Some church/state relationships never change

Patriotic Christians often lament the lack of influence of the Church on our government and culture.  While this concern can be heartfelt, well-founded, and well-meaning, we need to be careful what we wish for.

History has shown that the Church has gone overboard in its close relationship with the State.  In fact, this has happened quite often throughout history.

It was the Jewish leaders (the 33AD version of organized religion – the synagogue being that period’s equivalent to the “church” of the day) and the Roman government who conspired to crucify Christ.  This was the first “church”/state partnership in persecution related to Christianity.  

Persecution of Christians continued for over two centuries following Christ’s crucifixion until the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in c.312.  It didn’t take long for the the Roman Christians (the “Church) to join with the Roman government (the “State”) in forcing the conversion of pagans to Christianity.  Those who would not convert were persecuted and often killed.  This pattern continued for centuries.  And here we have the second “church/state” partnership.

Moving on to the beginnings of Protestantism in the 1500’s we have the mainstream protestants (the “Church”) and those like the Anabaptists whose beliefs and doctrine diverged from that mainstream.  In a number of instances, the prevailing majority church joined with their respective national governments to persecute and condemn these minority “heretics.”  This is the third “church/state” partnership.

Fast forward to the 1930’s and 40’s to the church in Germany.  This state-funded church/state alliance was the heart of Nazism.  All others - Christians, Jews, pagans - who were outside of that mainstream church/state partnership were persecuted, condemned, and most murdered.  Thus ends the forth “church/state” alliance.

Then I thought about what is going on today in the mainstream churches.  They, too, have been partnering with our government in a number of ways.  Most churches have jettisoned their millennia-old doctrine in favor of politically-correct, but immoral state-promoted public policy.  Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, legalizing mind-altering drugs, lowering expectations of personal responsibility and raising expectations for government entitlements are all part of the new church/state endorsed doctrines.  The state, once again, has co-opted the Church.  And the Church has willingly given itself over to the influence of the State.  Those of us who disagree with these new decrees, whether we are Jew, Christian, or atheist, are now outsiders – the minority. 

Will those of us who maintain our Christian standards be persecuted?  What do you think?  History proclaims that we surely will be.  Such is the nature of fallen humanity.

It is not Christianity that persecutes, condemns and kills.  It is those who maintain an erroneous view of God and Christ’s gift to us that does this.  Islam is the best known and most flagrant example of this with its faulty understanding of God and His love and Islam’s consequent intolerance, hatred and jihad against those who do not submit to their brand of Islam – including those Muslims who are not devout “enough.”  In Islam, religion and government (sharia) are one and the same.  Talk about a partnership!  Running a close second are nations like China and Russia who have partnered with the religion of atheism to form their church/state partnership to persecute, condemn and murder all who threaten their belief system.

Is it any wonder that Islam, liberal churches, and our government have created a new alliance that calls the rest of us “bigots”, “intolerant” and all manner of “–phobes?”  Faithful Christians are now the outsiders.  We are now at the beginning of the fifth “church/state” alliance.  We do indeed need to be careful what we wish for with regard to church and state.  Some church/state relationships never change.  When church and state get in bed together all hell breaks loose.

Syrian peace talks fail. No surprise here.

Lakhdar Brahimi, a Sunni Islam Muslim, was appointed by the United Nations as the new peace envoy to Syria, replacing Kofi Annan on 17 August 2012.  On Saturday, February 15, 2014, those peace talks failed.

Why?  The answer may be complex but seems clear to me.

Here is a clue from Wikipedia:

The ongoing Syrian civil war was inspired by the Arab Spring Revolutions. It began in 2011 as a chain of peaceful protests, followed by a crackdown by the Syrian Army.^[54] In July 2011, army defectors declared the formation of the Free Syrian Army and began forming fighting units. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the leading government figures are Alawites.

Who are the Alawites?

Alawites are a prominent … group, centered in Syria, who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.

The “Twelvers” comprise the majority of Shia Islam Muslims and believe in the soon return of the Twelfth Imam at the end of days.

What did Sunni Muslim negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi propose to the Shia Muslim government of Syria?  (Are you beginning to sense the problem yet?)

Sunni Brahimi suggested instituting a new transitional governing body with members from the Shia al-Assad government, as well as members from Sunni the Sunni opposition.  That didn’t go over too well with Assad – wanted no part of it – and only wanted to discuss “terrorism.”  As an aside, this reminds me of the US Democrats wanting amnesty for 15 million illegal aliens while the rest of us see that of a danger to our culture and a diluting of conservative and Republican representation.  Think of the Syrian equivalents being Brahimi is to Democrats as Assad is to Republicans insofar as a concern of shift of power is concerned. 

Here is the rest of the story from Generational Dynamics.com:

The al-Assad regime wanted no part of that discussion, but only wants to discuss "terrorism," referring to the jihadists in Syria. So Brahimi came up with a kind of compromise: The Geneva II peace talks would discuss "terrorism" on day 1, then discuss the "transitional governing body" on day 2, and alternate between the two topics on subsequent days.

Well, the al-Assad regime refused to even discuss the "transitional government body," and his spokesman said that the terrorism problem has to be completely solved and agreed by all sides "with a common vision," before any other topic could be even discussed.

A “transitional governing body” is out of the question for the Assad government.  I can relate to Assad’s concern.  It is much like the US conservative desire to close the border and enforce existing immigration laws before we open the floodgates of future liberal, entitlement Democrats into our nation.

I can also sympathize with Assad’s insistence on eliminating terrorism as a priority before anything useful can be accomplished.

Now as for the perceived evil of the Assad regime, this is where where the theory of relativity kicks in:  Relative Evil.  The entire Middle East is indisputably a bad neighborhood.  Unfortunately, liberal Pollyannas in the United States believe that those folks live by a similar moral code as we do in the West and respect similar peaceful values for their governments.  Wrong, wrong, wrong!  That false belief is what has gotten us into costly, endless, and futile “nation-building” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As much as we chafe at the thought, iron-fisted Assad-esque regimes are required in that neighborhood.  That is the only way any semblance of stability can be maintained.  They live under millennia of bad habits.  And we think we can change those habits in a decade or two?  We are fools.

We will be more “humanitarian” by being on the side of stability, even though the price of stability is high in blood and freedoms.  The prospect of even more radical Islamic rebels taking over will result in a much higher cost in blood, freedoms, and stability.  The better of two evils.

Lone Survivor: Everything that’s wrong with our policy toward Islam…

I experienced the movie “Lone Survivor” this afternoon.

It is both a propaganda film and a lesson in everything that’s wrong with our policy  toward Islam.  It is also a film worth avoiding because it distorts the truth of the conflict and dwells on gore.

First, the propaganda:  Near the end of the movie, the Pashtuns, an Islamic Afghan/Iranian sect, were made out to be the heroes by sacrificing themselves to hide and save Marcus Lattrel, the lone survivor of the Seal team.  The endnotes to the movie portray the ancient Pashtun “ethic”, called Pashtunwali, in a very Christian light:  Sacrificing to save others.  It leaves the ignorant viewer of the movie to believe that Afghanistan is filled with these peace-loving, pro-American Pashtun with the ethics of angels.  NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Here is reality: 

“In the late 1990s, Pashtuns became known for being the primary ethnic group that comprised the Taliban, which was a religious government based on Islamic sharia law…”

The reality is that while 42% of the Afghan population is Pashtun, a significant number have sided with the Taliban.  The reality is that there may be only a small minority of the Pashtun who continue any semblance of a peace-loving persona of the Pashtunwali tradition as exclusively portrayed by this propaganda film.

Once again, the problem is Islam, not Afghanistan.

There are a number of other problems portrayed in the movie.

• Our rules of engagement (ROE):  They put our soldiers at a distinct disadvantage.  Our ROE fail to recognize the environment our men are required to engage – an environment where the enemy dress and act like civilians.  There should be no distinction when confronted.  The ROE prevent our soldiers from carrying out their mission.  If international laws of warfare are broken by the enemy, e.g. enemy combatants not wearing a uniform and hiding in the midsst of civilians, the other side (the US) should not be restricted in their behaviors. 
• Our political correctness:  I have no doubt that cultural sensitivity training these SEALS had to endure caused them to make absolutely the wrong decision that resulted in their failed mission and their ultimate death.  Fear of CNN trumped their fear of the enemy and resulted in a wrong and deadly decision.
• Technological failures:  Overreliance on technology and “an awful lot of moving parts” to a mission begged for failure. 
• Resource shortage:  Any public official who advocates running a war on the cheap as we are doing in Afghanistan ought to be convicted of treason.  The shortage of Apache helicopters and an effective extraction force is just one example.

