Photo by Frederick Meekins
Click On The Headline9:59 P
But isn't that for two basic reasons?
Number one, if teachers stick to the curriculum, they have at least that to defend themselves with when the pastor comes to pepper them with a battering of Scripture references should a doctrinal or even a merely an interpretative difference arises in class.
Second, even if they love both God and pupils, the Sunday school teacher --- unlike the pastor in most circumstances ---- is just a volunteer.
For, to put it bluntly, the Sunday School teacher has other things in life that they also need to attend to and you get what you pay for.
If asked to do the other workaday work of the Sunday school teacher, it is doubtful the pastor could do that job without the book or operational manual either.
If these pastors want Sunday school teachers as absorbed in the nuances of Scripture and doctrine as professional clergy, pay the Sunday School teachers the wages of a pastor or staff member at a church that already has at least a half dozen pastors and compensated assistants already on the payroll.
By Frederick Meekins
The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.
This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.
It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.
However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.
For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.
However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?
An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.
However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.
By Frederick Meekins
A radio pastor postulated that Halloween sucks the individual into the occult the way that cigarettes pull one into the world of hardcore narcotics. But what about the millions that don’t dabble in the world of drugs beyond tobacco? Isn’t this akin to insisting that one piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken is the gateway into obesity and heart disease?
An assailant was shot trying to enter a Washington, DC TV station without authorization. In coverage of the event, detail was provided as to the layers of security an individual was required to pass through before being granted access to the building. Such security measures are probably commonplace at media facilities across the country. But if broadcast media personnel deserve such workplace security, why is the United States as a whole not deserving of the additional protection that would be provided by a Great Wall of America?
A leftist subversive interviewed on Fox News said it is unAmerican not to consider the asylum claims of the Honduran horde oozing ever closer to the U.S. border. Will this pundit speak out with similarly decisive condemnation of the deadbeats in this surging mob setting the American flag ablaze?
An article in the 11/2018 edition of The Nation is titled “White Men’s Tantrums: They’re frustrated by the prospect of their power eroding”. Does this propaganda outfit intend to publish similar exposition analyzing how when Blacks toss tantrums over disagreeable judicial or law enforcement actions it usually results in looted electronics retailers or hair care establishments?
In light of mail bombs delivered to a number of prominent political figures, policy elites are warning that the rhetoric must be toned down. But it is when people feel that their expression is being stifled that they are prone to consider violence.
In response to the mail bomb attacks, social engineers are blathering about the need for Americans to come together and set aside their differences. So just how much more are we obligated to surrender to subversive partisans that will not be happy until everything one has worked for is confiscated and squandered in the name of income redistribution and resource equity?
So Linda Moulton Howe claims that earth is the experimental laboratory of multiple extraterrestrial races but claims of the New World Order stretch the limits of credulity in her mind?
How is the deplatforming of the entire Gab social network over the actions of a single member appreciably different from the sort of prejudice our multiculturalist overlords demand that we reflexively oppose to the point of infringing upon the spirit of traditional understandings of free expression if not technically its letter?
Apu is being excised from the Simpsons over concerns about stereotypes and cultural sensitivity. So does that mean something similar can be done about Ned Flanders, Rev. Lovejoy and the mockery of Christianity presented by those two characters?
The Synagogue Shooter is on the record as opposing Trump over his support of Israel and the Jewish community. As such, isn’t blaming the President for the massacre as much an outrage as blaming a scantily clad woman that she got raped?
If Halloween is so evil, isn’t slipping a tract in with the candy akin to slipping a tract along with a dollar into the thong of a lapdancer?
In condemnation of Vice President Mike Pence appearing with a Messianic rabbi, the Yahoo headline accuses the sect of this religious functionary of cosplaying as Jews. Couldn’t the same thing pretty much be said regarding a variety of religious leftists hijacking Jewish terminology to advance a particular liberal agenda? For most of that persuasion seldom abide by the rigors of Old Testament custom or theology but rather invoke the concepts as a shield to protect their militant secularism and anti-Christian prejudice from scrutiny by those easily cowed by political correctness.
