Saturday, February 13, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
A superior genetically-engineered individual promises to usher in an era of peace and stability --- provided the nations of the world submit to his draconian computer monitoring system. Tiring of global anarchy, the world gladly accepts his diabolical offer.
Are these the scenarios of the latest science fiction thrillers to hit theaters or newspaper stands? Surprisingly, they are in fact taken from the Book of Revelation and other passages of Bible prophecy, with modern details added as interpretative elements, to make what many consider the most obtuse portions of the Bible a plausible blueprint for the future.
Having jettisoned his Judeo-Christian foundation, modern man stands stupefied as he faces the repercussions of his own moral disregard. This is increasingly evident in the apocalyptic themes addressed in popular culture and mainstream news sources.
Viewers are left free to ponder the cataclysm of their own delight. Over the past several years, moviegoers have seen a number of films about volcanic explosions and asteroids careening into the earth.
The other apocalyptic horsemen needn’t feel left out. “The X-Files” regularly examines the possibility of totalitarian government lurking under the shadow of alien conspiracies.
Other science fiction productions have examined the spate of incurable mutant pestilences ready to lay waste to our medically impotent civilization. Terrorism experts argue that such a weapon of mass destruction will likely be deployed in the not-too distant future.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between the dramas and the news programs. This boundary was further blurred when scientists cloned a sheep, unleashing a furor over the legal status of potential human beings conceived in such a manner.
This is a legitimate concern in light of the tragedy of abortion plaguing Western society. Yet, the path of caution must run both ways.
What protections will exist for the rest of us from these individuals of enhanced ability? A number of these individuals will no doubt use their aptitude for evil since the fallen parts of man’s nature defies even the most sophisticated science.
Does anyone remember the Star Trek classic “The Wrath of Khan”, the title character himself being the product of genetic engineering run amok? And much of George Lucas’ Star Wars Saga centers around a series of events referred to as “The Clone Wars”.
Scripture foretells of such an individual --- though we know not the specifics of his origins --- who will use cunning and intellect to subdue the earth and its inhabitants for his own nefarious purposes.
There is nothing wrong in raising these kinds of issues as man strives to ascertain his cosmic predicament via the venue of popular culture. In fact, the Christian should rejoice in the soul’s struggle to ponder the reality of its creator and the opportunities that open for the sharing of these truths which before now seemed unbelievable.
There is also a danger, however, as those unwilling to repent and realign their ways with those declared by God through Jesus Christ will continue along their own path despite the overwhelming evidence.
Anyone doubting this word of caution only need be reminded of the tragedy of the Heaven’s Gate Cult back in the 1990‘s. Despite possessing advanced educations and sensitivity to the spiritual decay around them, these souls decided to follow a real nutcase who duped them into believing salvation could be found with a group of interstellar Jack Kevorikians trailing a cold dirt wad, the Hale-Bopp Comet, circling the Milky Way.
Man has been provided the answers to his varied yet interconnected problems if he would only choose to accept Christ’s free gift of salvation and follow Jesus as Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, both the flow of history and the forecasts of prophecy seem to indicate that humanity will refuse this message despite the overwhelming consequences. Don’t you make the same mistake.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Do Pastors Opposed To Depression Medication Plan To Refute One Bestowed As Gift Upon The Christ Child?
Monday, February 08, 2016
Sunday, February 07, 2016
“What?” I replied to my brother.
My brother responded, “LOOK OUTSIDE.”
I rushed to the door and opened it. “I don't see anything.”
My brother's voice grew increasingly agitated. “Up in the sky and down the street.”
I stepped out a bit onto the front porch, lifting my gaze upward. Still accustomed to the indoor illumination, my vision had not yet adjusted to the unbridled sunlight.
“I don't see anything but clouds.”
“Keep looking. You will see it,” my brother snapped.
Despite growing frustration at my brother's tone, I continued as he insisted. After a few more moments, my eyes finally noticed what it was my sibling had been so insistent about.
Its outline nearly matched the clouds in the background in terms of color. However, if one stared with sufficient intent, one could make out the faint hint of a metallic curvature.
My heart palpitated. It couldn't be. But it apparently was. “Oh myyyy....Is that a UFO?”
“No way,” my brother replied, almost dismissively.
“That's a UFO.” My limbs growing unsteady as I contemplated the import of my words.
