THE EXECUTION - Oklahoma City
Timothy McVeigh was executed on Monday, June 11, 2001 more than six years after the bomb he planted in Oklahoma City killed one hundred sixty-eight people including nineteen children. I was in Oklahoma City the day before and the day of the McVeigh execution.
On June 10th I preached the two morning services at Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma. I was the guest speaker replacing the pastor, who normally takes the month of June off for personal reasons and to attend the Southern Baptist Convention. Council Road Baptist Church has a beautiful 2,300 seat auditorium. Several came to know Christ at the services that day.
Although I have been in Oklahoma City several times since the 1995 bombing, I had never been to the memorial constructed at the site of the explosion which destroyed the Murrah Federal Office Building. I have not really written about this horrible event or its consequences for several reasons, including the fact that some of my conclusions are somewhat outside the accepted norm of the media.
Let me make it clear that I view Timothy McVeigh as a mass murderer who deserved the death penalty. In fact I made this statement to a Washington Times reporter I met at the memorial site on Sunday, the day before McVeigh’s execution. I do believe that the actions of the Clinton Administration shortly after taking office, and particularly those of Janet Reno, contributed to the disaster. From the day she was sworn into office as Attorney General, Janet Reno began verbal and physical attacks on what she saw as the "violent right-wing" in America. To Reno the "violent right-wing" was any group or individual that did not agree with her feminist lesbian agenda. The result was dozens of deaths including those at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Were Janet Reno’s actions and words an excuse for the dastardly murder of innocent men and women and even children by Timothy McVeigh? Absolutely not. McVeigh only made the atrocious acts of Janet Reno palatable to the public. Had there been no bombing in Oklahoma City, I honestly believe Clinton would have been forced to dump Janet Reno and her lesbian agenda in the same way he was forced to dump his other outrageous appointment, Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, whose rhetoric outraged even those most marginal of Christians.
Why did McVeigh react to Janet Reno and her violent acts the way he did? For eight years of the Clinton Administration I and others fought this hard crusted anti-Christian demagogue of the left with words and lawsuits. Numerous Christian legal organizations filed lawsuits against her and the actions of her "Justice Department". We watched in horror at the invasion she ordered of the home of Elian Gonzales in Florida. We saw the picture of her troops pointing automatic weapons at this poor scared little boy hiding in a closet. But none of this caused me or any other member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to set off bombs or to shoot anyone. The only violent response to Janet Reno during the eight years she used the Justice Department as a shield for the illegal acts of Bill Clinton and his administration was Timothy McVeigh’s.
Oddly Timothy McVeigh and Janet Reno share much in common. Neither is a Christian and neither believes in a loving God. At most both are agnostics which I believe explains why they both resorted to violence as an end to a means. Agnostics and atheists claim they respect human life, but in the end atheistic thought is nihilistic. It equates the existence of a bird or a dog to that of a human being. It is this kind of thought that allows the radical environmentalist to burn down buildings and endanger humans to protect animals, or the Unibomber to send mail bombs to "capitalists and polluters." The thought patterns of atheists and agnostics function outside the logic that humans have immortal souls created by God and thus are special.
Both Timothy McVeigh and Janet Reno supported abortion. Both supported the death penalty. The big difference between the two came in license. Janet Reno was licensed by the government to kill people and Timothy McVeigh was not. This statement may sound odd, but it is true. Virtually every law enforcement officer in a democracy, or any other form of government for that matter, is given a license to take human life under certain circumstances. In non-democracies the license is more extensive by far. Janet Reno used her license to an extreme under our form of government.
Did she move outside her license to use deadly force at Ruby Ridge and at Waco? Should Janet Reno be charged and tried for conspiracy to commit murder? Probably. Does that fact forgive the murder of the innocent by Timothy McVeigh? No, it does not. Indeed, Timothy McVeigh’s actions short circuited the legal system and gave Janet Reno further license to commit violent and illegal acts while she was in office. Timothy McVeigh was no hero of conservatives. He was no hero of the American people. He was no hero at all; he was simply a murderer who did not even have the courage to directly fight his alleged enemy so he murdered children instead.
Unfortunately, to some McVeigh will be a hero. Internet sites will be dedicated to him and he and his agnostic/atheistic diatribe will be worshipped by a fringe movement. He could even inspire further acts of violence even after his death.