If we are all obligated to come together irrespective of our theological differences in light of the tragic synagogue shooting or face assorted curtailments of civic participation opportunities such as the expression and dissemination of verbalized thought, shouldn’t those shouting this the loudest actually be complaining the least as to whether or not the rabbi appearing with Mike Pence was one that denies the divinity of Christ or embraces Jesus as the Messiah?
How is the call not to politicize itself not an act of politicalization? What this really translates as is one does not want to hear an interpretation one does not agree with as to the hypothesized causes of a particular event or tragedy. The ones perpetrating a particular event are ultimately the ones responsible. However, failure to examine the ideology motivating the deeds alleged to be perpetrated in the name of a certain cause, religion, or philosophy or even where these ideas were implemented in a way not intended by the initial expositor is to exhibit an appalling level of stupidity as to how the world works that will only serve the perpetuation of such tragedies.
Interesting. So church people get reamed a new one if they talk things other than church before church. Then I’ve heard them get reamed a new one for talking something other than church after church. Then they get reamed yet again if they do not befriend people that they really aren’t allowed to say much of anything to in the only place where these said people would really encounter one another as frankly they possess no other shared interests or even in the same stage of life.
If suburbanite WOMENNNNN turned against the Republican Party because they did not like President Trump’s tone, let’s see how they will like that of their daughters’ and granddaughters Islamist harem masters in about 25 years.
If a middle school displays propagandistic artwork depicting a celebrity whose primary reason for renown was refusing to comply with commands issued by organization administrators contradicting the preferences of the individual in question, should educators be surprised or respond with anything but praise when pupils exhibit a similar spirit of recalcitrance in responding to directives issued by government educators indoctrinating young minds in the glories of civil disobedience?
So will all those celebrating high voter turn out be as ecstatic when it will be Republicans or even more specifically Tea Party types turning up at the poles? That is when we are usually beaten over the head with ponderous reflections about there being “too much democracy’ and how we are better off if distant elites plot the minutest details of our lives.
President Emmauel Macron of France denounced President Trump’s promotion of nationalism. But doesn’t France administer an entire government agency for determining which foreign words may or may not be assimilated into the language? Don’t many French go out of their way to make it known just how much they despise the American way of life? Most importantly, wasn’t it the French that inspired President Trump’s semi-idiotic idea of a military parade where tanks would have rolled down Washington, DC streets?
By Frederick Meekins
In one particular closing argument segment of his program, CNN mouthpiece Chris Cuomo declared it rank hypocrisy for Christians who celebrate Christmas to not fling the border gates wide open for the caravan swarm amassing along the U.S./Mexican border. Cuomo pontificated, “No small irony that Christians are getting ready to celebrate the story of Christmas, which is the exact story that we are trying to celebrate here. The poor and unwanted who wound up bringing the savior into this world in a stable, rejected. Just as we are doing now. This is who we are now and it must be exposed.”
Such exegeted buffoonery is to be expected from a theological ignoramus who also revels in the delights of sodomite matrimony and the unbridled infanticide of abortion.
The key to the most complete understanding possible (for no human is capable of understanding all of it) is to take all of the canonical text (both Old and New Testaments) and to synthesize these together rather than to rely upon a single textual portion isolated from the comprehensive whole. On this account, Chris Cuomo is as woefully lacking as his reflections upon the Bill of Rights as evidenced by his pronouncements regarding free speech and the right to bear arms.
First, Mary and Joseph were not the unwanted migrating for the purposes of expecting to find a more prosperous residence in a land in which they possessed no ancestral ties or against which they had a legitimate claim. From Luke 2:1-6, the objective student of theology reads that Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to comply with the decree of the Roman census for the purposes primarily of taxation. Thus, this narrative had nothing to do with immigration policy.
If a pulpiteer wanted to connect the account with something to make it relatable for contemporary audiences, the homily ought to have referenced the disturbingly intrusive census questions (since that was why a pregnant woman was required to plod across rugged countryside (tradition often depicts, on the back of a burro) or overly burdensome tax regulations such as those threatening small microbusinesses to submit proceeds to every conceivable local revenue jurisdiction in a country that spans the breadth of an entire continent.