My brother retorted, “You just want it to be a UFO because you believe they exist.”
“And why do you need to be so skeptical? If you don't believe that's a UFO, why did you bother me with this?”, I replied.
To that, he had no answer. It was difficult to transcend the overwhelming sense of dumbfoundedness that washed over the psyche as one contemplated the significance of the image seemingly floating there in the sky.
“It's just dangling there, “ my bother observed, “even though you can see right through it.”
I hypothesized, “It probably doesn't even have any physical substance.”
“You mean like an illusion?”
“Not exactly. I mean it's probably spiritual, slipping through from another dimension.”
My brother still did not want to concede to the validity of my speculations. But with no other explanations for what he was seeing with his very own eyes, he enunciated no further protests.
Curious onlookers began to gather, wondering what it was suspended in the sky. Arms and hands gestured upward.
The bottom of the translucent metallic outline slowly opened. A beam of light extended downward to the blacktopped street below.
My eyes widened. I walked down a few steps, wanting a closer look but trepidatious regarding the mysterious phenomena unfolding before me.
Apparently I wasn't quite as excited as the assembling throng. Though they were probably halfway down the street, one could still hear their enthusiastic yammering.
I descended to at least the bottom of the steps. From there, I would at least have a better view but be close enough to hurry back into the house if something dangerous was to transpire or something over which one would need a degree of plausible deniability if men adorned in certain downplayed hues came knocking to ascertain just how much individuals had witnessed.
A form slowly yet steadily descended through the bottom of what most would categorize as a spaceship or flying saucer. The gasps of the onlookers grew even louder.
The protrusion was a pasty gray, almost like clay in coloration. The end of this tubular extension flicked back and forth in an obviously serpentine manner.
But as the creature emerged from the craft, it became apparent that it was not entirely cylindrical. Two spindly arms branched off the upper sides of the torso. These appendages were held outstretched.
Given my religious background, it almost seemed as if the entity was posing in a crucified posture. To others, it could have just as easily suggested, “Come unto me all that are weary so that you may find rest.”
As the creature lowered itself in the tractor beam to the street below, that was exactly what the gathered began to do. A stretcher with a patient upon it was slowly pushed through the crowd.
The assembled could now see some kind of tube dangling from the entity's outstretched limb. A dark, viscous fluid dripped from it into what appeared to be a plastic collection bag.
Intrigued, I squinted to get a better glimpse of the spectacle unfolding before me. I informed my sibling, “That must be that abomination's blood. He's making it appear as if he is shedding his blood for them.” My brother simply deferred to my observation and analysis.
The entity look down at the convalescent reclining upon the gurney. What might pass as an expression of sympathy or pity formed on its nearly colorless face.
Medical personnel quickly took the tube dangling beneath the lifeform's extended appendage and attached it to the convalescent's arm. The dark, viscous fluid oozed into the patient's body.
The gathered observed in reverent anticipation. They barely said a word, but the attentive could still hear the audible gasps and sighs.
The invalid began to stir. Vitality returned to the previously near-lifeless body at a steady pace.
Eventually, the joyous person sat up in amazement under his own strength. He hopped to his feet with the enthusiasm of someone that had not been able to accomplish such a simple gesture in what seemed to him no doubt ages.
Cheers of adulation erupted. The hovering serpentine entity looked down and offered what it could of a smile. It looked upward as it ascended the tractor beam back through the bottom of the ethereal saucer.
Still watching from a distance, I turned to my brother and observed, “I bet the cost of that doesn't come cheap. And it will probably end up being a price we will all be forced to pay whether we want to or not.”
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, February 06, 2016
Friday, February 05, 2016
Tolerancemongers Applauding Obama’s Pilgrimage To Terrorist-Sponsoring Mosque Condemn Ted Cruz’s Flirtations With Religious Extremism
Thursday, February 04, 2016
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Monday, February 01, 2016
In an op-ed published in the New York Times, this theologian wrote, “Donald J. Trump stands astride the polls in the Republican presidential race... Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”
As not only a graduate of the Southern Baptist Convention's most prestigious seminary but also as a professor at the school as well, shouldn't Dr. Moore know that words mean things? Some possess very precise definitions.
In academic writing courses such as the infamous English 101, one of the first things students learn is to be cautious when applying words such as “all”. For if your opponent can find as few as a single counterexample, they have pretty much derailed your argument.