And finally, and most significant, is our failure to recognize the real enemy:  The Islamic ideology.  The Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and every one of the dozens of other Islamic terror organizations and front groups are the military and political arms of the Islamic ideology.  We, as a nation, fail to recognize this.  We need to consider every human being who knowingly insists on affiliation with Islam to be an enemy and threat to our nation.

Yes, there are cultural Muslim who are ignorant of the Islamic ideology.  They need to be educated about the evils of Islam so they become knowledgeable, aware, and convinced to the point where they can freely and intelligently renounce their ignorant Islamic association.  But this will never happen because most of our leaders and media of this nation are also ignorant of the Islamic ideology – they wrongly insist it is a religion of peace.

As long as we continue in this ignorance, we are doomed to failure.  We will see Lone Survivor repeated time and time again ad nauseum – someday in our own nation.

Obamahood: Coerced vs. Voluntary Giving…

Despite all his great sounding words, our president’s agenda is all about eliminating what progressives call “economic inequality.”  Despite his speech that will seem to contain all the right words about hard work, creating opportunity for all, and expanding the middle class, we must understand this is a deception. 

The president stands for and will promote wealth redistribution at every opportunity:  Forcibly take, by the powers of the government, from the productive and give to the unproductive.  Coerced giving is known as stealing.  And that is what the Obama administration, as well as the majority in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is all about. 

It matters not that every government tax law and program that steals from the haves to give to the have nots stifles incentives, kills productivity, and destroys innovation.  It is a human character destroying policy.  Greater economic inequality will be the real result.

Here are several examples: 

Obama’s proposed executive order to increase the minimum wage for government contractors takes more from the taxpayer – who comprise only 50% of us and declining – to give to those working on government programs without any expectation of increased productivity.

Obamacare is the biggest coerced wealth redistribution scheme since the progressive income tax.  Because the majority who are signing up will have low premiums and high health care needs, it is virtually assured that a taxpayer bailout will be required.  Proven, reliable actuarial tables for health care expenses  versus premium generation are thrown out the window.

The reach and power of the federal government is growing like a cancer and invading virtually every aspect of our lives.  Our communications, our accounts, our travel, what we eat, the products we are allowed to buy (e.g. lightbulbs), how our children are taught in schools (Common Core), our health care, the defensive weapons we are allowed to purchase, what decreasing portion of our incomes we are allowed to keep, our money spent to prop up our sworn enemies in the Middle East – all of these things are manifestations of federal confiscation of our resources to give to programs and entities that reduce our freedoms and compromise our national security.

The irony is that those of us opposed to this federal confiscation of our incomes and resources are called heartless and un-Christian by progressives.

Newsflash to progressives:  Christians are not Muslims.  We don’t believe in coercion by some higher dogmatic, bureaucratic decree.  We believe that giving must be voluntary – from the heart – not coerced.  We believe that religion becomes evil when it becomes coercive.  We believe government becomes evil when it exceeds its constitutional and moral authority.    We believe in personal responsibility and hard work – and personal sacrifice when required to achieve our goals – OUR goals.  We don’t believe that the lazy or unmotivated or professional takers should be rewarded by government largess at the expense of those who are hard working.  We should obey government, sure.  But that does not mean we ought to be silent about its abuses.  It doesn’t mean we should stand by and do nothing about its abuses.  In our government we ARE the government.  It is an obligation as a responsible member of society to speak out and act when government stampedes our means of livelihood and economic freedoms.

The role of the federal government has gone way way beyond its constitutional purpose.  It has become not merely paternal, but has become the dictator and the thief.  It is not just protecting us from foreign threats, but it is sacrificing our domestic tranquility with its coercive greed.

The problem with homosexuality, it’s promoters and their integrity…

First of all, let me introduce you to a great Christian lady who speaks the truth regarding the problem of homosexuality:

Linda Harvey

Here is her web site:

http://www.missionamerica.com/

Now, a little about the behavior of homosexually-addicted fascists and their promoters.  Tolerance, in the same manner as demanded by Muslims, is a one way street.  They cry “tolerance” but anyone who has a different view of their immoral behavior will be shouted down as “bigot”, “homophobe”, “hater” or worse, without providing any evidence of anything.

