The Myth of Tolerance; or A Nation of Children

When was the last time you heard anyone on TV hollering about “tolerance”?  You do not hear many calls for “tolerance” for this sort of person or that sort of person anymore, do you?  To the contrary, the 1990s and early 2000s are over and there is a new political narrative in this country to talk about.  Let’s go over some events of the past twelve months:

1) December 2013: Duck Dynasty Controversy (with commentary)

2) April 2014: Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire | Reuters

Someone from the SFist blog reported on the matter at http://sfist.com/2014/04/03/mozillas_anti-gay_ceo_brendan_eich.php partly as follows:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla's anti-gay CEO, made the right decision to step down today. He will resign as CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation as well as a board member of the nonprofit Mozilla foundation.

A comment on this last piece: undoubtedly its author, Brock Keeling, has the well-being of Mozilla in mind when he speaks of the “right decision.”  OkCupid’s opposition to Mozilla’s erswhile CEO obviously would have led to job layoffs at Mozilla and in turn led to a condition of hundreds of miserable, starving children of unemployed former employees of Mozilla if Brendan Eich had not stepped down.

3) April 2014: Magic Johnson on Donald Sterling: "He Shouldn't Have a Team Anymore" | Mother Jones:

“There’s no place in our society for it, and there’s no place in our league. We all get along. We all play with different races of people when you're in sports. That's what makes sports so beautiful. He’s put his own team in a tough situation. So I believe that once Commissioner Silver...does all his due diligence, gets all the information gathered, he’s got to come down hard. He shouldn’t own a team anymore. And he should stand up and say, ‘I don’t want to own a team anymore.’ Especially when you have African Americans renting his apartments, coming to the games, playing for him, coaching for him. This is bad for everybody. This is bad for America.

(...)

He's got to give up the team. If he doesn't like African Americans and you're in a league that is over 75% African Americans...When you've got the president of the United States saying that this is bad. You've got fans around the country—different races of people—saying it's bad, it is time for him to exit.”

“No place in our society”?  Even if your White next-door neighbor and his wife have regular, private discussions among themselves about how they think your new Black neighbors down the street have brought down property values in your neighborhood, how is that per se affecting (to say nothing of harming) Magic Johnson or any other Black person?  Meanwhile, Sterling is right about one thing in life: government has no legal right (except in extraordinary circumstances) to force anyone to sell his or her property.  Contrary to Magic Johnson’s assessment of the matter, Sterling does not have to give up anything, unless “got to give up the team” means I want Donald Sterling to give up the team.

4) May 2014: More recently the news broke concerning HGTV’s decision to render the Benham Brothers relatively jobless: CP | Believers Rally After HGTV Cancels Reality Show Starring Christian Twin Brothers Who Oppose Abortion, Homosexuality, Divorce.  This continuation of a trend, as it turns out, was only the first chapter of a larger story: SunTrust Banks recently broke financial ties with the Benham brothers, before quickly reversing their decision in a manner much like that of the Duck Dynasty incident:  CP | SunTrust Banks Reverses Decision to Drop Benham Brothers Following Strong Backlash From Conservative Customers.

5) May 2014: This last one dawned on me after Thursday, May 15 when for various reasons I had to sit and endure the audio of the Katie Couric Show.  “The Week That Was” was a guest-panel segment that ran on Thursday instead of Friday this time around, and one of the life lessons to be learned of the segment is that “sensitivity training” for Don Jones is a good thing: Michael Sam Kiss Cam & Donald Sterling Controversy – Katie Couric.  The background story is here: Miami Dolphins Fine, Suspend Safety Don Jones for Tweet Against Same-Sex Kiss | Christian News Network.

Never forget that training and education are two different things.  Training is what you do to your muscles and muscle groups.  Training is what you do to ensure that your brain recalls certain actions in a proper sequence.  Training is what you do to force certain results of different systems of the human body.  Education, on the other hand, is what you offer to intelligent beings such that they should make an informed decision on what course of action to take, whether right or wrong.  So if anyone thinks that “brainwashing” is a bad thing, then he should know that sensitivity training is no different and know that there are people in the Western World who approve of brainwashing.

---

Even before all this there was the whole matter of the Chick-Fil-A boycott of 2012, not to mention the continued trend of pseudo-obligatory apologies in national American politics.  What all of this suggests is the sum of two possibilities.  On the one hand, it could be that all the people who rhetorically and by propaganda used to beat people over the head to make them “tolerant” of Arabs, or non-Whites, or homosexuals as such were never interested in global tolerance but only particular tolerance--you know, the kind of Tolerance® that they want people to have or, in other words, tolerance for me but not for thee.  On the other hand, it could be that many of today’s liberals are simply hypocrites or children who forget that tolerance in general means exactly that: that people who believe in general tolerance are not exempt from the requirement to put up with people, deeds and beliefs that they do not like.

And let no one attempt to redefine what these people earlier meant in the use of the word “tolerance.”  For it is clear that in yesteryear “tolerance” meant more than simply restraining an urge to beat gay passers-by with baseball bat, but rather precluded various actions such as demands that certain people be punished with a lack of employment.  Despite whatever the word “tolerance” once meant from the mouths of liberals and the Gay Lobby, what it is now is something that should be considered in the light of both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.  Orwell’s cautionary tales were not written for people who live on a planet other than Earth and they were not written precisely for people who already exist within a societies like communist Cuba or the Soviet Union; they were written because of the innate ability within each of us to morph into that which we used to hate and abhor.

Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

Re: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online

For anyone who missed this clever post from Joe Dallas: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online.

Citation corrections are provided over at Triablogue: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesuss-teachings-on-marriage-in-light.html.

Another reason that we lose

Originally I was wanting to post something entirely different yet related to the Southern Baptist Convention just the same.  Chores and fatigue have prevented this for a long time now, but I will make an effort to say the following, however: Christians and social conservatives are not that bright.

We’re not that bright: first in terms of intellect, but now also in terms of positive cultural influence à la Matthew 5.13-16.  The Southern Baptist Convention in 1997 showed that it had heart when it began to fight the Disney empire and just as other Christians began to come up with every conceivable lame “excuse” for supporting the SBC’s boycott of things Disney.  This time around, on the other hand, the same organization which once was capable of noble action against social evils has shown that whatever wisdom it once had may have gone out the door in the natural flow of organizations’ shedding and gaining parts as members join, step down, die, become senile, etc.

