblical prohibition of homosexuality. It’s already settled that those of us that remain true will resist the will of the elite of LGBT.

No amount of force that LGBT has is sufficient to compel us to submit to their will.

They are no match for the Lord Jesus and His Word. They are weak and they know it.

Already in Idaho, a wedding chapel, owned by Christians, was ordered to perform same sex marriages or they face jail time and a $1,000.00 fine.

On Friday, June 26, 2015, the ruling came. On Monday, June 29, 2015 the order to comply came.

If you do not believe that we are about to see what had already happened in Canada come to pass, you got another thought coming.

The article of this story could be read here.

If that is not enough, a lesbian Senator deliberately issued a statement that the First Amendment is next.

Again, if you do not believe what is happening, I pray that you get understanding.

The Constitution Of The United States is under siege by the elite of LGBT and it won’t be long before we might kiss this document goodbye.

The article about the lesbian Senator’s statement could be read here.

Free Speech – Only In America

Islam’s prophet, Mohammad is in the headlines.

In the United States, there’s been an aggressive move to limit free speech.

If you are upset, sometimes you gotta man up and take it.

Verbal abuse is unnecessary, but it is not going to stop. This is not to say that I am respecting other religions above the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Lord Jesus walked the earth, even He was abused by His own people.

John 1:11 “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.”

Even worse, His own people crucified Him.

Acts 10:38-39 “…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.”

Something was said with cartoons and the whole Islamic world is lit up like a fire on the country side. North Korea goes crazy for a movie about their leader and they want to do cyber war.

Sounds like folks are agitated, but many have spoken against the Lord Jesus Christ and yes, we do get upset, but not like the world. If they were really mad, they would probably launch a nuke if they had one.

While I am on this hit parade, I might as well march.

As a street preacher myself, many have approached me and considered the use of a loud speaker to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ offensive, it’s hate language, and they desired for me to turn my speaker in another direction or cease preaching altogether.

A few persons have challenged me to get a sound permit.

Let’s look at the law on free speech and street preaching.

 

1“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” United States Constitution

2″We have the right to pass out literature, to preach, and to display signs on public areas.” Coates v. Cincinnati 402 US 61, Edwards v. S. Carolina 372 US 299, Furr v. Town of Swansea, F. Supp 1543

3“We have the right to exercise our religion and to speak in all quintessential (ideal) public forums.” Frisby v. Shultz 487 US 474, US v. Grace 461 US 171, 176

4We have a “guaranteed access” to streets, parks, and other “traditional public forum” and mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh our free speech interest.” Hague v. C.I.O. 307 US 496

5“Our freedom of speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.” Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 296, Simon & Shuster v. New York State Crime Victims Bd. 502 US 105, N.Y. Ties v. Sullivan 376 US 254

6“A city may not consider the listener’s reactions when permitting free speech activity.” Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123.

7“Hecklers do not have veto power over a speaker’s right of free speech but police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker in order to maintain order.” Cox v. Louisiana 379 US 536

8“WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD.” Saia v. New York, 334 US 1943

9″We have the right to be protected by law enforcement if the crowd is offended by what we are preaching and becomes hostile.” Hedges v W.C.U.S.D. No. 118, et al 9F, 3d 1295

10″Permits are not allowed to be used to restrict a speaker’s right of free expression and permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech.” Kunz v. New York 340 US 290

11“A free speech lawsuit is a Federal case and allows us to sue policemen and guards in their official capacity and as individuals.” Freedom Restoration Act Title 42, Section 2000aa.

12“A free speech lawsuit will subject the police and those involved to pay our damages and all of our attorney fees. 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988

13Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.

1 Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

2In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

No one has a problem when loud speakers are used when the president of the United States shows up inside or outside to be heard by the people. No one has a problem when you go to a sports arena and hear the music. No one has a problem when you stand outside and hear the music blasting from cars.

But there is a problem when a preacher with a loud speaker is on the street corner, preaching the Word of God.

Folks, you can’t have it both ways.

Every one is a sinner so there is no special class of people to discriminate against in this category. Specified sins that are preached about in the Bible is regard to sinful preferences of sinners.

You are what you do and you do what you are.

If you are an adulterer, then the Scriptures are clear. It’s not hate speech. It’s preaching the Word of God that adultery is a sin. If you are a homosexual, the the Scriptures are clear. It’s not hate speech. It’s preaching the Word of God that homosexuality is a sin.

