By Attorney Constance Cumbey
May 13, 2011NewsWithViews.com
May 13, 2011NewsWithViews.com
Newt Gingrich has just announced he plans to run for President in 2012. And a whole bunch of undiscerning “Conservatives” and “Christians” might just well back him. The entire affair will be to the utter delight of New Age strategists and global planners who well consider Newt Gingrich an indispensable part of their apparatus.
Recently resigned State Department official Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter believes that the “New World Order” of which she is an unashamed proponent is already well in place. It is a network of networks, per Slaughter. It is composed of equivalent globalized governmental layers from all levels of government from the executive to the legislative and judiciary and down through various levels of bureaucracies including regulatory commissions sharing information and planning “model legislation” together. All levels also interact with “Non-governmental organizations” (NGO’s). Business is tied together by “The UN Global Compact.” Perhaps nobly, more aptly scarily is this obviously global fascistic goal as stated by former UN General Kofi Annan, of “shared values and principles, which give a human face to the global market.” (emphasis added). All corporate participants are expected to pledge allegiance to the principles of “diversity” and “fighting climate change” (defined at least at present as “global warming.)
Query: What “shared values”? What “shared principles”? Also, the “banking crisis” artificially generated or otherwise, has led to calls for “a new financial architecture for the 21st Century. (Slaughter, A NEW WORLD ORDER, p. 20).
Now, just how does NEWT GINGRICH, fit into the increasing momentum of the global governance agenda? He was, bluntly, an “early adopter.” In 1996 before he left Congress in scandal, he was putting together incredibly linked global governance networks. According to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s 2004 Princeton University Press book, A NEW WORLD ORDER:
“When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he was convinced that parliamentary networks would give domestic legislators a new role in foreign policy. In 1996 he sent a letter to his Russian counterpart, Gennadyy Seleznyov, to create a forum made up of members of U.S. and Russian legislatures to discuss issues of defense, foreign policy, energy, and the environment on a regular basis. The result was the U.S. Congress-Russian Duma Study Group.”
Newt Gingrich did this at the “legislative level.” His very good friend and New Age buddy, Al Gore, did likewise at the executive level. According to Anne-Slaughter, “The [Gore’s]commission created a special channel to advance not only common political objectives but also to enhance each politician’s political position at home.” (emphasis added) (Slaughter, A NEW WORLD ORDER, p. 114)
Wading deeper and deeper into global government (ooops, governance) territories, Newt Gingrich created “the Twenty-First Century International Legislators Network.” This, per Slaughter, he “launched in 1996.” It was “sponsored” by the U.S. Congressional Institute. This was to be “a global web of legislators.”
If Gingrich were talking, which he undoubtedly non-stop is, he would probably say it was “to strengthen democracy around the world.” Knowing the New Age agenda as I do, I would say that was neither probable nor possible. Considering that one of Newt Gingrich’s more recent books is entitled A CONTRACT WITH THE EARTH, Earth Charter ramifications are abundantly clear.
I opened my personal file on Newt Gingrich in 1982 after reading articles about him in Marilyn Ferguson’s LEADING EDGE BULLETIN. She wrote of the brave Georgian Congressman, Newt Gingrich, who was working so hard to advance the New Age agenda. I continued to follow his exploits through his insensitive serving of divorce papers on his first wife Jackie as she was recovering from cancer surgery; his remarriage to his aide Marianne; his affair while married to Marianne to the woman now his wife. In 1989, I was contacted by one of his former aides and campaign managers, a man known as “Chip.” This was the same close observer and former aide quoted in the press as saying that no matter how much good he did for the world, he could never do enough good to offset the evil he had caused by supporting Newt Gingrich’s original election campaign. The “Christian” Gingrich wrote Chip that his daily practice of Taoism helped him make his daily decisions in Congress.
"[Newt] Gingrich's influence in the third way movement [has] brought on kudos from the likes of New Age 'philosopher' Mark Satin [who has] identified Gingrich as a top 'decentralist / globally responsible' [thinker]. An interesting paradox, that fits the odd decentralism of the Third Way. . . . Beyond that, Mr. Satin . . . is not the kind of man you expect to be praising [Gingrich]." -- Steve Farrell & Diane Alden, "Third Way Contract," Independent American Party [website], c. January 2005”
Newt Gingrich wrote in many of his official bio’s for conservative causes that he taught history. In actuality, it was in the New Age full employment program of “Environmental Studies.” In the mid 1980s, Mark Satin, author of NEW AGE POLITICS and NEW OPTIONS newsletter gave “Internationalist” rankings for Congressmen. Heading the list with the best “internationalist” voting records in Congress were Newt Gingrich and Marcy Kaptur, a Congresswoman from Toledo, Ohio.