However, in his fanaticism, Rev. Moore insists that to vote for Donald Trump is to repudiate everything which the Christian professes to believe. But casting a ballot for a limited number of reasons barely touches on any essential Christian doctrine.
Granted, there was one off his rocker Charismatic or holy roller that attempted to make the eschatological case that Trump was the trump to be blown in the Book of Revelation. However, at no time has a Christian holding to an orthodox understanding or interpretation who also supports the Trump candidacy renounced the so-called fundamentals of the Gospel message. These would of course be that Christ as the only begotten Son of God and second member of the divine trinity took on human form being born of a virgin so that He might live the sinless life that we could not in order to die upon the cross and rise from the dead as payment for our sins so that those that might believe in Him could enjoy eternal resurrected life with Him in Heaven.
In his analysis, Rev. Moore raises of number of valid concerns regarding Donald Trump's moral shortcomings and failures. Of Trump's behavior towards women, Moore writes, “His attitude towards women is that of a Bronze Age warlord. He tell us in one of his books that he revels in the fact that he gets to sleep with some of the top women in the world. He has divorced two wives (so far) for other women.”
Such should give the Christian striving to live up to the rigors of Biblical morality cause for concern. However, to categorize Trump's attitude as that of a “Bronze Age warlord” is a bit over the top.
It is probably safe to assume at no time did Donald Trump impose his physical affections upon women that were not receptive to his amorous advances. As a multibillionaire, he'd probably have too much to loose in a post-Anita Hill era where rumors and allegations are too easily believed.
Unless these are rape victims, aren't these wenches as every bit the depraved whoremonger as Donald Trump? Just as Donald Trump prides himself on his carnal conquests, the women he has bestowed the honor of pleasuring him carnally have probably have had their own egos stroked (along with a few other things) by the fact that a man of his wealth and power would extend to them this kind of attention.
As an archetypal capitalist, Trump is probably quite good to these women from a material standpoint. These aren't the aging church biddies with so much hairspray that their beehives or bouffants would likely catch afire should they wander to close to an open flame. Those operating in Trump's circles know what they are getting into when they catch his eye and likely even seek out that kind of attention from the likes of him.
If Dr. Moore is going to condemn Bronze Age mentalities towards women, does he intend to criticize some of the teachings propagated by the likes of the Duggar's? For example, of that family's twenty some children, does Dr. Moore find it strange that not a single one has really attempted a college education? And what about the teaching emanating from the Duggar compound that even a pregnant wife is obligated to physically service her husband anytime he awakens in the middle of the night with an urge or an itch?
Russell Moore further writes, “In the 1990's, some of these social conservatives argued that 'If Bill Clinton's wife can't trust him, neither can we.' If character matters, character matters. Today's evangelicals should ask, 'Whatever happened to our commitment to traditional family values?'.”
In part, that once strong conviction was been undermined by self-styled sophisticates such as Russell Moore positioned higher along the ladder of ecclesastical position that go out of their way to enunciate their contempt upon those seen as mere pewfillers with little purpose other than depositing coins in the collection plate when so ordered. In other columns, Rev. Moore has gone out of his way to express a giddy delight at the demise of so-called “cultural Christianity”, described as an interpretation of the faith more concerned with the preservation of the social norms derived from the faith perhaps at times even more so than the relationship between the individual and the Savior.
However, what Moore has criticized in such cases is apparently not so much activist Christianity. For he certainly has little problem with advancing policies that perpetuate his own perceptions of White guilt bordering on that exhibited among the ranks of the Emergent Church Movement.
Dr. Moore writes, “Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly 'us” versus 'them' identity politics. When evangelicals should be leading the way on racial reconciliation, as the Bible tells us to, are we really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers...for this angry politician?”
Regarding “protectionist jargon”, would Russell Moore be as giddy at the prospect of foreign labor depressing what are no doubt his own extravagant wages and posh expense accounts? Like many a hillbilly pastor, Russell Moore can no doubt prattle on for hours about how hard he probably toiled in the cotton fields, bayous, or coal mines.
But only in his mid 40's, it is doubtful much dirt has accumulated under his manicured fingernails or callouses formed on his hands. The most profound physical strain Dr. Moore has encountered in his occupational position as of late has probably been an occasional paper cut.