You have the right to disagree or repent. You make the choice as to what you want to do. Neither God nor any preacher has the power to stop you from sinning against God. But you will stop sinning one day. If you repent, that’s good. If you do not repent, that’s bad.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 6:23

Now when it comes to sexual orientation (another lie of the devil and his children), sinners want a special exemption category so that they would be protected from the undeniably clear statement of the Word of God that…..

“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

And Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned —”

When it comes to “religion,” they want to be left alone too.

Especially Islam.

If you speak against Mohammad, you will be killed.

Many people use the name of the Lord is vain every day. No other name is used as a cuss word more than the Lord God, and Jesus Christ.

But look at what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 12:31-32.

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

If what is being said about a dead prophet is offensive, why not take the high road and let the dead prophet fight for himself and annihilate all who dare blaspheme him?

A friend of mine emailed to me the following….

 

Journalism dean: Free speech doesn’t protect offensive images of Mohammad via The College Fix

Free speech attorney says scholar is way off the markDeWayne Wickham, dean and distinguished professor of journalism at Morgan State University, published an editorial this week in USA Today that essentially argues free speech rights should not and do not give people the right to make fun of Mohammad.He argues that Charlie Hebedo, in its latest cartoon image of Mohammed, has “gone too far.”  The “offensive depiction of Mohammed” should not constitute free speech, the journalism professor suggested.The College Fix reached out to Wickham via email to confirm whether he was suggesting that the First Amendment does not protect insulting Mohammad. He replied that interpretation was incorrect but did not elaborate, nor respond to follow-up emails.

 

The image he referenced in his op-ed appeared on the cover of Charlie Hebedo only days after the attack on its office in Paris earlier this month, when radical Islamists killed 12 people. The image shows the prophet crying under a headline: “All is Forgiven.”Wickham suggested in his op-ed that the Charlie Hebedo cartoon is to blame for several violent riots that have occurred in the Arab world following its release. He then proceeded to call for broad limits on free speech, basing his argument in his understandings of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, writing that:

… given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo‘s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure, at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech.

In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment. …

Ari Cohn, a free speech lawyer at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told The College Fix in an email that Wickham’s analysis of free speech “misses the mark in several ways.”

“The ‘clear and present danger’ test he cites comes from an early 20th century wartime case holding that voicing opposition to conscription could be prosecuted as an attempt to obstruct the draft,” Cohn said.

Notably, Wickham also fails to mention Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the court clarified “clear and present danger” by establishing an imminent lawless action test. It set a precedent that the state cannot ban speech unless the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

Cohn said the satirical cartoonists at Charlie Hebedo “did not advocate, and could not reasonably be interpreted as advocating, for anyone to break the law. They were nothing more than social commentary.”

Wickham also references Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Supreme Court defined “fighting words,” which is a type of unprotected speech.

But characterizing the satirical cartoon of Mohammed as “fighting words” is also inaccurate, according to Cohn. He said “fighting words” are “an extremely narrow category of speech limited to abusive epithets spoken face-to-face to a particular individual, which would tend to provoke an immediate violent response.”

Wickham concluded his editorial by arguing that because the satirical cartoons incite violence in the Arab world, they push “Charlie Hebedo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.”

Using similar logic, Cohn noted, one could conclude “that the civil rights advocacy of the 1950s and 1960s was not protected by the First Amendment…This advocacy could, would, and did lead directly to violent and heinous acts of reprisal and intimidation by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other segregationists. The irony of Wickham’s article being published on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is breathtaking and inescapable.”

Cohn was particularly troubled by Wickham’s understanding of free speech and the role of the press, given his standing in academics.

“If student journalists are being taught that their First Amendment rights are or should be limited by how others might react to their work, the profession is in significant trouble,” he said.

Prior to coming to Morgan State University, Wickham was scholar-in-residence and distinguished professor of journalism at Delaware State University, distinguished visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and distinguished professor of journalism and chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at North Carolina A&T State University.

College Fix contributor Alexandra Zimmern is recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

IMAGES: Internet screenshots

Now, if you teach in the United States something that is unconstitutional, i.e. suppress free speech, perhaps you need a one way ticket to another country.

Because I am a US Navy veteran, here, in the United States, as long as this constitution is adhered to, upheld, preserved, protected, and defended with American blood, sweat, and tears, your call to suppress free speech against Islam and Mohammad falls on deaf ears.

 

%d bloggers like this: