It almost reeks of conspiratorial collusion that some of the worst riots
in contemporary history just happened to transpire at the exact same
moment when these destructive vagrants can’t be punished for concealing
their faces with a mask but rather could be if they did not.
On the podcast “Pastoring In A Pandemic”, it was suggested that a church
could stagger the concentration of congregants by placing them in
different rooms throughout the church property. Individuals could be
spaced sufficiently apart and extended the privilege of viewing a video
feed of what was transpiring in the main sanctuary. But if you have to
remain that far apart from one another while looking at the proceedings
on a screen, how is that any better than watching from home? At least
there in your own domicile it won’t feel like you are going to be shot
from the guard tower overlooking the prison yard.
Sophisticates sneer that wearing a facemask indoors is no more an
imposition upon legitimate liberty than requiring customers to wear
pants. So what such intellects are insinuating is that your face hole is
obscene as your tail hole. These articles of clothing and the
anatomical regions they conceal are not inherently the same in terms of
propriety. If they were, if one removes one’s trousers upon exiting the
supermarket, does that mean one will no longer be arrested for nudity or
placed on an offender registry forbidding you to be in the vicinity of
young children? If facemasks and pants are the same, does that mean
media professionals calling for federal muzzle mandates while not
wearing one are as lewd as strippers or porn stars? If facemasks and
pants are moral equivalents, does that mean you can expect a visit from
the police should you forget to close your curtains and the neighbors
catch sight of you prancing around your home unfettered without a mask
with your lips dangling in the breeze?
The so-called “Black National Anthem” is to be played before the Star
Spangled Banner at the commencement of NFL games. Will those refusing to
stand before it or kneel be celebrated as heroes of conscience? Will a
ditty be played in honor of every specific ethnicity or only for those
prone to destroy private property and loot electronics when they don’t
get their way in terms of public policy?
If jurisdictions eliminate police, how and on what grounds will facemask
mandates which for the most part are not based upon actual laws but
fiat executive orders be enforced?
An agitator interviewed on Fox News hypothesized in response to a mascot
being eliminated because of allusions to “Gone With The Wind” that the
university should be allowed to change it to whatever it wants if that
is what a COMMUNITY desires. But are such changes being made because of a
true consultation of prevailing sentiment or because those in a
particular constituency are afraid of violent reprisals if the decision
reached does not comply with that demanded by a cadre of violent
revolutionaries? And if the COMMUNITY, heralded as morally superior to
any mere individual, decides in its infinite wisdom, after a time of
deliberation to reverse these hastily derived alterations?
Fox News pundit A.B. Stoddard remarked that she hoped President Trump
would wear a mask as a show of solidarity with those fighting
Coronavirus. So apparently the covering is not about preventing the
spread of disease but about the imposition of an ideological conformity
bordering on the religious after all.
In calling for defunding the police, if Joe Biden wins the presidency,
does that include the Secret Service and, more importantly, the
enforcement bureaucracies intended to impose the confiscatory tax
policies and racialist agenda advocated by much of the Democratic Party?
In a sermon on racism, a Baptist pastor lamented why must we feel the
need to declare our way is the only way or to meet violence with
violence? So just how many ways are we obligated to relent to as
legitimate? The pastor rhetorically responded that we do so for fear or
losing power or control. So to what extent are we obligated to
compromise and to allow violence or the threats of such to be used
against us as competing systems attempt to impose their preferred
worldview and policy vision? Would the pastor gladly surrender the
church building as an Antifa encampment should a cell of this
revolutionary movement show up in the narthex demanding as such? Should
the nation as a whole similarly refuse to defend itself should radical
jihadists attempt to establish some sort of caliphate in areas where
control by civil authorities might be precarious at best as we see
beginning to take place in decayed urban environments?
In a sermon on racism, a Baptist pastor remarked that it is an attempt
to grab personal glory to point out that a statement made by someone
else is incorrect. As an example, he pointed out an individual that
says “All Lives Matter” in response to the the slogan “Black Lives
Matter” or when someone says that they do not see how someone could
support President Trump. According to the pastor, such statements are a
declaration that one person claims to possess greater knowledge of good
and evil than someone else. But isn’t he himself making such an
assertion by insisting that he knows the motivations behind all
articulated ethical propositions? If one cannot point out the ethical
implications of Black Lives Matter as a sociopolitical movement, then on
what grounds is one justified in opposing similar sentiments when
articulated by White power activists? And if the pastor really believes
that any articulated verbal qualifiers that create a sense of
“otherness” are unacceptable, why does he not condemn the ecclesiastical
assembly that he leads for calling itself “Baptist Church” rather than
simply “Church”?
By Frederick Meekins