The overwhelming majority of those killed by Timothy McVeigh were Christians. The memorial as it stands today enshrines the faith of many of those who died. Their Bibles, crucifixes and simple gold and silver crosses sit under glass with their pictures. The descriptions of the lives of most of the victims include churches where they were members. The majority of those who died were conservative Christians. Most who died were probably Republicans. Most who died were those whom Timothy McVeigh claimed to represent when he acted out by murdering them.
God gives us the right to overthrow an unjust ruler. The American Revolution was ordained by God to set men free and create a beacon of democracy and right in the world. Has that beacon been tarnished? Yes. Has it been tarnished to the point that it should be destroyed through acts of violence? No.
Our system may not work as well as it should, but it still works. I am a part of that system. Each week when Congress is in session I work with congressmen and Senators to change what is wrong with the system and to defend the rights and beliefs of Christians in a society that is becoming ever more secular. This becomes more difficult for me and those like me as the Christian minorities in the United States grow smaller year by year. It becomes harder to work for social conservatism when fewer and fewer pastors will speak out for what is right and what is Biblical. But that is not an excuse for violence in this era. Could a time come when the repression of America's Christian minorities would justify armed defense of the faith? Yes, but that time is not yet at hand. Even if that time were to come, armed resistance could never be defined as the murder of the innocent as was done by Timothy McVeigh.
THE ACLU AND THE MEMORIAL
As I walked through the memorial museum to the Oklahoma City bombing I was struck by the number of Christian hymns coming over the loud speakers in the various rooms and chambers as I walked through. In one area, parts of a sermon by Billy Graham can be heard. In other areas How Great Thou Art plays in the background. Bibles of victims and testimonies to their faith in Christ are everywhere. Why hasn’t the ACLU stepped forward to stop the obvious violation of "separation of church and state"?
Elsewhere, the ACLU has filed lawsuits to have memorials to soldiers lost in World War I and World War II torn down or moved. Because of an ACLU lawsuit, one memorial to the war dead was ordered removed from a federal park because it was shaped like a cross and had the names of the soldiers on it.
The ACLU has not filed suit against the Oklahoma City bombing memorial simply because the wounds left behind on the survivors and the relatives of the victims are too fresh. The ACLU big wigs know that an anti-Christian assault on this memorial for now is out of the question. Cut this article out and stick it in the back of your Bible. In ten or twenty years, read it again. By then the ACLU will have decided to move to attack any reference to Christ or the church at the memorial. One or more lawsuits will be pending or will have been won. Remaining relatives of the dead will be forced to take back artifacts of the victims that were religious, and their biographies will be ordered changed to remove references to their churches or to Christ. The ACLU wants the total secularization of America, and its leaders will push until churches are forced to remove any crosses that can be seen from public property. The ACLU is the earthly representative of the anti-Christ.
THE GOOD NEWS
On June 11, 2001 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing a Christian club to use public school facilities after school hours. Although this was a major win for Christians seeking religious freedom, the decision was actually secular in nature. The Good News Club of Milford, New York had been denied access to the public school buildings of that city because of its religious nature. The Milford Central School District had in no way disguised its discrimination against the Christian Club. The school district allowed the use of the facilities to the Boy Scouts, 4-H Club and numerous other groups, but had specifically denied building use by religious groups such as the Good News Club.
Justice Clarence Thomas summed up the decision of the Court, "When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school’s limited public forum on the grounds that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment."
The Good News Club in its official application to the school district had requested use of the facility for, "...a fun time of singing songs, hearing Bible lessons and memorizing Scripture."
The school district then specifically denied the application on religious grounds stating that the purpose of the group was not "secular" in nature.
Liberal groups who clamour for the "rights" of those who want to display pornography and distribute homosexual literature in the schools found the Supreme Court decision appalling. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and States is no fan of free speech when it comes to religion. He stated, "This is not an appropriate use of public school facilities."
The reality, however, is that the Supreme Court decision was not pro-religion in any sense. The decision of the Court did not even entertain the question of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. The decision was based entirely on the "free speech" clause. Neither the federal nor a local government can legislate the content of speech. If the school building is to be made available to any group, it must be available all groups. If the school district so desires, they can refuse the use of the building to all private groups. The school district does not, however, get to pick and choose which groups it will allow to use the facilities.