From Southern Baptists condemn Boy Scouts over admission of gays | Fox News (06/12/2013):

HOUSTON –  The nation's largest Protestant denomination stopped short of calling for its member churches to boycott the Boy Scouts, but voiced strong opposition to acceptance of gay scouts - with a top church leader predicting at the annual gathering of Southern Baptists that a "mass exodus" of youths from the program that has been a rite of passage for more than a century.

The move by the Southern Baptist Convention came at its annual, four-day meeting in Houston, and three weeks after the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow gay youth to join.  With more than two-thirds of Boy Scout troops sponsored by religious organizations, and Baptists being the nation's largest protestant denomination, the resolution could have a crippling effect on the Boy Scouts.

"There will be a mass exodus over time," said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “Churches are finally going to have to come to realize – there is a point when you say, ‘sorry, no more.’"

Let us juxtapose this with the following snippet from Baptist Press - Page, Land send letters opposing Scout proposal - News with a Christian Perspective posted on 05/17/2013:

"For over a century," Page wrote, "Scouting has helped our youth develop character and leadership skills forever impacting their lives. I am distressed by the recent proposed resolution which would introduce the subject of sex and sexual orientation into the program of the Boy Scouts. For one hundred and three years Scouting has been a safe haven from such topics rightfully reserved for parents. Such an introduction is inconsistent with the principles found in Scouting's sacred Oath and Law."

For starters, if you decimate the Boy Scouts by keeping your children out of it, you have now taken away the said means of developing character and leadership skills in the youth.

Secondly, a person who is openly gay need only be someone who is being honest about what feelings or attractions he has; it is hardly as if everyone who is a homosexual is someone who wears his “identity” on his sleeve or goes about broadcasting his sexual orientation to everyone around him.  Someone who is merely being honest their particular mental disorder--and yes, I will call it that--is not someone who categorically should be denied the opportunity to have character and leadership skills instilled within him.

Thirdly, the “safe haven” objection seems perfectly naive in considering what amount of the U.S. population is homosexual, how many members of that subpopulation would be interested in joining the Boy Scouts, and how many youngers already know that homosexuality exists.  Homosexuality is mentioned time and again in your copy of the Bible, you know.

Fourthly, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Attempts at Christian isolation from the culture tend to create cultural ghettoes, something well-exemplified by CCM, where the only reason untalented people are getting record contracts is to fill a void in a niche market, or Christian cinema where half the movies of that genre would probably end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 if that show were still on the air.  Sorry, but Christians do not in every instance have all the talent, money and resources necessary to put together a grade A organization or product; attempt a Boy Scouts of America alternative if you must, but please do not bother if only a few people will invest in such a project.

But again, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Do the Scriptures not have something to say about believers’ being “salt and light”?  And do the Scriptures not have something to say about winning people with actions as opposed to mere words?  If there are kids in the BSA who are believers and if there are kids there who are not, then by isolating the believers from the unbelievers an opportunity is missed to show unregenerate people exactly how gracious and selfless a person should be toward his fellow man and how this behavior is borne of an understanding of the teachings of Christ.

Finally, some problems will naturally blow over or fade away if no further fuel is added to the fire.  The sort of attention that some social conservatives don’t want homosexuality and homosexuals to receive is something what would not exist if people would not create news stories by doing exactly the sort of thing for which the Southern Baptist Convention is currently in the news.  In fact, any further legal gains that the Gay Lobby makes could conceivably, over the course of time, come to be as forgotten and ignored as laws of various states which in our own day still outlawed sodomy or adultery.  And despite how debased Western culture has become in its ethically minimalist attitude toward homosexuality, guess what: there are still hate crimes (which I do not condone in any way) being committed against homosexuals, including the recent Madison Square Garden attacks in liberal, home-of-the-Stonewall-Inn New York City.  The point is that people such as members of the SBC need to stop the knee-jerk reactions to cultural occurrences around them and instead calm their nerves so they can think clearly.

Then again, if the reader thinks it is I who am in error here, then my first point is still proven; the fact that people can be disagreeing over the issues means that something has gone wrong somewhere down the line.

**************

Addendum: It is amazing what a little bit of further reading and research can reveal; lo, there may still be hope for Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-boyscouts-baptists-idUSBRE95B0NO20130612.  The reaction of the Mormon hierarchy on this issue, meanwhile, is interesting.

Finch's Machine

It’s almost here.  For those who missed the Raytheon story, WND has compiled sources and its own overview for you: WND - Obama mining Facebook, Twitter to predict crimes.

This comes on the heals of the Verizon story that has been in news, that story itself following revelations about the IRS’ peculiar patterns of stonewalling and intimidation and about government’s snooping on reporters for Fox News and the AP.  Personally, I trust our elected servants and their employees less with each passing week and each passing scandal.

**************

Addendum: Actually, I just noticed a link to this story at Triablogue: Washington Post - U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program.

History and Supposed Defeat: A Fireside Chat

It is written:

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.  [Proverbs 18.17, ESV]

This proverb is, of course, correct and it is something which we can all observe in modern times and in our own observations of people around us.  Consider the way in which people are quick to adopt dumb conspiracy theories.  (And notice immediately that I qualify the phrase “conspiracy theories,” as not to suggest that all of such theories are inherently or necessarily dumb.)  Any person with the IQ of a high school graduate can poke a dozen logical holes in each one of these theories, yet foolish people invent these claims and even more foolish people adopt them; many of us are among them.  

Why do we accept these claims?  It’s because on this occasion you thought for yourself.  You figured something out for yourself.  You got one over on the people who tried to get over on you and pull the wool over your eyes.  Meanwhile, you didn’t accept the theory as a matter of implicit trust, as with lessons and indoctrination at school, at church or on TV; instead, you investigated the matter and reasoned through it personally.

In fact, if you are a person with a rebellious streak, you’ll latch right onto any new movement of philosophy, theology, analysis or political thought.  Likewise, if you are one of those people who is not happy unless you are “righteously” indignant at something, you’ll latch right onto any new movement of philosophy, theology, analysis or political thought.  For this is what people do and how people operate.

What this means is that it will always be necessary to re-teach, re-explain and re-instill basic truths of Christianity and advanced truths of biblical teachings and a biblical worldview.  Reformed theology once was prevalent in the Protestant world.  It later receded and was replaced by the re-analysis of the Remonstrants and by the post-Arminian theology that dominates today: a form of Arminianism which unwittingly borrows from Reformed thought.  Yet as a matter of mere conincidence or not, Reformed theology began to experience an upswing as Internet use became popular in America.  So history swings back and forth like a pendulum, which makes some of the effects of one’s labor to be temporary in nature.

