Monday, May 31, 2021
Sunday, May 30, 2021
Saturday, May 29, 2021
Friday, May 28, 2021
Thursday, May 27, 2021
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Sunday, May 23, 2021
If Vile Rap Protected By First Amendment, Why Not News Analysis?
For daring to critique the life of a rapper that probably lived like a reprobate to begin with, the foremost ethicists and theoreticians of jurisprudence of the era in which we live such as Justin Bieber are calling for the firing of Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham.
For decades now, those mired in the lifestyle extolled by this musical genre have chipped away at what remains of American’s moral fabric by emphasizing if it feels good do it mindset irrespective of human life, traditional social relationships, and even law and order.
Thus, who are these barely literates to tell Laura Ingraham what she can and cannot say?
For does not the same First Amendment that allegedly allows the hurling of the vilest of obscenities on the grounds of giving voice to the plight of urban youth also protect Laura Ingraham in articulating her own moral and social vision?
For years, those on both sides of the racial divide concerned about the corrosion of standards often exhibited by popular music were told that, if they did not like what they heard, then don’t listen.
If so, why is Fox News obligated to pander to those likely not even watching the channel in the first place?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, May 22, 2021
Marvel Regrets Casting Freakish Androgonyous Thespian In Asian Role
Do they intend to toss as much a fit about casting Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury, traditionally a White character?
Click On The Headline
Friday, May 21, 2021
Man Killed During Erotic Discipline Session
Apparently One For The “Died Doing What He Loved” Category
Click On The Headline
Thursday, May 20, 2021
Given He’s Neither A Pornographer Or Whoremonger, Why Shouldn’t Pence’s Manifesto Be Published?
Would these same reprobates forbid Cardi-B or Bill Clinton from publishing?
Unlike the current occupant of the White House, it’s doubtful Pence ever inserted a digit into a woman against her will and unlike the previous occupant it’s doubtful Pence ever bedded a woman other than his original wife.
For decades, conservatives and Christians concerned about the proliferation of actual filth in the media were admonished that if they did not want to see such productions, not to to look at them.
The Pence tome is not filthy neither is its author.
Perhaps it’s time leftwting totalitarians simply heeded their own advice.
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Sunday, May 16, 2021
Props Owed For Raising Birthright Citizenship Shortcomings
Outrage erupted over President Trump's proposal to alter the concept of so-called birthright citizenship to exclude the progeny of illegal aliens through the administrative fiat of executive order.
Such a policy alteration would have been based on the interpretation that such individuals would not qualify for the status of citizenship because neither parent is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Trumps has to be given props for advancing such an innovative understanding.
However, such an issue would best be resolved through a constitutional amendment clarifying the matter.
But more importantly, regarding those up in arms over the dangers posed by executive orders, where was similar outcry regarding this sort of regulatory threat when Obama wantonly violated the law regarding so-called dreamers and now that his puppet Biden issues these edicts like mints to cover over the foul stench exuding forth from his diseased mouth?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 14, 2021
Setting Ablaze Paraphernalia Of False Belief Not The Best Outreach Strategy
In a video posted on Facebook, a legalistic evangelist set a flame of a pair of Mormon ceremonial undergarments. The evangelist claimed that the action was Biblically justified.
Acts 19:18-20 reads, “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.... In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.”
From the text, readers can deduce a couple of things. To set down such a decree regarding such requires the believer to look at both the context and content of the passage. Only then can a more definitive policy be put in place.
Because of this account, those figuratively on fire for God insist taking the flame to any doctrinally dubious object is not only permissible under Scripture but actually required.
These items were not snatched by authorities out of the hands of those wanting to keep them.
Rather, it is emphasized that those bringing the occultic works forward for destruction were those once owning them that no longer wanted this dark influence in their lives.
Furthermore, what we see in the passage of Acts is an historical account of how a specific set of believers decided to implement a particular set of Christian principles.
Though in particular circumstances their example would be a noble one to emulate, the account is not presented as that of a command that must be adhered to in every circumstance where the Christian finds himself confronted by religious paraphernalia with which they are at doctrinal odds.
For others, it may simply be enough to dispose of the object if they are its owner without raising considerable hoopla or fanfare.
It is usually admonished that Christians hold to the principle that Paul is to serve as the Christian's example in terms of ministry. As such, though the customs and traditions of unbelievers troubled him, it is debatable whether or not he would be that deliberately abrasive in attempting to persuade in regards to matters of error and truth.
The approach used by Paul in dealing with competing belief systems is found in Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, the Apostle is disturbed by the amount of idolatry he sees around him in the city of Athens.
To confront this distressing situation, Paul sets out to present the saving knowledge of Christ in those places in the foremost city of the Western world whose very name is synonymous with discussion and argumentation. In verse 17, we learn that Paul did not shy away from controversy as he took the Gospel into the very hearts of Mediterranean cultural life such as the synagogues, marketplaces, and forums.