Linda’s new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay” (highly recommended for anyone who cares anything about morality) is a case in point.  She put that book up on Amazon.com.  The gay crowd took note and inundated the site with hateful comments not just about the book, but about the author as well.  This is the way the gay crowd works.  They layer evil upon evil.  First their homosexual immorality.  Then their vicious evil actions to defend their immorality.  This is human nature at its worst.

Below are a few examples of the campaign of hate by the defenders of immorality:  

1.0 out of 5 stars

 Too coarse for toilet paper, January 12, 2014

By Ben Erickson (BERESFORD, SD, US) - See all my reviews

Filled with pseudo science and illogical hate, the only use I could find for it was toilet paper. The problem is that it left me a little chaffed.

_____________________

1.0 out of 5 stars

Unscientific, Faithless, Reckless, and Hateful -CHILD ABUSE, December 31, 2013

By Partrick Rauber - See all my reviews

Do you want your child to hate you? Do you to cause damage to your child and rack up therapy bills?
[...]

________________________

1.0 out of 5 stars

But maybe he is!, December 30, 2013

By John C Wall - See all my reviews

Linda Harvey is a loon with no credentials in psychology or sociology. Her bigoted ideas about 'Christian therapy' are more harmful than child rape. She should be in a penitentiary with other child rapists.

_________________________

1.0 out of 5 stars

 Linda Harvey eats children, December 30, 2013

By William T. Rhea - See all my reviews

Linda Harvey is a famous anti-American bigot who makes money of off the bigotry of others. She is barely literate and incapable of advanced thought. If it weren't for hate, she'd be homeless and living on the streets.

More similar comments can be viewed here:

http://www.amazon.com/Maybe-Hes-Not-Linda-Harvey-ebook/dp/B00HAI5SZ2/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

These activists are shaping our nation’s social agenda.  They are prevailing in both their energy level and the effectiveness of their propaganda throughout most media.  Not just tolerance of perversion, but promotion, acceptance, and protection of it is in its ascendency throughout our culture.

Doctrine : Not for me, too intolerant

I was conversing with a couple the other day about their hunt for a church home.  I asked them what they are looking for in a church.  Their criteria, in this general order was:

• Close to home
• Not too big
• Few “rules”
• Non-judgmental

I asked them how important church doctrine is to them.  Their response:  Not important at all.

While I thought a lot of thoughts to myself at that reply, I allowed the stream of consciousness to continue and bit my tongue, as in what I recall Archie Bunker telling his wife:  “Stifle yourself, Edith.”  But I refuse to bite or stifle my fingers as I am now typing.

A lack of concern about doctrine is like attending a wild party – no telling where it will lead.  Or like the proverbial box of chocolates – you never know what you’ll get.

I have to admit there is consistency in their response.  Indifference toward doctrine goes hand in hand with disliking “rules” and “judging.”  Not judging and disliking rules means it doesn’t really matter what you or anyone else believes or does.  That seems rather queer to me, especially in a church.

What, again is the purpose of attending church?  Oh, to fellowship with likeminded believers.  Really.  If all “like minded believers” attend a church because they disdain “rules” and “judging”, that will likely be a church that doesn’t care much what it believes.  Believers in what?  Indifference, rebellion and anarchy? 

Here is their theme song:

You gotta go where you wanna go,
Do what you wanna do
With whoever you wanna do it with.

These are the words of the girl left behind by the guy who does his own thing.  These hippie-inspired lyrics have inspired many boomers to adopt this as their life’s motto.  Anarchy and rebellion, doing our own thing, have become the highest value and the primary goal for our preferred church – as long as there are likeminded believers in attendance.

My understanding of the purpose of attending church is to worship God, be reminded of what Christ has done for us, inform us how to be pleasing to God, and to be encouraged and encourage others in the faith.  To do this there needs to be DOCTRINE that instructs us in a number of things:

• What is worship
• The nature of God
• Who Christ is
• What he did and why
• Thoughts and behaviors that are pleasing to God, and by extension, what thoughts and behaviors are not
• What faith is
• Faith in what
• How to encourage others.