Meanwhile, Calvinistic teachings were themselves reflected in the words and statements of righteous people, saints and apostles within the pages of the Old and New Testament.  Of course, the co-existence of heterodoxy was recorded in those same documents and existed alongside the apostles of the early church before these men were even dead; this helps to shed light on how Calvinistic teachings could go the way of dinosaurs and fail to re-emerge in earnest until the time of the Reformers.  Things change, effects are not permanent, and so the truth must constantly be re-taught, re-explained, and re-instilled.

Though this sounds like a recipe for unending and meaningless labor, it is in fact good news on a sentimental level.  Suppose you’re someone who is tired of how outwardly corrupt and evil our society has become over the past several decades.  Well, reprobates and sinners will always be among us, but this does not mean that common grace won’t possibly be given to them such that people stop being as evil as they currently are.  Remember what happened to Israel and Judah before and after they were sent into exile.  Just before they were kicked out of the Promised Land they were mostly an outwardly evil people with little regard for the law of Moses.  After the exile people in Promised Land overall at least pretended to hold the law of Moses in high regard, hence NT accounts of the power of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and what was really in people’s hearts at the time (e.g. Matthew 23.27-28; Mark 7.1-23).  One is inclined to believe that the sort of reasoning against idolatry that we see in the Prophetic writings of the OT (e.g. Isa 44.9-20; Jer 10.1-5) played a role in this.

What this means is that even the modern Western world, which has largely abandoned religious life and biblical moral principles, could always undergo the sort of transformation that Jewish society underwent during the Exilic and post-Exilic periods.  It may well be that the zeitgeist of the next generation of Westerners is a backlash against minimalist ethics, against the idea that life without “spirituality” is worth living, and against the idea that classic Judeo-Christian values were ever worthy of being rejected.  If people will call atheism into question, if people will question the philosophy of science and presuppositions of the same which are used to argue against biblical teachings, and if people will reason with people believe and do all the wrong things, perhaps God will match these efforts with the blessings of common or particular grace....

Stated in another way: let falsehood become the popular and dominant worldview of everyone.  After this happens, the teaching and pedagogical technique of such falsehood increasingly treats the falsehood as a mere axiom or intuitional truth that one dare not attempt to prove in great detail because it is just so obvious.  When the powers that be become slackers, that is when their beliefs come into question, as we consider Proverbs 18.17.  That’s why much of America now hates capitalism, to cite an example.

So in the end everyone wins.  To win well and with a minimal number of losses is always important though.

The Wrong Side of History

(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse any the websites behind the hyperlinks that follow.  The last source at the close of this post also is not for the squeamish, but it is also a poignant reminder of exactly what it is that we are talking about here and how the Scriptures could treat homosexuality as being something less than perfect.  Caveat emptor, and all apologies if two hundred other bloggers have already made the same point that I make below.)

---

“The Wrong Side of History” is a phrase that was used repeatedly in 2012: one of those phrases that people suddenly pick up on and end up using ad nauseum.  In the broadcast and information media it was used most often in favor of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, as it were.  For example, in the month of May the phrase was in vogue after Amendment One was passed in the Tar Heel State.  It was followed by Shepard Smith’s infamous usage of the same phrase during one of Smith’s many broadcasts on Fox News Channel where the man cannot keep his opinion to himself.

So there it is: people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (as if such a phrase were not oxymoronic) are on the wrong side of history.  Translation: Everybody else has already run and jumped off the cliff, so why don’t you conservatives get with the program already and do the same?  Alternate translation: Humanity only grows wiser and wiser with the passing of time and with every new era; so you will be proven in the future to be unwise or to be barbarians.

Okay, I’ll play Shepard Smith’s game.  I would really hate to be on the wrong side of history; I really would.  And because I do not want to be on the wrong side of history, I hereby announce that I will not do anything to esteem or dignify homosexuality; in fact, this means that I may also find myself actively opposing so-called same-sex marriage on the grounds of benevolence vis-à-vis biblical teaching about sexuality.  After all, people talk so much about history, but have they already forgotten the history of the Western world when it comes to homosexuality?  To quote Wikipedia:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.

However, we later read in the same entry:

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.^[192] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.^[193]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.^[194] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.^[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:^[196] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.^[197] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.^[198]

Oh, but it’s Wikipedia.  Can’t trust anything they say, right?  To the contrary; the pendulum of history swings in both directions.

True, but there's a problem...

If one is to live up to the Pauline ideal of making it one’s ambition to lead quiet lives, then involvement in politics seems necessary, sadly.  For example, many parents both in the U.S. and in Germany have thought it best to homeschool their children; however, if government makes it impossible for parents educate their children at home--according to various methods--for reasons of moral conviction or piety, then who should parents fear and obey: government or God?  Or if the preaching of the gospel becomes a cloak-and-dagger matter of whispering in people’s ears behind closed doors lest the State discover you and send you off to jail, who should Christians fear and obey: government or God?

If they fear God in cases such as these, then it seems to me that they will not exactly be leading quiet lives; after all, life is not quiet when the State comes to take you or your children away.  And though such things seem impossible in the U.S., they certainly are not impossible elsewhere and have indeed occurred elsewhere.  Keep this in mind while also considering that when liberal justices of the Supreme Court take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench--which they have already been doing--as opposed to doing their Constitutional duty which is precisely to interpret the law as opposed to designing new applications of it, after a matter of several decades nearly any dark scenario becomes feasible for the U.S.

So you want to make sure that the place where you live has a political atmosphere that is conducive to leading a quiet life, not to mention its also being conducive to allowing the church to act as salt and light to the world around it.  If memory serves, this is something that the redoubtable Steve Hays of Triablogue has already pointed out, and some of the thoughts that I have just expressed were apparently already offered by fellow Triabloger John Bugay in the blogpost (before I had even read it all in detail) to which I direct the reader:

Triablogue: Winning Where it's Important

What I want to focus on is one particular comment, part of which reads as follows:

Conservatives need to learn to sit down with people with whom they disagree and have calm, rational conversations about the Good rather than vehement argue-fests that only make them look like anxious, intemperate, unkind culture warriors. 

That is the problem.  We now live in the Information Age: brought about by the Internet and which has made people in today’s society to be sophisticated.  All the ideas and arguments for this idea, or that proposition, or this point of view, or that philosophical paradigm, or this theological teaching, or that political belief: before the Internet not everyone was privy to such things, but nowadays everyone is.  And that means the apologetical enterprises of liberal scholars of the Bible become arguments and words that are parroted by laypersons who have a similar interest in convincing people that the Bible is errant.  Likewise, all the minutiae and technical arguments and information of biology, microbiology, etc. that an apologist for Darwninan Evolution with a Ph.D might offer are now parroted by laypersons who have a similar interest in disproving all forms of creationism.  It happens becomes people now type their thoughts and post them on the Internet for everyone to read.