We are not privileged to have a comprehensive transcript of the exact dialog that took places in those learned circles. However, we are given a summary with quotes of what Paul talked about and the response of the Athenians to it.
Upon hearing Paul's message, a number of Epicureans and Stoics inquired, “What is this babbler trying to say?... He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” Scripture then clarifies, “They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.”
From what the Holy Spirit decided to preserve of that encounter in the pages of redemptive history, one does not get the impression that all that much time was spent criticizing (at least in a condescending way) the shortcomings of Greco-Roman mythology. Instead, the Apostle to the Gentiles emphasized the distinctive particulars of the Christian faith.
However, Paul's homiletical approach did not avoid the beliefs he hoped to persuade as to the error and insufficiency of. If anything, Paul actually utilized aspects of Classical thought to show how all truths that humans might deduce or stumble upon are ultimately God's truths.
One might dispute this from the way in which Paul began his oration before the learned gathered on the Aereopagus. Paul pronounces in Acts 17:22, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.”
From where we stand along history's unfolding drama, both the triumph of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Scientific Revolution are behind us in terms of being events that have forever altered the way entire civilizations perceive reality.
As such, to our ears, to be labeled “too superstitious” sounds almost like an insult. However, a number of other versions translate the text as Paul commenting on the religious nature of the Athenian intellectual class. Irrespective of where numerous exegetes come down on this interpretative issue, from that point forward there is virtually no debate as to the approach Paul takes.
Those whose missiological approach consists of literally setting ablaze whatever paraphernalia offends their religious sensibilities would have had Paul rip to shreds the inconsistencies and shortcomings inherent to paganism in general and polytheism in particular. There is certainly Biblical precedent for such a strategy where, in Romans 1, Paul holds nothing back regarding how forsaking worship of the one true God to worship nature rather than nature's Creator leads to the most pronounced of carnal sins.
Yet in Acts 17, the Apostle shows that the message can be tailored to fit the nature of the audience addressed. Paul went about this by pointing out the commonalities between Biblical beliefs and Greek philosophy. In terms of apologetics, this phenomena is known as a point of contact.
Paul shares in Acts 17:23, “For as I passed by ... I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown God'. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” From that point, Paul proceeded to point out other commonalities between Judeo-Christian and Greek thought.
In verse 26, Paul declares, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation...:” He emphasized that this simply wasn't the ramblings of a crazed Hebrew babbler Rather, as we are told in verse 28, “For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'.”
As such, in his conclusion Paul does not ridicule the Greeks into capitulation and compliance. Instead Paul commends what the Greeks got right in their philosophy as a reflection of the law written across the heart as spelled out in Romans 2 as to what the Greeks ought to set aside of their pre-Christian thought as they come to Jesus in repentance.
The act of setting ablaze the revered and venerated object of a faith outside the parameters of Biblical Christianity is without question a very provocative act. Even if one opposes the faith, worldview, or creed that the object represents, only the most fanatic would fail or refuse to admit how such a deed does more to alienate rather than woo those one is taking such a course of action to gain the attention of.
For example, it is doubtful many Christians are convinced to the alleged doctrinal error within their own positions of faith when ACLU lawyers descend upon nativities across America and abscond with the ceramic baby Jesus.
Often many a Scripture verse is invoked to justify all kinds of shocking actions.
For once, it would be edifying to hear a minister of solid reputation to go out on a limb emphasizing those passages extolling individual conscience and determining for oneself those things not quite so clearly spelled out in stone.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, May 13, 2021
Mark Driscoll Grows More Cultic With Implementation Of Police State Surveillance
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Sunday, May 09, 2021
Saturday, May 08, 2021
Friday, May 07, 2021
Wednesday, May 05, 2021
Tuesday, May 04, 2021
Plague Cult Urges Parents To Brainwash Children That Sacramental Alchemy Only Way To Be Liberated From Slave Muzzles
What parents need to tell children is that since more will be allowed to do things without slave muzzles they will also be doing more without slave muzzles outside even if they are not vaccinated.
If asked if they are vaccinated that they will respond that they are even if they are not.
For unless the person asking has the power to take you away in handcuffs, the person is not entitled to that degree of honesty from you. If they have friends whose parents are that wrapped up in the Plague Cult, perhaps you as a parent need to rethink who you are letting you children hang out with.
After all, these same thralls of the regime would have no problem cutting you or your child out of their own lives should they learn that you yourself advocate a more conservative or libertarian worldview.
And if you tell them that Mommy and Daddy are vaccinated it is only because the Bad Guys have taken over and that it is the only way Mommy or Daddy can continue to make money to buy you things like food, shelter and toys.
If the tiniest of children are supposed to be told about the mindwarping aspects of existence such as transgenderism and the specifics of sexual mechanics, there is no reason they can’t be taught about the rudiments of tyranny and how sometimes we have to struggle to win back freedom in surreptitious ways.