An interesting analysis of Newt Gingrich appeared in a 1986 edition of the Los Angeles Times. It noted how he was most likely a left leaner, but learned that the right got the votes. Ergo, he suddenly veered course to the right. That analysis troubles me more than the Alvin Toffler, Heidi Toffler, Environmental Studies analyses which are a red flag of New Age danger in and of themselves.. It suggests a man who is more amoral than immoral. Such a person to my way of thinking is most dangerous of all – he does nothing from conviction or reason, but does all from a analysis of personal advantage.
Another astute Gingrich observer was writer Steve Farrell. You can read his 2001 analysis by clicking the link here. Excerpting in part, we read:
On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both Houses, his coming coronation as Speaker of the House, and his annointing as King of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich couldn't resist exploiting the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in. . . . "The core of our Contract," and the solution for those "trying to figure out how to put me in a box," he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Third Way;" to which he added: "I am a conservative futurist ." (1) . . .
Futurism, as already alluded to, is one and the same with the Third Way or Third Wave, but for brevity sake, Webster's Dictionary gives us another take on this subject. . . .
"Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events." (2)
Or in other words, a head in the clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure those theories and forecasts come to past.
It would not be a stretch to call it communism with economic vision, for that is what the futurists of the Third Way call it. But, what then, is a conservative futurist? If we believe Newt Gingrich, it is in person, a post 1994 Republican. And it is in policy, the Contract With America, the go along, get along policies of a party who for the next six year "caved" under Clinton, and the faith-based subsidies, public private partnership, fast track hopes, and bipartisan spirit of today’s Compassionate Conservativism movement - the latter of which had its start in the legislation and underlying principles of that same Gingrich Contract...”
Perhaps Newt Gingrich is not a New Ager, but saw political advantage at the time as portraying himself in certain circles as one. As dangerous as an ideologue of any strip potentially is, I would prefer one to a self-centered narcissist. Perhaps an ideologue could be converted. A narcissist could only be reinforced. While we are all sinners in need of saving by Grace, I fear we have somebody in public life who lacks both conviction and shame.
May the Lord help us all!Germany once put somebody in office that bragged that if one repeated a lie often enough and loud enough, people would believe it. Too many people do. I fear that the USA may well be on the verge of doing the same vis a vis Newt Gingrich. As far as the Christians not seeing through Newt Gingrich, this is what I have to say to them. “If you couldn’t see through Rev. Moon (“Lord of the Second Advent) and you couldn’t see through Paul N. Temple (Institute of Noetic Sciences co-founder active with the Prayer Breakfast Network of Douglas Coe), then I can hardly expect you to see through Newt Gingrich!
© 2011 - Constance Cumbey - All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Constance Cumbey is an active Michigan lawyer. Constance practices her profession primarily in, Southeastern Michigan, USA. Sometimes she also works in what she calls her "old stomping grounds" of Michigan's State Capital, Lansing, Michigan where she practices administrative, state law related matters. She's enjoyed active and stimulating careers in government, politics, law and as a published and translated author. In the past she served as a national officer of the National Association of Women Lawyers and chaired the Family Law subcommittee of the General Practice Section of the American Bar Association.
Before beginning her legal career, she worked as a legislative analyst for the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, and while in law school as a consultant to the Appropriations Committee of the Michigan State Senate. She also served as the first charter position Executive Assistant to the May or of the Detroit enclave City of Highland Park, Michigan. Seven years into her legal career, she went on to become the author of the first major critical book about the New Age Movement, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism (1983); A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah (1986). Currently, she's completing a volume about Javier Solana, the Barcelona Process, Israel and the European Union.
E-mail: cumbey@gmail.com
Blog Spot: www.cumbey.blogspot.com
248-253-0333
238 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 238 of 238Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition) says that one is civil who shows "high-minded and self-sacrificing behavior."
One is civil who shows "courteous attentiveness, especially to women."
Now apply the civil behaviour to the sexual act.