Other examples can be mentioned, but the ease with which people can copy and paste electronic texts, or refer people to electronic technical journals, or electronically disseminate information to millions of people for free (as opposed to the pre-Internet method of using fourth- and fifth-generation Xerox copies of various literature) means this: you’re now having to have encyclopedic knowledge to fully respond to the issues, questions and arguments that people raise.  Of course, such is also true of politics.  So, after you’ve already spent more than 2/3 of your day waking up, getting out of bed, showering, eating breakfast, working for 8 hours or more, commuting to or from work, picking up your kids from daycare, preparing dinner, paying bills, praying, reading your Bible, studying a bunch of reading material of Christian apologetics, and going to bed before getting up to do it all again the next day now you have spend the rest of your life, er, day by becoming a scholar of political and economic studies, in order to have “calm, rational conversations” about politics.  This is a substantial burden to bear, as if life were not short enough already.

Again, people are burdened enough as it is.  However, due to the fact that we live in a fallen and evil world it becomes necessary, apparently, for everyone to suffer even more by becoming learned students of more and more disciplines and areas of study.  Depressing thing to say, but this seems to be the case.  Hopefully the non-Christian social conservatives and fiscal conservatives of the Western world can be persuaded to carry this burden alone though.... =)

Nail on the Head

Triablogue: Who Lost?

Indeed.  0bama’s and the DNC’s foolish supporters are engaged in a process of slowly destroying themselves over the course of the next several decades and they and their children will reap what they have sown.  Meanwhile, even before Election Day 2012 I was disgusted enough with the human condition--how utterly and tremendously foolish people are--to the point of longing to leave this miserable planet to be elsewhere or to sleep within it where people can no longer cause trouble to people around them.  And the fools all around you eventually make you one of their targets and bring trouble upon you; they are never content to bother and pester only themselves.

As I type this I’m listening to Limbaugh’s analysis of last night’s victory of soft tyranny over freedom, and thus far he’s been right on every count.  Santa Claus won last night: that is how Romney lost.  Nonjudgmental (in relative terms) Obama won because he is a nice guy: that is how Romney lost.  But Limbaugh also mentioned exit poll data from last night’s victory of soft tyranny over freedom.  So four years after the constant, constant repetition of “I blame Bush” from the mouths of malcontent people too simple to offer any meaningful analysis of geopolitics and the world around them people are STILL blaming Bush 43 for America’s current economic woes.  (Despite the actual facts of the economy from 2001-2012, especially beginning with the subprime mortgage meltdown on late 2008, yes, people still blame Bush.)  Exit poll data also indicated that people were really digging how well Obama showed up in NJ after Hurricane Sandy, gave Christie a hug, and flew back to Washington: as if Bush 43 did any less in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit.  Indeed, all of this supports Limbaugh’s analysis which essentially paints 0bama’s victory as one of the triumph of sentiment over the intellect.

These data also support the idea that the American people are a stupid people.  For example, think back to the “incident” on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show a few years ago where Tom Cruise was standing on top of the sofa because he was so madly in love with Katie Holmes; now think about how many real-life people actually said they weren’t interested in seeing any of his movies anymore because of that incident.  If people are silly enough to bypass perfectly decent cinema just because a movie’s lead actor did something strange, then indeed people are foolish enough to STILL blame Bush 43 for America’s economic woes, foolish enough to vote for 0bama for showing up in NJ disaster areas, foolish enough to vote for a man who will destroy their very own livelihood and line of work if they work in coal mines, et cetera.

But it gets worse.  Stupidity of this magnitude is not a freak accident of human history but something that can occur at any time.  Think about the ten plagues that struck Egypt during the time of Moses.  Think about the signs, wonders, and pillars of clouds and fire that the Israelites saw with their own eyes when they left Egypt.  These are the same people who went 2 minutes without seeing Moses while he was on Mount Sinai and immediately turned simultaneously to atheism (in effect) and idolatry when Aaron fashioned the golden calf.  For those of you who remember or want to read the text, lesson and context of Jeremiah 42-43: you know that Moses’ generation was not entirely unique in antiquity in its degree of foolishness.

So, this is the world that we are living in and this is the sort of people that we have to live and interact with.  Foolish people drug the prophets Moses and Jeremiah down with them (figuratively and literally, respectively) in their day; do not be surprised when in the future your own lives become less and less carefree.  Let everyone be prepared for the troubles that are likely coming our way.

The Big Charlotte Rally the Democrats Shunned

By Michael Brown

There was a lot of talk about the Islamic prayer meeting last Friday in Charlotte. It was sanctioned by the DNC and was expected to draw 20,000. It drew perhaps 200. There was a lot of talk about the Occupy protests that were expected to add a disruptive presence to the city, but less than 1,000 protesters showed up, despite months of hype and build up. There was, however, a rally that drew multiplied thousands of attendees on Sunday and was officially shunned by the DNC. Oh, you didn’t hear about it?

I’m speaking about the Charlotte 714 rally (based on the biblical text found in 2 Chronicles 7:14) where Christians from more than 100 different churches in the region attended a 7-hour, non-political rally at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. (According to the figures released by the amphitheater, there were 9,000 total attendees over the course of the day.)

A few weeks before the DNC, the churches involved in the event made an effort to “adopt a delegation,” offering to send welcome baskets with information about their churches and the city. But the “Democrats denied the evangelical group permission because of its pro-life stance.”

According to David Benham, the organizer of Charlotte 714, “The mayor’s office texted me and said, ‘We regret to inform but we ask that you not send those letters, and not engage in ‘Adopt a Delegation,’ because your views on women are contrary to the convention.’”

It appears, then, that to deeply honor women as wives and moms and singles who make an immense contribution to the well-being of our society and to highly esteem babies in the womb (including female babies) is to hold to a view of women that is “contrary to the convention.”

It’s also quite ironic (or should I say hypocritical?) that, while rejecting these pro-life Christians, the DNC endorsed the Muslim prayer meeting. Were these Muslims who gathered to pray pro-abortion? Did they embrace feminism? Did they support same-sex “marriage”?