Perhaps we mere pewfillers ought to embrace Dr. Moore's call for stagnate or declining wages. It would mean, after all, fewer dollars that we would be required to be slipped into the collection plate.
From his own actions, Russell Moore's call for racial reconciliation amounts to little more than aligning himself with Evangelical front groups that deep down advocate their own distinct hue of racial separatism at best or ethnosupremacism at worst in that (to put it in a plainspoken manner) despise the White race (or however else you want to describe Caucasoids in this era where whatever flies out of the mouth of someone of that demographic extraction attempting to stand for their particular people or heritage will be coopted in order to indict the enucinator with allegations of hate speech or thought crimes).
For example, Russell Moore sits on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. Of that, the discerning believer ought to ask a number of questions that in today's climate could result in either losing their position as a Sunday school teacher or deacon and might even lead to their church membership being revoked.
Firstly, would a group of that name open its positions of leadership to individuals advocating a Buchananite foreign or immigration policy? If not, how are these sectarians any better than the ministries that focus upon family values such as abortion or the preservation of heterosexual marriage now condemned as divisive by the religious progressives that applaud ethnic and racialist agitation?
Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, would Russell Moore sit on the board of an organization titled something like the Coalition For Nordic or Teutonic Evangelicals? If not, why should such an organization be any less commendable than one advocating that someone is deserving of special praise, adulation, or accommodation just because they happen to be Hispanic?
Interesting, isn't it, that the Scripture that there is neither Greek nor Jew is only presented for exegetical contemplation when it can be invoked to criticize the tendency of Whites to gravitate towards others of their own particular phenotype? The admonition is conveniently overlooked when certain grievance industry minorities have no problem with judging someone by the color of skin rather than by the content of character.
There are indeed a number of reasons to be concerned regarding a potential Trump Presidency. Without a doubt, this tycoon excels at expressing many of the concerns and frustrations weighing on the hearts and minds of average Americans. However, many of his proposals and solutions seem lacking in the specifics that would be needed to get the country from the state of crisis in which we presently find ourselves to the more solid footing Donald Trump promises in a manner that would adhere to the liberties and procedures of a constitutional republic while minimizing the social disruption that would likely result from a dramatic alteration in governmental policy and approach.
Apparently Russell Moore intends to posture and preen in an attempt to acquire accolades for himself from progressives by heaping condemnation upon those giving what Donald Trump has to say a serious hearing. In his reflection, perhaps Russell Moore ought to as seriously reflect upon the role he himself has played in propagating a milieu where many Americans no longer feel as if they have a place any longer in either this country or even the church.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Given that the apostate wing of Anglicanism isn't exactly known for its apocalyptic millennialism or even a literalist interpretation where these eschatological expectations can only be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Christ's return, such a statement ought to be a cause for concern.
There is little reason to object to the aspiration of everybody being free from want provided they lift a finger of their own to some degree in pursuit of this ideal.
However, without Christ Himself on scene to render such a verdict, who is to say what constitutes “too much”?
Might “too much” be the ostentatious vestments and silly hats many belonging to this retired bishop's particular denomination like to prance about in?
If these functionaries really cared about the equitable distribution of recourses, they could still solemnly fulfill the requirements of their ritual and liturgy in little more than a collared clergy shirt running not more than $50 online.
More importantly, how are those that “don't have enough” necessarily negatively impacted by my having “too much”?
What if one has more simply because one has been a better steward of what one has been blessed?
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
A good example of this increasingly-pervasive UFO mythology appeared in an edition of the Prince George’s Journal when one of the columnists exhibited a number of the typical intellectual and spiritual fallacies surrounding this controversial issue. For starters, the columnist assumes the federal government is concealing alien corpses from another planet or knowledge pertaining thereof under lock and key in the deserts of the Southwest.
Our government might be guilty of many things (including psychic warfare according to various reports), but harboring extraterrestrial biological remains is probably not one of them. Naturally, people are going to see strange things in the skies above Roswell and Area 51; it is, after all, where experimental aircraft are tested, many of which in all likelihood do not conform to popular aeronautical configurations.
The philosophical reasoning of the columnist under consideration is even more fuddled than her historical assumptions. The columnist complains about the popular conception that the universe’s non-human inhabitants are diabolical and bent on interstellar domination. But she herself then makes the equally egregious error in assuming any extraterrestrial intelligence must be in a moral sense inherently superior to any human being.