Chris Cuomo is correct that Scripture does require compassion. However, he is even more exegetically negligent in failing to point out that this quality is circumscribed with boundaries and requirements not only on the part of the party obligated to extend it but also on the part of the ones considered to be receiving it.
Leftists love to point out how Scripture admonishes fair treatment of the stranger dwelling amidst the children of Israel. Interesting how those exhibiting an enthusiasm for the detailed oracles of God in this particular instance grow noticeably silent or even dismissive of the obligations expected of those not hailing from the Covenant people but extended the blessing of being allowed to sojourn among them.
For example, these aliens were not allowed to carry on in their heathen customs in a manner that would have polluted the sanctified culture. Those granted sanctuary would have been required to comport themselves by a body of standards far more restrictive than anything that would be imposed in Trumpist America.
Leftists priding themselves somewhat as Bible scholars will no doubt respond that these statutory rigors are part of the Old Testament covenant. These provisions do not apply to the New Testament which is based upon forgiveness and love.
So is that really how religionists of a more progressive outlook want it? So in an exaggerated Jim Carrey mannerism, “ALLLLLRIGHTY then!!”
It follows that the parameters of God's fulfilled covenant are circumscribed by the portion of Scripture referred to as the New Testament. Those wanting to invoke its protections are just as obligated to abide by its regulations.
As such, Romans 13:4 says of the magistrate, “For he is a 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 of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” Therefore, if Chris Cuomo is going to admonish compliance with the whole counsel of God, shouldn't viewers expect to see the broadcaster deliver an exhortation urging those wanting entrance into the United States to comply with all duly enacted regulations and policies deemed necessary by the American people as enacted through their government as established by a ratified constitution?
In the conclusion of his remarks, Cuomo equated the migrant caravan at the border demanding entrance into the United States or threatening an undefined “or else” with the Holy Family. These two demographic quantities are nothing alike in terms of the responses to their respective circumstances.
For example, the most basic characteristic one cannot help but notice about the caravan is its incessant and forceful making of demands. For it was not the orderly way in which the throng went about filing petitions for entrance that prompted border enforcement personnel to respond with the strategic deployment of the compound colloquially referred to as “tear gas”.
The Holy Family, on the other hand, are not on the record in Scripture as to making any demand whatsoever. The account is not even clear as to whether or not they told anyone else of their plight.
In dramatic interpretations of the Gospel account more likely to give the kids more charismatic than those relegated to the role of shepherds but not quite the apple polisher of the lad usually selected to play Joseph, the innkeeper is made out to be a bigger equus africanus asinus than the one Mary is depicted as riding into Bethlehem on for sticking a pregnant woman in a barn. However, an innkeeper is not even mentioned in terms of explicit divine revelation.
There is next to no background provided as to how it was that Mary and Joseph ended up in the stable. All theories speculating as to whether it was at the suggestion of the innkeeper because of Joseph's pleading or because the sanctified couple quickly dashed in for a modicum of privacy because Mary couldn't any longer keep the blessed event contained within her virgin womb with the alternative being not to lay down the head of the little Lord Jesus gently on the hay but rather letting the crown of glory plop onto the dusty streets of Palestine.
It can be stated with near certainty that Mary and Joseph acted nothing like the migrant horde amassing along the border with Mexico or even the typical hipster millennial mother that demands accolades and extravagant concessions for simply having procreated. At no time did Joseph hurl rocks at the inn, threatening to burst through the door uninvited. At no time did Mary demand that those within earshot alter their routines to accommodate the circumstances in which she found herself or provide her with a lactation room more extravagantly furnished than a five star resort.
As an inherently emotional season, many are prone to turn off for the holidays those defenses that usually protect the discerning from being taken advantage of during other times of year. However, it is in such moments that those bent on undermining both our heritage and our liberty are prone to be at perhaps their most deceptive.
By Frederick Meekins