But it’s not just Charlotte 714 that was shunned by the DNC. According to Rev. William Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, “By taking this grave and unnecessary step of endorsing gay marriage in the party platform, President Obama and the Democratic party are once again putting black Christians at the back of the bus.” He continued, “Every other constituent of President Obama, every other key part of the party base—gays, latinos, women—gets a hearing except black voters whose voices and values are ignored. This is more than a shame, it’s an outrage. We are here to warn the Democrats: do not leave out black Christians, do not take our votes for granted.”

And could it be that the DNC is also taking the Jewish vote for granted? The 2008 platform stated explicitly that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” That entire statement has been removed from the 2012 platform, among other important changes.

But there’s more: God himself has been removed from the platform. The 2008 platform stated that, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” It now states that “each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Thankfully, God was front and center at the Charlotte 714 event, an event that was significant because it was, far and away, the largest gathering in Charlotte outside of the DNC itself; it gathered together a diverse group of pastors, leaders, and congregations; and it was totally non-political in tone. In fact, the only really “political” moment of the day came when a black minister urged his fellow African-Americans not to vote for President Obama because of his radically pro-abortion stance. Yet there was not the slightest call to vote for Mitt Romney, whose name may not have been mentioned once.

Instead, the focus was on our sins and failings as the Church in our nation, recognizing that America’s greatest problem is not so much the presence of darkness as it is the absence of light. As I said in the closing message of the night, “The only reason that abortion of demand still exists in Charlotte and there is not a greater hope for the mothers and their babies is because of the apathy of the Church. And no-fault divorce among heterosexual Christians has done more to destroy marriage than all the gay activists combined.”

Thankfully, the response was heartening, as thousands pledged themselves afresh to be “the salt of the earth and the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16), wanting to make Charlotte 714 into a movement more than an event. It’s a shame that you probably didn’t hear about it until now.

Update: I think the Jerusalem and God portion has been added back into the platform. D 

Stats and Declining Attendance in Churches

Consider the following post, including its comments: Triablogue: Rod Dreher on Declining Attendance in American Churches

**************

In the meantime, the post links to the webpage of American Grace: How Religion Divides Us and Unites Us.  The book apparently presents a copious and interesting list of statistics, yet the information either within the book or in its review is to be taken with a grain of salt.  An example:

…What really distinguishes rank-and-file Tea Party supporters from other Americans and even other Republicans, is their desire to bring more God into government.

This is not true.  Members of the Tea Party movement are conservatives; Republicans are not absolutely conservatives, hence the acronym “RINO.”  Another example:

Republicans are far more hostile toward Muslims than are Democrats.

This is misleading.  It looks like a global assessment of the groups mentioned there: as if virtually all Republicans are hostile toward virtually all Muslims.  How many Republicans do you know are on the Internet calling for all American Muslims to be deported to Canada?  How many mosques or homes in Deaborn, MI have been firebombed by Republicans who just can’t stand to have Muslims in the United States anymore?  Meanwhile, another example of questionability:

Religious Americans are better neighbors than secular Americans. They volunteer at much higher rates for both religious and secular causes, give more money to religious and secular charities, and are roughly twice as engaged in their communities as comparable secular Americans. And they do more everyday good deeds: they're more likely to donate blood, help someone find a job, give money to a homeless person, or even let a stranger cut in front of them. The reason for this is not their theology, but the friendships they make through their congregations. Having religious friends is more important than simply having friends and being religious yourself. In other words, religious networks are "supercharged" in their effect on neighborliness.

Nope.  Religion, spirituality, theology, or even the divine works of regeneration and sanctification per Christian theology absolutely do not ever make a person more charitable or kind toward others: not in cases of holding doors for strangers, not in cases volunteering in places where people do not live, etc.  No, this is not the fruit of theology or works of God but is all due to desires to become someone’s BFF.  Continuing:

One downside of religion's effect on public life is that religious Americans are consistently less tolerant of dissent and less supportive of civil liberties than secular Americans. Secular Americans are more tolerant of fundamentalists than religious Americans are tolerant of atheists.

What the heck were the authors of this book or its reviewer thinking at this point?  Who in this country does not tolerate dissent but the people who want to bury Kirk Cameron and Chick-Fil-A’s president for those two’s candor and personal beliefs regarding homosexuality?  And at which ports or harbors can I find the ships that religious Americans are preparing to round up this country’s atheists and ship them off to Cuba or Russia?  Continuing:

Religious Americans, especially evangelicals, are more likely to have friends of a lower social class than are secular Americans. On the other hand, religious Americans are also less likely than their secular counterparts to favor public policies to address poverty and inequality.

Allow me to translate the second sentence for the reader: On the other hand, religious Americans are also less likely than their secular counterparts to favor public policies that attempt to eliminate poverty through welfare and through liberal economic theory and practices.  More:

African Americans are the second-most religious group in America (just behind Mormons)….

Wait a minute: aren’t Mormons religious by definition?  Finally:

In spite of these differences in how religions are perceived, Americans have a remarkably high level of religious tolerance. Eighty-nine percent of Americans – including 83 percent of evangelical Christians – believe that a person who is not of their religion can go to heaven.

The word “religion” in this case almost certainly is broadly used to connote, perhaps among other things, denominational differences within Christianity.  Otherwise this claim simply is not credible.  Try finding 8 evangelicals out the next 10 that you find who will tell you that it’s possible that a Muslim, Hindu, or wiccan as such will enter the kingdom of heaven: you won’t succeed if you try.  Then again, if you do find these eight people then one thing is clear: it will become necessary within the next thirty years to reintroduce or introduce Christianity to the western world.

"Is hate really negative? Is love really positive?" (Part Two)

Previous post

---

Hate is negative and bad, depending on the particular instances, circumstances or sorts of hatred. After all, that is something that the Scriptures tell us in a number of different instances. For starters, notice that the following is written:

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. (Titus 3.3)

He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. (1 John 2.9)

But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. (1 John 2.11)

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3.15)

If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1 John 4.20)

The fact that John would go out of his way to refer to particular persons as brothers suggests that not all people are brothers (or sisters) of each other according to the sense of the term as it is used in the passages above; indeed, persons such as the children of the devil mentioned in John 8.44 are not brothers of those who have been born again. So hatred of one’s brother is a bad thing though hatred of other persons apparently is not mentioned in the passages above.