Many of the great Western thinkers of both the classical and Christian traditions contend human beings possess the same nature the world over, operating along an established behavioral continuum. Isn’t it safe to assume that sentient life across the universe would adhere to a similar standard?
Popular science fiction seems to bear this out as television programs in this genre exhibit a wide array of alien psychologies often in the span of a single episode.
On Star Trek alone, Vulcans value the intellect while Klingons revel in bloodshed; the Borg epitomize Communism as they have no rulers yet all are slaves having their individuality sublimated to the prerogatives of the collective. The Bajorans of Deep Space Nine are deeply religious, the shows producers using them to comment on the role of religious faith in light of the Space Age. On Babylon 5, the Vorlons claim to stand for universal order while pursuing their own nefarious agenda. So much for extraterrestrials being superior.
It seems from this small sampling that such creatures would be as complex and varied as the nations and peoples now inhabiting our own world. Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry through his work seemed to argue humans would actually be the ones providing a sense of balance to galactic affairs with the so-called aliens actually the ones for the most part exhibiting behavioral and philosophical extremes.
It seems the incessant praise of all things alien might just be another attack on the wonders man has accomplished in his few short millennia of existence. The liberals who bash human ignorance in light of the knowledge an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would have to offer turn around and praise the backwards peoples of the Earth such as jungle tribesman and desert nomads.
Applying this heuristic of the “noble savage” (to borrow Rousseau’s term), wouldn’t us simple Earthfolk bring enlightenment to the interplanetary voyagers? Perhaps we simpletons would even persuade them to abandon their vile space-faring technology (which no doubt pollutes the solar winds) for a way of life more in tune with the principles of cosmic sustainability confined to a single planet.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Meteorologists Covering Their Rears By Referring To Predictions Of Pending Doom As “Models” Rather Than “Forecasts”
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Friday, January 15, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Friday, January 08, 2016
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
PCUSA General Moderator Insists Christ Would Remain In Ecclesiastical Union With Those Violating His Explicit Revelation
Monday, January 04, 2016
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Friday, January 01, 2016
In a criticism of what he categorized as a narcissistic variety of esigesis, Lutheran theologian Chris Roseborough spoofed pastors that gleaned Old Testament narratives for illustrations or metaphors to assist believers through the challenges in their own lives. For example, facing our own Goliaths. But unless such passages are presented in such a light, are they really all that pertinent to the life of the individual? Ancient Semitic battle narratives don't really float most people's boats to any significant extent.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Naive Religionists Eager To Find Shackles Under Their Nonsectarian Commemorative Photosynthesizing Lifeform
Observers of America's cultural situation witnessed something similar in the developments that unfolded surrounding the 2015 Starbuck's Christmas cup. For whatever reason, the purveyor of shockingly overpriced caffeinated beverages decided to go with a plain red cup unadorned by any additional ornamentation with the exception of the company's mermaid logo. Absent were the snowflakes or decorations of Christmas cups past.
Christian Evangelist Joshua Feuerstein responded that this design alteration was akin to removing Christ from the celebration of His birth. Most Christians shrugged off such a reaction with a laugh or two, remarking that they really didn't care as they never purchased a $7.00 cup of coffee in the first place and weren't about to begin doing so now.
Others such as Lutheran theologian Chris Roseborough reflected that it is the duty of actual Christians rather than retailers to take the true meaning of the holiday to the broader unbelieving world. Still others such as Southern Seminary President and former Southern Baptist functionary Richard Land assured that there will indeed be a boycott of Starbucks nevertheless just to assure the captains of commerce that conservative
Christians are still capable of exerting economic influence. Yet an additional perspective contends that, since lack of a snowflake on a red cup has got to be the flimsiest of evidence of a war against Christmas that one could come up with, that must mean the war against Christmas must be about as real as flying reindeer. However, children born the day I published my first column regarding the effort to undermine Christmas are now nearly old enough to legally spike their eggnog.
These deprivations of liberty and subversions of culture have occurred with such regularity that I was able to assemble a sufficient number of these holiday-themed columns into my first book published in 2006 titled “Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors” and am well on my way to completing an even longer sequel. Among these apparently non-existent incidents ranked students denied the opportunity to attend a performance of “The Christmas Carol” because of the work's holiday-specific content, municipalities terrified to refer to their celebratory greenery by the traditional nomenclature, and students forbidden from distributing to classmates something as simple as a candy cane accompanied with a card interpreting the confection's origin from a religious perspective.