THE BAD NEWS
Stung by the Supreme Court decision to allow the Good News Club to use its facilities, the Milford School District has come up with yet another unconstitutional plan to block the club. Officials of the Milford Central School District are weighing the option of denying the use of any building until 6:00 PM in the evening. The Good News Club nationwide uses school facilities just after the end of the school day. This is done because it would be inconvenient for children to return to the building later in the day.
School district officials are to meet later this month to discuss new rules to bar the club. They have even stated that they may go so far as to deny the use of facilities to all groups rather than allow a Christian group to use them.
"Intent" is of extreme importance when passing legislation for administrative rules. The school district has now placed itself in a difficult position. If they set the time for all groups to use facilities late in the day, it can be easily proven that the "intent" was to bar the Good News Club since they have publicly stated this in advance. The Supreme Court would indeed find these administrative rules unconstitutional as well. The only real options left to the school district are to either allow the Good News Club to utilize the school facilities or to deny their use to all.
NO NEWS AT ALL
The Mission Viejo School District in California has banned all extracurricular clubs rather than allow Christian clubs to meet on school property.
About six years ago the Fellowship of Christian Athletes requested permission to form a club and use facilities after school, just like every other club. The school district said no, claiming that the club was not "relevant to curriculum". The board did allow such clubs as the Girls’ League and the Multicultural Club.
School District Superintendent Bill Manahan said, "Either you allow both of them (secular and Christian) or none of them to meet. And we have chosen none of them will meet."
When parents complained about the non-Christian service clubs being banned, they were told by one school board member, "Blame the Christians".
There is a general anti-Christian campaign swelling out of California toward the nation. It is fueled by money from the Hollywood perverts and assisted by national media dominated by homosexuals and feminists.
Recent polls showing that the Christian population in the United States now stands at under 50% are giving the secularists new hope that they can force Christians out of the public view within the next decade. Need proof? This is not the first school district to ban all clubs in order to get rid of Christian clubs.
I have been working diligently on Capitol Hill to pass the Faith-based Initiative proposed by President Bush. As a result of our efforts Senator Charles Schumer has sent a letter to his New York constituents stating that he will back the Faith-Based Initiative. In the last William J. Murray Report the visit to his office by over one hundred inner city pastors was detailed. That visit made a difference.
But, the Initiative has problems within the conservative community. Very large organizations including Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council have not formally endorsed the Initiative for fear Congress may change the President’s plan and allow government to dictate to religious providers. They fear, for example, that in a Christian drug rehabilitation program a participate could have an "opt out" provision to allow him to refuse to pray. There will be no "opt out" but rather a "trap door". If a participant receiving a government voucher does not want to pray as part of the rehab program they can leave and go to a secular program. No one individual can demand changes in the program of a Faith-Based provider.
As a result of the confusion over details of the programs, Majority Whip Tom DeLay announced that the President's program will be delayed onto the floor until at least after the July 4th recess.
CLONING IS FOR REAL
As I travel throughout the United States I talk to many people, including pastors, who believe cloning humans is still part of science fiction or that it will only happen far in the future. This is not so. Human beings are being cloned today.
The human clones are not grown into adulthood, but rather the clones are used for experimentation while they are still in the embryonic stage. After the cloned babies are allowed to grow for a few days, they are killed and "stem" cells are harvested from them. It is the hope of researchers that they will be able to use these stem cells to cure various diseases. There are many Christians, even pastors, who seem to have no problem with babies being created for the purpose of murdering them for their parts. Many of those who support this procedure have horrible diseases. They are willing to take the lives of innocents in the hope of a cure for themselves.
I believe creating human life for the purpose of experimentation and destruction is wrong. Most Democrats and a few Republicans disagree with me. Pro-abortion Republican Congressman Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania says he is against cloning, but the bill be proposes to "outlaw" cloning allows what I have described above. His bill prohibits growing the clone to birth, but allows for creation, experimentation and destruction.
Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida is a medical doctor. He proposes a cloning bill (H.R. 1644) that would outlaw all cloning of humans in the United States including those created for experimentation. Dr. Weldon and I concur that it is just plain wrong for one human being to create another human life for the sole purpose of destroying the new life for parts. Surely true Christians would rather go on to eternity with Jesus than to live a few more years here knowing their life was extended by the destruction of another human.