Then again, it bears mentioning that not all hatred is alike. According to a simple dictionary definition of “hatred,” some hatred is nothing more than one’s intensely disliking someone: something which some of us have experienced in cases of individuals who are so repulsive or loathsome to us that we cannot bear to even think about these individuals on account of the mental anguish or discomfort it causes. Such hatred is innocent; if something repulses you intensely, then it repulses you: a function of the offending object, not you. On the other hand, there is also hatred wedded to resentment, malice or envy; this is something which perhaps cannot be justified given the attendant evils of malice and envy. I offer no defense of the latter sort of hatred. However, the former sort of hatred is just and biblically-sanctioned in many if not all instances. It is written:

…I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law. (Psalm 119.113)

Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? (Psalm 139.21)

I have hated those who regard useless idols; But I trust in the LORD. (Psalm 31.6)

You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Psalm 45.7)

You who love the LORD, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 97.10)

Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way. (Psalm 119.104)

Therefore all [Your] precepts [concerning] all [things] I consider [to be] right; I hate every false way. (Psalm 119.128)

I hate and abhor lying, [But] I love Your law. (Psalm 119.163)

The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. (Proverbs 8.13)

A righteous [man] hates lying, But a wicked [man] is loathsome and comes to shame. (Proverbs 13.5)

[Let] love [be] without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (Romans 12.9)

If you hate idolatry, then good for you; such a hatred is righteous. If you hate malice, envy, slander, gossip, adultery and other evils, then good for you; such a hatred is righteous because such things run contrary to God’s law, run contrary to God’s will, and are contemptible precisely because they are evil.

In fact, every instance of one’s failing to do what is best for himself is an instance in which pity, indignation or disapprobation is appropriate even if hatred is not appropriate. (Consequently, we human beings are such that we prefer that quadriplegics be fully mobile, that all autistic savants be able to flourish in modern society as most people do, that ignorant people go out and read a book or two and become wise, that children grow up to become wise and mature, that people choose the difficult, correct path in life versus the quick and easy path which involves immediate gratification but ends in death and decay. In this vein it is preferable that anyone who is homosexual, regardless of the cause of this, go as far as to walk the quasi-eunuch’s path vis-à-vis Matthew 19.12 if that is what righteousness requires of him.)

Make no mistake about it. Through the New Testament’s emphasis on the subjects of love of God and love of neighbors people forget that God is a god of justice, judgment, and hatred to boot. However, the prophet David and other mortal human beings are not alone in their biblical hatred of sin and people who sin, for it is written:

“For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, And will make with them an everlasting covenant.” (Isaiah 61:8)

“21 I hate, I despise your feast days, And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. 22 Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept [them,] Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.” (Amos 5.21-22)

“‘Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; And do not love a false oath. For all these [are things] that I hate,’ Says the LORD.” (Zechariah 8.17)

“But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” (Revelation 2.6)

And yes, based on anecdotal evidence apparently it is possible to hate and to love or cherish a common object simultaneously. Compare:

My heritage is to Me like a lion in the forest; It cries out against Me; Therefore I have hated it. (Jeremiah 12.8)

(“All their wickedness [is] in Gilgal, For there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more. All their princes [are] rebellious.”) (Hosea 9.15)

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable. (Romans 11.26-30)

This would explain the mystery of those biblical texts which are popularly cited concerning divine hatred of sinners:

4 For You [are] not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You. 5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5.4-5)

The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalm 11.5)

16 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness [who] speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6.16-19)

Let the reader search his or her own heart to determine what or whom it honestly hates and whether this hatred is just. In any case, let no one say that hatred is absolutely evil or that no particular kind of evil is just, because the Scriptures teach otherwise. Some hatred is bad and some is not.

**************

Just as some hatred is bad while some hatred is good, some love is negative while some love is positive. Observe:

…Why do you boast in evil, O mighty man? The goodness of God [endures] continually. 2 Your tongue devises destruction, Like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. 3 You love evil more than good, Lying rather than speaking righteousness. Selah (Psalm 52.1-3)

And I said: “Hear now, O heads of Jacob, And you rulers of the house of Israel: [Is it] not for you to know justice? 2 You who hate good and love evil; Who strip the skin from My people, And the flesh from their bones; 3 Who also eat the flesh of My people, Flay their skin from them, Break their bones, And chop [them] in pieces Like [meat] for the pot, Like flesh in the caldron.” 4 Then they will cry to the LORD, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds. (Micah 3.1-4)

Meanwhile, the result of love is not always a thing which is good. A relatively obvious example is to be found in 2 Samuel 13 (“After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name [was] Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her”).

So again it follows that just as some hatred is bad while some hatred is good, some love is negative while some love is positive.

"Is hate really negative? Is love really positive?"

(Part One)
______________

A band named Bis asked the above questions back in 1997 and I asked myself the same not long ago. Having investigated the matter, I can only wonder if they would agree as to the correct answer of the questions at hand.

Now, when it is used properly Google is often useful to get inside people’s heads, to discover hidden wisdom, and to answer tough questions. So I did a quick Google search of various phrases and the results were insightful if not predictable. Below is a list of search terms I used and some of the search results among millions of indexed web pages:

1. “hate racists”:

I hate all racist people - Topix
How I Learned to Hate Racism
I Hate Racism and Discrimination | Group with Personal Stories …

2. “hate rapists”:

I Hate Rapists | Facebook
Why do other prisoners hate rapists so much ? - Yahoo!7 Answers
I Hate Rapists | Group with Personal Stories, Forums and Chat

3. “hate sexists”:

Don't You Hate Sexists? - Yahoo! Answers
I hate sexist men, who's with me? Women are equals | Facebook
I hate sexist people ! | Facebook

4. “hate homophobes”:

I Hate Homophobes | YouTube
i hate homophobes | Tumblr
I hate HOMOPHOBES!! – Group at Last.fm

After looking through the search results at google.com one thing became clear. What became clear is that Politically Correct people who call people “haters,” “player haters,” or “homophobes” and who refer to things as “hateful,” “homophobic,” or “Islamophobic” do not really believe that hate is a bad thing. No, hate is a positive thing as long as it’s their kind of hate that you have. Hatred is a good thing, as long as it’s a Politically Correct and Politically Sanctioned kind of hatred that you have. Any adherent to political correctness who suggests otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Meanwhile, some of these same people are those who get on the Internet and constantly trot out the tired, hackneyed stereotype of inbreeding in order to insult conservatives in the South and rural areas of the U.S. Therefore, they don’t think all love is positive, including love of God’s moral law, love of the Scriptures, etc.


God willing, I will have more to say about this later....

In the News: Harold Camping Changes His Mind and Kirk Cameron Does Not

Curiously enough, both of these guys have more courage and humility than many of their critics and other people in this world. Sources:

Harold Camping says May 21 prediction was ‘incorrect and sinful’ - The Washington Post

Kirk Cameron responds to anti-gay comments flap - Yahoo! News (Reuters)

First of all, when has Ergun Caner, for example, ever manned up about his biography and admitted to having repeatedly done things which are sinful?