Even more disturbing than either Christians that don't celebrate Christmas over objections as to what they perceive as the holiday's questionable origins or outright unbelievers wanting to censor the Gospel message because of the offense of the cross comes an additional outlook that is apparently aroused by the prospect of cultural subjugation. This particular viewpoint was articulated in a ChristianPost column titled “Why Christians Should Lose The Christmas Culture War” by Jared Byas. Of his particular bias, Mr. Byas writes, “For me, defending God means letting go of 'Merry Christmas' so my non-Christian neighbors feel respected when I invite them to the holiday table. For me, keeping Christ in Christmas is not about winning the culture war --- but about losing it.”
If that is how Jared Byas gets his Christmas jollies, that is his own business. But just because his mental lights exhibit the symptoms of a loose bulb, there is no reason the remainder of us must also. If your neighbor is such a burro excretory orifice that they have a mental breakdown at the sight of religious symbols or even decorations where the religious meaning might not be quite as obvious, is there really much of a point in inviting them to this hypothesized nonsectarian holiday table? If we are to gradually set aside the traditions that characterize this particular season, perhaps the first to go is pretending to care about those that you barely give the time of day to the remainder of the year.
It might be one thing to tone down one's in your face religiosity in the attempt to reach out to an acquaintance overtly hostile towards true spirituality. However, this attitude of abject surrender is not without profound consequences.
Those such as Jared Byas elevating nicety to the status of something akin to the Prime Directive from Star Trek have failed to realize that God establishes different missions or objectives for what are conceived of as the distinct social spheres or what might be referred to as orders of creation in Augustinian theology. For example, Romans 13:3-4 stipulates, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil...For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (KJV).”
However, for someone that is thought of as a traditional minister in terms of church office that administers the sacraments or delivers the public proclamation of God's Word to draw a sword to settle an acrimonious debate on what color the new carpet in the sanctuary would be or to resolve a heated doctrinal disagreement in Sunday school class would be for such a pastor to overstep the boundaries of appropriate authority. Translated in terms of the Christmas issue, it might be in good taste that, if you invite the adherent of another faith over for Christmas, you don't berate them up one end and down the other as to the shortcomings of their errant belief unless they first proceed to attack you in like manner.
However, a culture or nation cannot necessarily afford to be as lenient in terms of its standards and foundational assumptions. For example, those that do not share in the assumption that values Christmas as a cherished celebration should be allowed to verbalize that they do not, articulate the reasons why, and pretty much allowed to continue along in their affairs without bodily harm or without fear of such to an extent that a person steeped in a common sense realism would deem sufficiently reasonable. However, that does not mean that the majority that value, celebrate, and derive meaning from the comprehensive narrative source from which Christmas is derived should be required to cower in silence for fear of upsetting those that do not or of receiving punishment for having done so.
In the attempt to position themselves as profoundly pious, it is quite evident that some fail to comprehend the full implications of what they are actually advocating. Jared Byas writes, “For me, keeping the Christ in Christmas is not about winning the culture war --- but about losing it.”
As in any conflict, sometimes the battles go on for so long and become so acrimonious that the involved parties can end up forgetting that for which they are fighting. The term “culture war” gained widespread notoriety in Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican convention. In the address, the political analyst and former presidential candidate gave rhetorical voice to the proverbial Silent Majority noticing then that the embrace of progressivism and permissiveness on the part of various institutions such as academia, media and government was resulting in symptoms of noticeable decline throughout American culture and society.
Therefore, in calling for a surrender in the culture war those of the viewpoint shared by Mr. Byas think that what they are calling for is a truce on the part of all parties to simply play nice on the part of all parties irrespective of creed. What they are inadvertently giving the green light to is an anything goes mentality that will eventually result in the worst depravities and possibly even atrocities imaginable.
The veracity of this observation is already playing itself out in regards to the gay marriage issue. After standing up for years against the steady drumbeat to normalize this particular moral corrosion, many sincere Christians finally relented. They essentially said, “Fine, go ahead and do as you please in the privacy of your own bedroom. Just don't expect the remainder of us to stand around applauding in approval.”