The modern equality of the sexes, has forgotten that men and women are different.
It seeks to make them same under the guise of making them equal.
In Orthodox Judaism, Sex for selfish personal satisfaction, without regard for the partner's pleasure, is wrong and evil.
Sex is the woman's right, not the man's.
http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm
Hence, this a part of Jewish tradition.
I am not saying that a woman should therefore deprive her husband of sex, but that your argument that it's unrealistic is not alien to Jewish tradition.
I wrote: "Augustine would have a man during the act of conjugal love think to himself: "If I next make THAT movement, is it justified in the amount of pleasure it will bring to my wife relative to the amount of pleasure it will bring me?" That is unrealistic, and unintended by God."
You replied: "The point is that even today, men generally place their pleasure above that of women. Since they achieve orgasm faster than women, they don't always take the women's needs into consideration."
Are you saying that husbands should consciously ponder their bodily movements while making love? It follows from your words, but it is an absurd notion. God designed the act of sex so that normal bodily movements during the conjugal act bring pleasure to both partners. So unless one of them happens to be a pervert then married couples should simply relax and enjoy it without worrying about the hangups of some philosopher 1600 years ago.
You wrote: "Also why single out Augustine, when the early church before him and the Eastern Fathers held the same views?"
I singled him out, way back up this thread, simply because he was the most influential theologian in importing ideas from the Greek worldview into the originally Hebraic worldview of the church. Your comment actually demonstrates what I was originally saying, that most of the Fathers were Greek-minded.
Here is an English translation of Augustine's Against Julian, from book 3, chapter 21, subsection 43. In it he is commending "conjugal chastity" as against "carnal concupiscence", both within the context of marriage.
"If this conjugal chastity possesses such great power and is so great gift from God that it does what the matrimonial code prescribes, it combats in even more valiant fashion in regard to the act of conjugal union, lest there be indulgence beyond what suffices for the generating of offspring. Such chastity abstains during menstruation and pregnancy, nor has it union with one no longer able to conceive on account of age..."
Despite the last sentence in this quote some Anons persist in claiming that the 'context' of Augustines's words mean that he regards as acceptable marital sex when the woman is pregnant or beyond childbearing age.
The meaning of the words is unambiguous. The only way in which context might suggest a different conclusion is if Augustine is talking only about a subset of married couples, so that his words do not apply to other married couples. Read the entire work from which this quote comes and you find that is not the case.
So Augustine is indeed against marital sex beyond childbearing years - and is taking away a legitimate pleasure from such couples granted in the purpose of marriage in Genesis 2 (just as I claimed).
Anon@8:57 a.m.
"Are you saying that husbands should consciously ponder their bodily movements while making love?"
No, I am not, neither is Augustine. He's simply saying, that each spouse should take the needs of the other into consideration too, which is not too different from what you said.
As for being Greek-minded, perhaps you should read the fathers in context. A good place to start is Calvin College. It's Protestant, but totally un-biased.
"The only way in which context might suggest a different conclusion is if Augustine is talking only about a subset of married couples, so that his words do not apply to other married couples."
The context is that of lust vs. love in a marriage. Augustine argues that only if one's intentions are based on lust, then it is better for one to abstain, since chastity would abstain, even when it's permissible to have sex at certain times.
The whole passage highlights the struggle between love and lust.
I think you still don't understand the difference between erotic love and lust in the Christian context.
"So Augustine is indeed against marital sex beyond childbearing years - and is taking away a legitimate pleasure from such couples granted in the purpose of marriage in Genesis 2 (just as I claimed)."
Augustine is against lust not erotic love.
On Christian Doctrine Augustine contrasts love and lust:
"By love I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy God on his own account and to enjoy oneself and one's neighbour on account of God, and by lust I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy oneself and one's neighbour and any corporeal thing not on account of God."
In other words when eroticism is divorced from the love of God, it can turn into lust.
google
"Augustine is against lust not erotic love."
But he equates sex during pregnancy and after menopause with lust, which is why he says it is offlimits. I say it isn't and it isn't. And what precisely does he mean by lust during the act of intercourse? Tell me exactly what he reckons a man should not do or think during the act please.
"As for being Greek-minded, perhaps you should read the fathers in context."
In what context? Patristical tradition? That is tautologous. The Old Testament? that is more like it - and it is Hebraic not Greek
"But he equates sex during pregnancy and after menopause with lust, which is why he says it is off limits."