If I cared little about doctrine chances are I would end up attending a church that perverts the worship experience, distorts the nature of God, denies who Christ really is, ignores what He did for us and why, condones any thought and behavior, dismisses the need for faith or what to believe in, and only encourages others to rebel against “doctrine” as I do.

And we need a church for that?

Here is the rest of the story about these lyrics.  The next verse of the Mamas and Pappas song reads:

You've been gone a week, and I tried so hard
Not to be the crying kind -
Not to be the girl you left behind.

Substitute the words “the God you left behind” in the last line and the feelings hit home.  Those who don’t care about doctrine don’t really care about their God.

Suicidally misleading claims about Islam from the Pope…

If misleading the flock is a sin, then the Pope needs to pray for an extra dose of mercy.  Once again the Papacy is proving itself worthy of being an anti-Christ, if not THE anti-Christ.

Am I being too harsh?  Absolutely not based on this latest outrageous Papal decree.

The Pope’s latest instruction to the Bishops, Clergy, and lay faithful of the Catholic Church is an exhortation that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” 

Nothing. Could. Be. Further. From. The. Truth!

This statement is diametrically and diabolically opposite the truth.  Authentic Islam promotes coercion and violence as their means of “evangelism.”  Mainstream orthodox Islam has maintained this doctrine since the days of Muhammad.  Virtually all of today’s influential Imams promote the coercion and terror that has been an integral historic teaching of the Qur’an and Muhammad .

The office of the Pope is either infiltrated by Islamic agents or influenced by naïve and ignorant advisors.

Does the Pope truly believe that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence?  Or is he attempting to stem the increasingly obvious truth about Islam among a growing number of Catholics to promote more effective evangelism?.  Or possibly, like most Stockholm Syndrome infected liberals is he denying the facts about Islam out of fear?

Are lies about Islam required to engage Catholics in effective evangelism?  Doesn’t it make better sense to have as much understanding as possible about the beliefs of those we attempt to evangelize?  Feeding the flock lies and withholding the true nature of a Satanic ideology – in this case, Islam –  is hardly a formula for evangelizing success.  If the truth shall set us free, lies and misrepresentation will sentence us to bondage.

If the office of the Pope is neither infiltrated by Islamic agents nor ill-advised by ignorant and naïve underlings, then is the Papacy in fact influenced by Satanic forces of a nature that could be described as The Anti-Christ?

Here is more on the Pope’s decree from Atlas Shrugs.

The following is the relevant excerpt of “Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium”:

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION EVANGELII GAUDIUM OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY, CONSECRATED PERSONS AND THE LAY FAITHFUL ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL IN TODAY’S WORLD Vatican.va November 24, 2013:

253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

_________________

Note:  The photos contained in this blog (except the last one) depict the friendly engagement of the Papacy with Islamic representatives.  These Papal actions send absolutely the wrong message to trusting Catholics.  The last photo depicts the results of the Papacy misleading Christians about Islam.

More pastors failing to provide the whole truth of the real Islam…

I received a requested Christmas present of a book titled “Making Sense of Your World – A Biblical World View” by W. Gary Phillips, William E. Brown, and John Stonestreet with a Foreward by Norman Geisler.  This is a book that compares several categories of world views - Naturalism, Transcendentalism, Theism (which includes Islam) and Postmodernism – with the Biblical world view.

Now I don’t know which of the several authors of this book wrote the passages I cite below, but they are all complicit in their collective failure to describe the nature and evils of Islam, however much I otherwise respect Norman Geisler.

Starting on pages 46-48, several Islam-indulging statements are made.  First, the title of Diagram 2.5 reads “Comparing the Three Great Theistic Religions”.  This statement presumes that Allah is legitimately Theistic to begin with.  That is a poor assumption on which to base a book on “world views.”  The authors failed to give any account of the pagan origin of the Allah myth.  Even putting Islam in the same category with Christianity as one of the great theistic religions does a gross disservice to Christianity.  If a religion as false and evil as Islam can be proclaimed side by side with Christianity, what does that say of Christianity?  The authors are mired in a centuries old lie.