Moreover, stop and consider the closing remarks of the Reuters story for a moment. Since Tracey Gold professes to “believe in equal rights for all,” does she also believe that grown men of the NAMBLA ilk should be provided legal “equal rights” regarding their sexual orientation? Presumably, the answer is No. That means that Ms. Gold is being less than honest about the real reasons she supports the LGBT community or she hasn’t thought her words through to even 1 millionth of the extent to which her elder TV brother thinks his words through.

Of course, if Gold is dishonest then the real reasons should seem obvious enough. No one likes to be a pariah or social leper; furthermore, the fallen and rebellious heart of post-Edenic humanity is naturally drawn to a minimalist theory of ethics per John 3.19-20. (If one is to avoid being mindful of God’s law, a replacement for one’s code of ethics must be sought.)

Contrast Tracey Gold's cowardice--or so I believe it to be--with the work of Kirk Cameron over the past several years. Who else in Hollywood and who else in celebrity circles has the guts to go against the grain of political correctness in any way, shape or fashion? If it were the case that Alan Thicke hated Black people, would he also have the guts to call them savages on Piers Morgan’s TV show? No. If Mel Gibson has a low opinion of Jews, would he dare say this openly and with a normal blood alcohol level? No. Modern celebrities and corporations are cowards and wusses for the most part: this is no secret. However, Kirk Cameron stands apart from them not only in his honesty and commitment to God’s law and Gospel, but also in the sheer guts the guy has to continually do street preaching or witnessing as many of us have seen on Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master” TV show. So Cameron has guts and honesty; I would think more highly of him than most celebs even if I were not a Christian.

Finally, Kirk Cameron has also been accused of being thin-skinned regarding his reaction to people’s criticism of him of late. Kirk Cameron is not thin-skinned--for one thing, he knows he is a laughing stock though that has not stopped him from street preaching and doing the other things that he does. Again, he is not thin-skinned; to the contrary, he is simply telling it like it is when in recent news he points out the BS quotient of those who holler “Homophobe!” or “Hate speech!” at anyone and anything that merely happens to disagree with the idea that homosexuality (the attribute) and homosexuality (the acts) are good things. Terms such as “homophobia” and “hate speech” are in fact the tools of people who are either too lazy, too evil, or too dumb to draw rudimentary distinctions of logic and language or who simply want to bank on the use of emotive, politically-charged words.

Rahe and When the Social Gospel Backfires

As mentioned on Limbaugh’s radio program: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil by Paul A. Rahe.

Natural Epistemology and Gay Rights

Appeals to Intuition

Let’s talk about something virtually uncontroversial to demonstrate how and why it is that we all believe what we believe. You, the reader, believe that Blacks and Whites should be treated “equally,” right?* Okay, now why do you believe that? At this point you’ve probably silently answered that question in your head with some reason or another; okay, now why do you believe the reason that you’ve just given? ...And why do you believe this second reason? ...And why do you believe this third reason? Oh, you “just know it”? What, you “just know” that they should be treated equally? So what you’re telling me is that you ultimately don’t have proof for the proposition in question here; instead, you’re claiming that you just know it or that it’s just obvious. So if we assume that the rest of your reasoning is valid and sound, this can only mean one of two things: ultimately, either you’re just assuming that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally, or you’re intuiting that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally.

And what does it mean to intuit a proposition? It means that the proposition that you claim to know in this case is known directly and without medial causes which are evidence. I grant that intuition exists, for if one were to try to prove the Laws of Logic (i.e., the Law of Identity and the Principle of Noncontradiction) he could not do so: he would end up begging the question to do so since proofs and arguments presuppose and depend on the supposed validity or trueness of the Laws of Logic. So again, if we assume that the rest of your reasoning is valid and sound then ultimately either you’re just assuming that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally, or you’re intuiting that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally.

Meanwhile, some of the correct answers to life’s tough questions may come by incorrect means, precisely because apparently some truths are difficult to prove and are likewise difficult (where not impossible) to intuit; examples can be found in doctrines of Original Sin, corporate guilt, moral responsibility à la Frankfurt counterexamples, and the Trinity. The common man, instead of relying ultimately on a solid foundation of rigorous application of logic, likely will often just assume certain things in order to fit in with his social group with its beliefs. After all, how many of us truly know or have ever stopped to reason through the idea that Blacks, Whites, and other racial and ethnic groups should be treated “equally”? Do we really know and are we really so certain that one particular group really is not cursed, as in the case of Israel immediately following Achan’s sin in Joshua, chapter seven? Is the “brotherhood of all mankind” idea really something that can account for the morality of laws against illegal immigrants and illegal immigration where not every conceivable type of group of people has the same moral right to certain types of legal protection and privileges?

Ah, but we are so certain and we really do know that one group in particular should in virtually every meaningful sense of the term “equal” be treated as “equals” of another group, right? In other words, it really is clear that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” right? Intuition suggests equality, one might claim. The Bible fails to disprove the idea of equality because the book is not truthful, and even if it were truthful there really is no anti-homosexuality theology in the New Testament, one might claim. So we can all be certain that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” right?

It would be funny to hear any rank-and-file secular Western individual claim that he knows intuitionally that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” because there are many of us in this world who do not intuit this proposition. Again, there is no small number of human beings on this plant who fail to intuit that the two groups should be treated “equally,” and if both groups are groups of human beings then one group should be as capable as intuiting this supposed equality as the other group, unless perhaps one group is simply too blinded by hate (as it were) to see the light. But I dare say that I for one am one individual who is perfectly accustomed to keeping an open mind to follow the evidence where it leads, even when the path it leads is a painful and inconvenient one: I still do not intuit the supposed equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, just as many other people do not intuit this idea. Therefore, any claim that there are people who intuit that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally” can be matched with the equally plausible claim that there are people of sound mind and ability who fail to intuit the same. Therefore, none of us knows that intuition constitutes a proof that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally”: the outcome is a stalemate at best.

In the meantime, if there is no pro-equality datum and no pro-equality proposition out there that exists such that it could be intuited, then apparently people are just assuming that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally.” And it is often an irresponsible, dangerous and reckless thing to just assume things, isn’t it? What if all the world’s mechanics just assumed the proper working order of different parts to airplanes and automobiles? What if a patrol police officer, seeing that you are a Black motorist in an expensive Mercedes, just assumed you’re an auto thief and pulls you over in your own car? People who just assume that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally” have nothing to be proud of.