It's the intention of the heart that he focuses on here.
"And what precisely does he mean by lust during the act of intercourse? Tell me exactly what he reckons a man should not do or think during the act please."
Consider this, you can ever think of love-making as participating in the union of Christ and the Church, or you think of it as something you read on Playboy.
Which is healthier for a Christian marriage?
"In what context? Patristical tradition?"
In the context of the link between marital intercourse as a participation in the love of God.
St. Augustine wrote, “Like a bridegroom Christ went forth from his chamber.... He came to the marriage-bed of the cross, and there in mounting it, he consummated his marriage. And when he perceived the sighs of the creature, he lovingly gave himself up to the torment in place of his bride, and joined himself to [her] forever” (On the Good of Marriage).
Saint Mechtilde, a German mystic of the 13th century, echoed the same idea when he wrote that Christ’s “noble nuptial bed was the very hard wood of the Cross on which he leaped with more joy and ardor then a delighted bridegroom” (cited by Blaise Arminjon in The Cantata of Love)
In other words sexual desire linked to the love of God, can help us love like God loves.
The opposite is also true.
google
Here's a question for those who maintain that St Augustine believed it was OK for a married couple to have sex when the woman awas pregnant or beyond childbearing age:
If St A was merely arguing against lust during marital sex, why did he specifically refer to the situation when the wife was pregnant or post-menopausal (see quotes from his "Against Julian" on this thread?
Anon@2.16pm,
You quote Augustine as saying: ""By love I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy God on his own account and to enjoy oneself and one's neighbour on account of God, and by lust I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy oneself and one's neighbour and any corporeal thing not on account of God."
So it is sin if a man is not thinking of God while making love to his wife?
Would you rather that a Christian dentist concentrated on his drill in your mouth or on God while you were in his chair?
Sometimes the right thing to do is proceed with what you are doing and thank God afterwards.
Right now I'm unable to get options to view the comments above no. 200 (blogspot partitions comments every 200). The only way I can do this is to post something; then when I get to see it immeidately after posting I can see the "above 200" comments. This has not been the case before and it is why I have posted a couple of 1-worders for which I apologise. Anybody else having this trouble?
"If St A was merely arguing against lust during marital sex, why did he specifically refer to the situation when the wife was pregnant or post-menopausal (see quotes from his "Against Julian" on this thread?"
He said, it was only if these things flowed from lust, he argued that chastity would abstain.
It was a response to the Pelagian claim that there can be no sexual selfishness.
"So it is sin if a man is not thinking of God while making love to his wife?"
I never said, that.
It's like the closer a couple gets to God, the closer they get to each other.
They begin to understand the spousal meanings of the human body.
To understand that they are participating in the supernatural union of Christ and the Church.
This also comes through a change of heart through God's grace received in prayer.
If you are struggling with understanding this I would recommend reading the "Theology of Body"
God Bless.
Also sexual desire linked to the love of God pours out in a marriage through fidelity, permanence, love in sickness and in health.
It ceases to be just a set of rules, but a real encounter with the living God.
Goooogle
Anon@4.53pm,
I HAVE read JP2's "Theology of the Body". It read far more like (Greek) philosophy than (Hebraically inspired) theology, which is what I was complaining about many posts ago. But I don't wish to divert into a discussion of this book.
I wrote: "If St A was merely arguing against lust during marital sex, why did he specifically refer to the situation when the wife was pregnant or post-menopausal (see quotes from his "Against Julian" on this thread?"
You replied: "He said, it was only if these things flowed from lust, he argued that chastity would abstain."
That would be an argument which applies to all marital sexual relations, regardless of whether the woman is known to be fertile or not. So why (if not to condemn all sex in such cases) does he bother to refer to situations when the couple know that the woman is infertile?
Gooooooogle
I disagree with your assertion that Theology of the Body is Greek.
"That would be an argument which applies to all marital sexual relations, regardless of whether the woman is known to be fertile or not. So why (if not to condemn all sex in such cases) does he bother to refer to situations when the couple know that the woman is infertile?"
The context here is his response to Pelagian arguments that there can be no sexual selfishness or lust in a marriage.
If you read Augustine's other writings, he does condemn all sex in such cases, but then goes on to say, it is still forgivable since the couple is married.