Second, that same table states that scripture used by Muslims includes Psalms and the Gospels.  Virtually every scripture quoted in the Qur’an is a distortion of what has been proclaimed by Christianity and Judaism for 3,000 years.  It is a misleading stretch to claim that Islam takes any part of the Bible seriously, never mind providing accurate quotes or interpretations from the Bible.

Third, the author claims that Islam means “surrender” when in fact most Islamic experts define Islam as “submission.”  Similar words, yes, but submission has a more coercive meaning and is more accurate. 

Fourth, Islam is stated to “share a common understanding of God as a single, personal Being.”  Allah is no more “personal” than the “moon god” from which the Allah myth is derived.  Allah is an impersonal tyrant that convinces the ignorant, the naïve, and the politically motivated tyrants to commit horrible acts.

The author could have at least added these or similar qualifications to their overly vague and casual descriptions of Islam.  These erroneous or misleading statements alone should cause the reader pause about the author’s grasp of Islam.  But there is more.

On page 97 the authors repeat the Islamic charge of “tri-theism” against Christianity without adequately explaining that Islam itself is a pagan fictional construct and has no legitimate claim to any sort of deity.  Islam’s complaint about the Christian God is more audacious than Obama’s claim of audacity for “hope.”

Page 150:  Again the book raises the fraud of Islam to the heights of one of “the…great theistic worldviews of Christianity…” without bothering to analyze the pagan basis of Islam and its supposed “god”.  In this section’s discussion of why there is evil, the authors could have at least touched on the facts that throughout Islamic history, the orthodox doctrines of Islam promoted intolerance, terror, and massacre to this very day.  Islam has a “god” that sponsors and promotes evil among its followers.

Page 173 with regard to the “particularly significant” growth of Islam, the authors write of Islam’s “more aggressive expressions worldwide” without describing what they mean by “more aggressive expressions.”  Why couldn’t they describe the carnage, intolerance and terror promoted by Islamic ideology to assure submission to the will of Allah and that facilitates Islam’s “aggressive expressions worldwide?”  The authors missed another opportunity to correctly portray Islam as an anti-Christ, if not THE anti-Christ.  This is another milquetoast description of Islam.

Page 180 the authors correctly admit that “almost every religion has the ethical equivalent of the Golden Rule…”  They fail to mention that the exception is Islam that has no equivalent whatsoever.

I would think that if an author wished to contrast their beloved religion, Christianity, with other world views, especially those that wish to eradicate Judaism and Christianity from the face of the earth as Islam promotes, they would at least provide a more accurate, emotional, spirited and complete portrayal of that evil.

This failure on the part of these authors represents the typical failure of the Christian Church today.  The Church is not responding as if our faith and freedoms are being threatened at all.  I don’t understand such a passive, academic, matter of fact approach.

As this critique is also an Amazon.com book review, here are several other comments that explain my 2 out of 5 stars.

[Speaking of the Amazon reviews, it appears that the very complementary but shallow reviews that garner this book 4.5 stars were offered up by college students given extra credit for their reviews.  I have read thousands of reviews on Amazon and the sponsored reviews stand out very clearly.]

One other criticism, resulting from my hope and expectation for the book, is that it is written in a more academic style than I anticipated.  It is written more in the style of a text book – dry and detached. 

Further, the selection of the rather arcane world view categories seems a bit out of touch with the nature of challenges Christianity faces today.  Transcendentalism and Modernism?  Really?  More relevant categories would be atheism (including Communism), Islam, progressivism (big government in lieu of  personal responsibility and God), and naturalism (which includes politicized science worship).  All four categories have significant overlap, especially with atheism.

The book does have its strong points.  It covers naturalism quite well and goes into a lot of detail promoting the logic and benefits of Christianity compared to the other world views it compares.  I just wish it didn’t minimize the gross deceptions and evils of Islam.

State Department bending over backwards to be idiots about Islam…

After two bombings in as many days in Russia by Islamic terrorists, is this all State Department experts come up with – that the Olympics is “an opportunity for thieves or for other folks who want to cause mischief…”?  From the Associated Press:

"Major events such as the Olympic games are an opportunity for thieves or for other folks who want to cause mischief," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "Threats have been made against the Olympic games and acts of terrorism, including bombings, continue to occur in Russia."

“”Thieves” and “other folks”?  Are you kidding me?