Monday, May 03, 2021
Saturday, May 01, 2021
Dogmatic Pluralism Results In Operational Intolerance
An old adage contends that it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Something quite similar could be said regarding living by the “live and let live” philosophy espoused by many early twenty-first century relativists thinking they are too cool and hip to be stifled by any one religious creed.
In a letter to the editor regarding an 4/27/2010 USA Today article analyzing the tendency of young adults not to be devoted to a particular faith, a respondent observed this trend is the result of being more educated than previous generations and “exposed to the realities of life in the twenty-first century.”
But rather than thinking for themselves, what may be taking place among the youth such as the letter's author is their indoctrination or brainwashing by those educators the young are spending record time around.
The correspondents on this topic claim to applaud and embrace an iconoclastic eclecticism. But in reality such souls do little more than parrot the notions expounded upon and bandied about the typical college lecture hall.
The author writes, “Who seriously believes that an infinite God, who created the vast complexities of the cosmos, can be understood by finite humanity, let alone be reduced to a statement of faith that's subject to the limits of human understanding?”
Some of humanity's greatest minds actually. It's actually a concept not all that difficult to get one's mind around.
The assumption that finite man cannot fully comprehend an infinite God is (to use a much maligned term) absolutely correct. Isaiah 55:8-9 says God's thoughts are not our thoughts.
However, though we cannot fully know God, it does not follow that God cannot fully know man. Since the infinite is beyond the finite, it is not beyond the realm of the possible for the infinite to reveal of itself what it knows the finite is capable of comprehending of that which is beyond our meager understanding.
In the New Testament, God's only Begotten Son Jesus Christ took on human form by being born of a virgin so that He might dwell among us, die upon a cross for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life if we admit that we are sinners and accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation. In essence, God condescended to our level so that we might know Him.
When asked why evolution caught on as a theory of origins among the intelligentsia, a popular anecdote posits that Julian Huxley responded that Darwinism supported the sexual morays of that particular social class. Thus, all the grandiose proclamations against the dogmatism of the Almighty and the seeming existential nobility of the libertines ends up being a cover to sleep with whomever you want with the hopes of no regret the next morning.
One of the letters to the editor reads, “Beyond that is the nasty habit of many Christian fundamentalists to deny basic human rights to those who don't agree with them theologically.”
And what “basic human rights” might those be? Just about nowhere in the United States are “fundamentalist” Christians denying anyone the traditional rights such as freedoms of speech, creed or property where an ACLU media whore is not before a network news camera within a hour of such an alleged transgression transpiring.
When articulated by a progressive, the phrase “Fundamentalist Christians denying basic human rights” is actually a euphemism for daring to stand in disagreement of the trend towards sodomite matrimony or refusing to enforce preferences for certain groups simply because they are favored minorities. If anything, Christian “fundamentalists” are the ones having their “basic rights” curtailed and infringed upon here at home in America and most certainly around the world.
One cannot name a single regime around the world today where the rulers hold to an explicit traditionalist Christianity that abuses its power by persecuting its population. If anything, Christians unwilling to give up and compromise these truths that they hold dear by refusing to participate in the rejection of moral absolutes are more likely to be the ones persecuted (ironically by the ones that whine the loudest about the church's curtailment of postmodernist understandings of human liberation.
For examples, secularists and radical ecumenicalists applauded the decision on the part of the Department of Defense to disinvite Franklin Graham to the Pentagon's commemoration of the National Day of Prayer over his comments that Islam is an evil and wicked religion as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks and the treatment of woman in lands where that creed prevails.
For you see. Franklin Graham made the mistake of concluding that the First Amendment is something to live by rather than a abstraction to talk about in vague generalities. As Chesterton is credited with saying, the problem with the freedom of religion is that people end up discussing everything but religion.
It is of this fear of appearing impolite and offensively stepping on someone's toes in a manner that delicate psyches will never recover from that our society has come to such a screeching halt that it can become an act of considerable courage to simply state the obvious. And this is something the enemies of this great nation have learned readily.
For example, Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, in a 5/10/10 USA Today column titled “Graham's Anti-Mulsim Jabs Hurt Islam and America” applauded CAIR's public statement emphasizing the American value of “differing faiths united in shared support of our nation's founding principles” rather than the “message of intolerance that Graham advocates.”
But while CAIR puts forward a public face espousing tolerance and cooperation, the groups and individuals the organization supports behind the scenes advocate something else entirely. For example, CAIR has supported Islamic extremists such as Hamas who not only advocate a form of religious exclusiveness that goes far beyond anything advocated by Franklin Graham but also endorse violence against those with whom they disagree.
An old country song admonishes that you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Should Americans continue down the path imposed by cultural agnosticism, the result will not be a relaxed, easygoing paradise. Rather, the result will be the establishment of a sociopolitical milieu where the deceptive will manipulate the weak to undermine the liberty of all Americans.
By Frederick Meekins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)