Augustine is contrasting two experiences of sex, before and after the fall.
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve's mind and will could decide when to have sexual relations, based on self-giivng love. There was no selfishness driving their actions.
After the fall, sexual experience breaks away from this order.
Chastity therefore seeks to restore the original order, where sexual desire is not divorced from love, and is not just based on an instinct to act on.
We find this in the OT when the prophets had many wives. Do you think it was possible for them to give their wives the same love and attention?
Jesus, told us that this was permitted because of the hardness of man's heart, but it was not so from the beginning.
google :-)
Anon@3:41 p.m.
I did google it. Read the introduction on the contents section to Book 3. You will find that my analysis is correct.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=lxED1d6DAXoC&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=augustine+against+julian+book+3&source=bl&ots=K9hXYywUuj&sig=0sMYdJEL6IbNfUbF6XLa-XJPtxU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=caopT7mTIcPg0QG_iJTNAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=augustine%20against%20julian%20book%203&f=false
Wooooooh!
"If you read Augustine's other writings, he does condemn all sex in such cases [when the wife is obviously infertile], but then goes on to say, it is still forgivable since the couple is married."
At last! You accept he does condemn marital sexual activity when the woman is pregnant or post-menopausal. Do you think that God takes the same view (ref Gen 2 and 1 Cor 7)?
I think that people are posting 1-worders here in order to access the thread above post no.200. Something has gone wrong with blogspot.
PS Nobody ever suggested that sex was the unforgivable sin...
Anon@4:09 a.m.
Augustine says this within the context of sex based on lustful reasons. He says, it's still permissible because a couple is married. He just does not think it's ideal.
So we don't agree once again.
You keep making Augustine say, what you want him to say, regardless of the context.
"You accept he does condemn marital sexual activity when the woman is pregnant or post-menopausal."
He argues only if it flows form lust.
We discussed this before.
Google :-)
Goooooooogle
I don't know how many Anons I am contending with here, but one at least has conceded that Augustine *does* blanket-condemn marital sex after menopause. This Anon has, however, ducked my next question as to whether this conclusion is at variance with Genesis 2; also, do you think that a post-menopausal single woman, such as a 50-year-old widow, should not marry?
Those who have not conceded the point have failed to answer the question: "If Augustine is merely condemning marital lust in general, why does he bother to single out post-menopausal and pregnant wives?"
If this were a private conversation I would have dropped the subject a long time ago, but Constance's readers deserve to see who can and cannot answer whose questions.
Woooooooogle
google :-)
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE
google :-)
GGGGooooogle
playing catch and the nonsense equations to sex (and the supposed differences between the sexes are variable per century and culture and are non in any way deduceable from anything in the Bible, and the whole woman orients to please man is a CURSE in Genesis 3 not the original pattern, he rules by her default and the sexual revolution makes a mess of both, and male chastity is emphasized in Scripture)
are irrelevant and inappropriate to double procession.
Double procession is what the filioque teaches, and any effort to correct the problem is just playing catchup.
As St. Photios the Great said, to say that you don't mean or forbid this stuff that the filioque can lead to only MITIGATES the damage, it does not ELIMINATE the problem.
Take the sexual love or family and reproductive analogies far enough to support the filioque and you have a rationale for homosexuality even incest.
This is totally disgusting to me.
As for how a man gives, what he gives to other men is not the same he should be giving to his wife anyway. And men are conditioned away from love most of their lives.
The effort to evade the heresies of double procession and what they can lead to, merely highlight the reality of the problem.
If you don't MEAN double procession then DON'T SAY THE FILIOQUE. Simple as that. The rest of the Creed needs no special analysis to keep it clean of error, why include something that is not stated in Scripture, and that DOES need special explanation to keep it clean of problems?
All your explanations confuse ORIGIN with ACTION. Situations in eternity with situations in time and situations in the whole of Creation with situations in The Church.
Anyone converting to Orthodoxy from any protestant category has to repudiate the filioque, which by the time I approached the Orthodox Church to convert I had no trouble doing, because I had already studied and understood how wrong the filioque is.
Why should it be any different for the RC? they must forego their "doctrinal developments" to rejoin the original church from which they went into schism when they did an illegitimate (even by RC canon law) excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Period.
Google :-)
Nice blog. I will keep reading. Please take the time to visit my blog about Bikram Yoga.
Post a Comment