If Russia was smart, they would not let our State Department have ANYTHING to do with security during the Olympics.  Obviously we are trying so hard not to offend the Muslims that we repeatedly, insanely ignore the source of the continuing murder and mayhem promoted by the vile Islamic ideology.  And no, those acts are not the result of “radicals” who misunderstand “true” Islam.  Those terror acts ARE true Islam.  Most Muslims appreciate the effort.  How do I know that?  Because this is exactly what orthodox Islam teaches and what most influential Islamic leaders promote.  Those who doubt this fact need to get their head out of fantasy and wishful thinking land.

A serious comedian reveals truth of liberals…

Liberals believe there is no absolute truth and believe everyone else is absolutely wrong.  Such is the oxymoronic thinking of liberals.  That is the essence of Evan Sayet’s message.

Give the YouTube, below, a look to hear more salient but largely ignored truths about how How Modern Liberals Think.

I first heard of Evan last week and discovered a gem – well worth watching.

Here is his website:  http://evansayet.com/

At what point is compromise facilitating what we stand against?

We are well past the point of compromise being a productive solution in a number of things.

In the federal budget battles, continuing Republican compromise, and those in the electorate who believe this is the only rational way “forward” (not caring where “forward” actually leads) are in their blissfully wishful thinking mode.

When an $800 billion debt increase is proposed, is it really helpful to compromise with a $500 billion dollar debt increase when we need to be thinking seriously about a debt reduction?  That sounds rather insane.

Budget compromise takes us to the fiscal precipice just a tiny bit slower.  I guess that’s a good thing if you expect to check out fairly soon and you don’t really care what happens in the next year or next decade.  But that really is somewhat short sighted, and, dare I say it, selfish.  It is better to stick by our principles, what we know is right.  If the other side persists in their insanity, let them take the system down without the blood of the failure being on our hands.

The same can be said of moral compromise.  Succumbing to the political pressures of the homosexual, OK, the entire LGBT lobby, who represent maybe 2% to 5% of our population is another self-destructive compromise.  How far we have fallen over the last 50 years.  Phil Robertson was absolutely correct in his example he was condemned for expressing.  Fifty years ago, not many in this nation, not the media, not the leadership, not the average Joe on the street would have thought that the overt practice, defense, and promotion of homosexuality would be standard fare in our culture yet here it is.  Just as likely, and a logical extension, is that bestiality, man-child love, and other gross perversions will be protected rights in a few decades.  What’s to stop it?  The moral floodgates have lifted.  The filth is streaming in. The pandering by the media and corporate elite is in full bloom.  It is now taboo to speak against immorality, perversion, and filth.  The persecution of Christians who express their Bible-based beliefs is well underway.  We are being intimidated into silence about morality.  Amorality and “tolerate everything” are the new gold standard.  I say nuts to that.

Some are saying that A &E’s action (and now Cracker Barrel) have created a backlash.  It’s about time.  I hope the backlash is just the beginning.  I am sick of evil being proclaimed as good and good, evil.

In the case of both fiscal and moral matters, compromise is not helpful.  It only enables evil and greed to flourish.

HERE is a great comment on this topic by Joel McDurmon of American Vision.

Our culture: Miley Cyrus, cool; Phil Robertson, fired.

Wow, am I glad I don’t have to hold down a job that prohibits me from expressing my beliefs.  That is absolutely the best thing about retirement.  Those without resources (without the ability to survive without their job) are deprived of their first amendment rights.  They cannot express their Bible-based beliefs without the threat of losing their job.  Fortunately the patriarch of Duck Dynasty has both strong beliefs and significant resources.

That is exactly what happened to Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty when he expressed his Bible-based views on homosexuality.  Fired.  And he used pure logical extension when he asked what’s next in the human pursuit of perversion: Bestiality?  That got the gay group’s goat.

Yet on the next day on the Bobwa Wawa show (thank God she’s retiring) the perverse little miss Miley Cyrus gets laughs about her slutty behavior, tongue jobs and all.

Here is an excerpt from The Hollywood Reporter…

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He'll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

Bobby Jindal made this contrast between Robertson and Cyrus:

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal criticized the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson by network A&E.

“Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended," said Jindal in a prepared statement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jindal-messed-situation-when-miley-cyrus-gets-laugh-and-phil-robertson-gets-suspended_771478.html