This armistice of don't ask don't tell did not last long in terms of history's lengthy reach. For throughout this unfolding cultural revolution, the propagandists and social engineers insisted that the love between a couple of any combination imaginable was not dependent upon a piece of paper. But nearly as soon as those attempting to order their thoughts and their lives in compliance with the sanctified and the holy began to make peace with the fact that much of society was going to recognize such unnatural couplings as perfectly ordinary, additional blows were landed by the ephors of the judiciary that those objecting to the solemnization of wanton carnality would also be required to render the legal equivalent of acceptance and adulation.
In a court ruling upholding the right of conscience for the marrying couple but apparently not for the objecting merchant, a baker was threatened with financial ruination and the profound psychological trauma resulting from such for doing little more than refusing to bake a cake for a wedding that the baker believed to be an abomination in the eyes of God and for a couple not even likely to remain faithful to one another within the next couple of years anyway.
Libertines will snap why can't the baker just go ahead and bake the cake? Traditionalists can retort why can't the couple simply find another baker (which shouldn't be too difficult given that those of the couple's boudoir proclivities are often quite skilled in those crafts requiring a creative flair).
So what other freedoms and liberties is Jared Byas willing to surrender when he hoists the white flag in the culture war? Edmund Burke admonished that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.
At the University of Mississippi, not only has the word “Christmas” been banned because it “connoted too much Christianity on campus” but so has the traditional color combination of red and green, having been replaced with red, blue, and silver. Commissars at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville decreed that in the future staff and student organizations must eliminate all religious themes and cultural allusions associated with designated celebration periods commonly referred to as holidays. But do such acts of censorship also apply to Muslim or secularist Jewish populations as well?
One waits with anticipation to hear of the commencement of orgies and human sacrifice. Think that remark goes a little too far?
It must be pointed out that the Nazis were also big on removing Christ and Christmas in favor of generic winter celebrations venerating nature, the state, and the COMMUNITY. As to the orgies, the University of Mississippi has changed the name of its celebration from the festive yet dignified “Grand Ole Christmas” to “Hotty Totty Holidays”. And with a name like that bringing to mind drunkenness and lewd behavior, academic administrators will still gawk on dumbfounded and flabbergasted at the expansion of the alleged rape culture supposedly reaching epidemic proportions on campuses across the country.
From the way Byas formulates his argument, it is assumed that insisting that the existence of Christmas be recognized is an inherently selfish act. This is evident in the phrase ...laying down my demand that the coffee shop I share with my non-Christian neighbors 'privilege' my religion.” The word “privilege” was no doubt deliberately selected in the attempt to link this issue with the revolutionary fervor of the Black Lives Matter movement with its constant drum beat of “White privilege” in the hopes of eroding resistance to increasingly extravagant demands. But are the motives for demanding a generalized respect for Christmas necessarily an either/or dichotomy between selfishness and altruism? Why can't it be a little bit of each?
In “The Wealth Of Nations'”, Scottish economist Adam Smith hypothesized that it was through the enlightened self-interest of numerous individuals making decisions on behalf of their own particular needs and desires that the great invisible hand was able to manifest the will of providence. This particularly brought about the distribution of a finite quantity of goods and services.
However, this theory can just as properly be applied to a Christian approach to the controversy surrounding the Christmas issue. In his call for abdication along this front in the culture war, Jared Byas believes that he I upholding the Biblical admonition to esteem others more highly than ourselves. And that principle does indeed have a place in adjudicating the relationship between specific individuals.
For example, if someone wishes you “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” and they seem sincere in their extension of the sentiment, there is no need to go “Old Testament” upon them calling down holier than thou condemnation in how you go out of your way to maintain the theological formalities of the holiday. Such stridency might do more harm than help in advancing the cause of Christ.
However, what about addressing the attempts of unbelievers demanding that their own animosity towards traditional expressions of religion be granted a place of privilege so militant that in order to be satisfied an entire civilization is expected to lay down in what amounts to ritualized suicide? Therefore, provided one goes about it in a levelheaded manner, each time that you speak out against a censorship or deprivation of Christmas even if as little as letting someone know how much these radical activists tick you off, you are not being selfish.
You are in fact defending the right of someone else to enjoy Christmas unabashed in compliance with their particular convictions. Even more importantly, you are also lighting a candle against a pending Dark Age bent on plunging the world into an engulfing and pervasive tyranny.
Dr. Frederick Meekins