---------------------

Appeals to Analogy

The Gay Rights movement rides on the coat tails of the Civil Rights movement, and perhaps people believe in the supposed equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals by analogy of their analysis of racial politics. “If two people differ only in skin color and maybe a few other traits, why should one have fewer legal privileges than the other?” one will think to himself. However, the analogy is flawed because counterexamples are too easy to come by: one of those two people could be a criminal, or a five-year-old child who lacks wisdom, a trained and certified anesthesiologist, or some other individual who obviously differs from other individuals in a way that causes us to remember the general rule that not everyone deserves the same legal privileges or proscriptions as another person.

---------------------

Appeals to Ethics

Sadly, some people will just assume certain things until they encounter a perceived violation of the minimalist ethic: the rule which suggest that unless a certain act does readily apparent physical harm to someone else, that act is acceptable. Western secularism and liberal Christianity, as it were, are champions of the Gay Rights movement: as such, we should not expect their adherents on the basis of biblical doctrine to reject the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally.” Nevertheless, that does nothing to change the fact that this brand of ethics is perfectly questionable, which would explain the existence of laws against Peeping Toms and people who steal things that will not be missed.

---------------------

The Tally

Add it all up, and the Gay Rights lobby with their supporters aren’t any smarter, any wiser, any more sophisticated than the so-called homophobes over which they think they can take the intellectual or moral high ground. No, the supporters of queer politics have neither the intellectual high ground nor moral high ground. If one should take a look under the hood of the Gay Rights lobby to see what kind of engine powers it, he would find a philosophical paradigm and set of arguments and premises that are no more cogent than those of some of their opponents.

Happy Independence Day all, but remember that God’s law binds everyone.
Remember also that Canada and Sweden are not free.

_______
* Let the phrase “be treated equally” mean treated equally according to every relevant sense or meaning of the word “equal” in this case throughout this article. Men and women are said to be “equal to one another,” but this clearly is not true in absolute terms as there are undeniable psychological and physiological differences between the two; therefore, it becomes necessary to use quotation marks because no one truly believes in the absolute and unqualified equality of all groups of human beings.

Update on Rev. Wright, Barack Obama, and Darth Sidious Theories

Of course, it’s foolish to think that the most pressing matters in America today are--I dunno--those of evangelism, false conversions to the Faith, the godless culture around us, a dying American economy, a useless national government, or anything like these. So thank heavens there’s someone like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright who is around to remind us of who and what the real enemy is in the year 2011: WHITE SUPREMACY! HT to a certain anonymous theonomist: http://www.studentprintz.com/hate-speech-comes-to-hattie-1.2133673

---

In related news, now that Barack Obama insists on open mic that he is not stupid, I’ve even less doubt that he always knew of Jeremiah Wright’s beliefs when he was attending his church or that Obama’s disastrous economic and geopolitical policies as the current POTUS are intentionally harmful--not incompetent: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110415/ts_yblog_theticket/obama-caught-on-audio-slamming-gop

Analysis: Yahoo! is a sensationalistic stinker

Ripped straight from the headlines section of home page of Yahoo!, where they always know what’s important and what really matters in your life, just a few moments ago:

White House invokes privilege to kill lawsuit against cleric

Pakistan plane evacuated in Sweden after threat Photos

Accused Ga. pastor's academy had 'sex self-check card'

Host Maher shows another clip of Del. candidate O'Donnell

Lohan freed from jail after posting $300,000 bail Photos

African rhino poaching soars along with demand for horns

Lindsay Lohan out of jail hours after…- L.A. Times

Ski-helmet law for kids dies with veto- S.F. Chronicle

Would you travel 6,600 miles for a meal?- O.C. Register

Such were the big news stories on the home page, so my questions in response are as follows:

1. Since when have Bill Maher, Yahoo!, or the AP cared about what happens in the small state of Delaware: a state having a population less than that of neighboring Philadelphia and which has neither a national park nor any regular commercial flights out of the airports there?

2. And if their interest in Christine O'Donnell is piqued because they have a fear of perceived idiots’ being elected into positions political power, then why did they not focus equal attention on the gaffe machine which is then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware during the 2008 presidential election?

3. For that matter, why is the subject matter of a TV show even considered newsworthy?

4. Finally, assuming that the media now has a genuine interest in vetting candidates for political office (an interest which was lost in the 2008 political cycle), where are all the unflattering stories about Christine O’Donnell’s opposition in the upcoming senatorial race in Delaware? Are such things really so difficult to dredge up?

Short Quiz

1. One or two of the following persons is not an inclusivistic wuss. Name that person or those persons:

a) Angelina Jolie
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Eric Holder
d) the Vatican
e) Terry Jones of Gainesville, FL

2. Off-topic commentaries on political and religious figures are best handled in political, religious, or philosophical college classrooms, and not by compensatory-narcissistic allied-health adjunct professors:

a) True
b) False

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

The answers are in the back of the post, which is here:

1. Even pastor’s old church condemns Quran-burning The Upshot Yahoo! News

Fla. minister determined to hold 9/11 Quran burn - Yahoo! News

Florida's Quran-Burning Pastor - Yahoo! News

2. True that

Divide and Conquer

On August 17, 2010, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily wrote:

GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

The reasons for his saying this, and the context and forum in which he said this, are here: WND drops Ann Coulter from Miami event over Homoconflict.

Apparently, Farah’s judgment was sound, because a process of division began to kick in pretty soon afterward:

August 21: Ann Coulter on WND: 'They're a bunch of fake Christians';
August 24: Why Ann Coulter indicts me.

The act or process of division was made more evident on the following day, August 25, when news outlets began to run with the story of Liz Hasselbeck’s views on Barack Obama and so-called gay marriage: Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "I Actually Support Gay Marriage" - Today's News: Our Take TVGuide.com.

Farah may be grossly lacking in wisdom and good sense on other issues, but he is also no spring chicken. He knows the proverb of 1 Corinthians 15.33 and he knows the tactics of his opponents. It is an easy thing to use Hegelian synthesis to gradually whittle away either conservative or godly beliefs held by various people and people-groups; again, the process is gradual, but the results are those of division and compromise just the same, something which Joseph Farah clearly recognizes. Bear in mind, as an example, that just twenty years ago secular society did not generally approve of homosexuality, and that three years later (as memory serves) “coming out of the closet” was already undergoing a process of semantic specialization referring only to erstwhile closet-homosexuals….