Secular Rants from a Christian Conservative

No matter how this Christian wants to stay away from politics, it seems as if politics refuses to stay away from him and leave him alone! I should either stop reading papers, political blogs, watching news on TV, reading news in the Internet and be a totally “fool on the hill” (as if I am not a fool everywhere else), by simply avoiding current affairs or, I have to engage lest I will be as a man with a terrible bowel discomfort who cannot find a bathroom nearby! The comparison may be crass but it is exactly the picture of me, in view of all these political things going around, attempting to stay silent and aloof.

The events of this weekend in Nevada where functionaries of the Government oppressed for whatever reason, just, unjust, fair or not, a family of cow ranchers are really something that more than butterflies in my stomach, cause me to see imaginary gigantic vultures swooping over the head of the freedom loving people of this country (the few of us, I guess) just waiting for them to die and degust on their carcasses. Tortoise or not, revenge from Mr. Reid for the opposition these cattle ranchers demonstrated toward him in the last election, the secret dealings of the government with environmentalists while still negotiating with a certain solar panel manufacturer to “donate” the piece of land in question so they can build  their factory, or for whatever reason, the government is not supposed to treat citizens who, for ages, have been doing the same thing all over again, through generations, and were never bothered by the government which passes laws creating crimes that weren’t crimes ere the current public figures were elevated to high levels of government office. No, the government simple does not create an army-like force, with snipers, heavy weaponry to collect a civil debt from a cattle rancher who reasonably questions the debt in the first place and disputes about who the genuine owner of that land is. No sir! The government cannot treat its citizens that way no matter how long it has negotiated with the citizenry! As much as I try to shut up, we have due process, a Constitution to which to resort to find out who is on the right without leaving to activist judges and agencies of the government who work against the constitutionally prescribed citizen’s rights under the guise of environmental issues.

Besides all that, we keep hearing of the National Security Agency spying on its citizens, the proposition, or even the mentioning that immigration laws, although in the books are not to be enforced, that no one sent the a Bureau Land Management like force to defend the ambassador in Benghazi, but were quick to send it to harass cattle ranchers, and that the IRS has worked as a Gestapo kind of force persecuting citizens and abridging their right to have a voice in the electoral process, that the conscience of religious people is being trampled, and that the “gay-stapo” is now deciding who has a job and who does not based upon their opinion which has only one alternative: submit or else.

Have I listed enough items? Man, should I continue to speak about the impunity on the issue of Fast and Furious, of the Black Panther voter suppression and aggression, that were never investigated, or better, it was not something that the Justice Department saw fit to investigate? May I add the lies told by our own president about his trademark program, which are still being told under the guise of 7 million people who no one know whether were uninsured who became insured or insured who became uninsured thus resorting to buying some that they prefer not to have but had no choice in having? Why my government is bragging of reaching an unproven goal when it passed a law that everyone had to signup for its product under the penalty of a fine? Is it not easy to be the government, compel people to signup for something and then brag that the people who was compelled to signup signed up? Why are they bragging if they promised to insure 30 million people and only 7 million signed up, many who had insurance before, and still 30 million people continue without health care?

In Brazil there is this story about a Pentecostal, a very poor man who after moving out of his town, could not find a Pentecostal church and the only Church he could find to attend was a Presbyterian one with a formal and purely liturgical service where every line and every word was planned and orchestrated to the level of a Broadway act and this man could not hold his shouts, better shrieks, of Hallelujah Praise the Lord thus breaking the formality of the service and waking up some pew warmers. One day the minister of the Presbyterian Church noting the man was so poor that had no shoes, and at the same time worried about the frequent disruptions from this poor man approached him and asked him please not to scream at Church anymore and that next Sunday they would have a distinguished guest preacher and if he should be quiet just for that Sunday the congregation would give him a pair of shoes. The man agreed and Sunday came. The man tried to shut up and control himself the best he could, exactly was I was trying to do with my political issues, and in the middle of the sermon upon hearing the guest preacher mentioning the oceans and the seas, this poor man could no longer control himself and shouted: “I may go home barefooted, but Hallelujah, Praise the Lord; the preacher said Oceans, and I just happened to remember that my sins are in the bottom of the oceans, so, tough on your shoes, Hallelujah Praise the Lord”. That’s exactly the way I feel today; I may not lose a pair of shoes because I don’t need one and have none promised to me, but I may lose a lot of friends, but, I can no longer be quiet! Hallelujah, Praise the Lord the Constitution gives me the right to say these things!

 

A Muslim protecting Christian doctrine; Unknowingly!

Read here

nj-easter-egg-huntI said it once and I will say it again! Those who devise non bibilically prescribed customs and feasts to the Christian faith are the ones who are “doing the work of the devil” reducing Christianity into a “fairy tale” with Santa Claus, Eastern Bunny and, of course, egg hunts, and certainly a few other childish parties.

Oh, of course these are such innocent things that they will hardly affect anyone, or any child’s forming faith, right? Wrong! You talk to your children about the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, along with teaching them about Jesus, then you expect that they will grow up and filter off the childish things and realize that none of these characters are real and for some miraculous reason, you hope that they will keep Jesus as a “truthful” character… What a hope!

Before you say it, as an avowed Calvinist I shouldn’t worry because after all God will preserve his own. It is right there in the “P” of T.U.L.I.P, or, “perseverance, (also preservation) of the saints, right? Wrong again! Yes, God will preserve His own but that doesn’t relieve you of your parent responsibility in raising your child in the most pure form of Christian faith!

Oh, I am all in favor of enjoying our liberty in Christ and I am all against legalism in any subtle or conspicuous form it rears its ugly head (and legalism’s head is in the rear), so, I am not talking about turning your child into an outcast, devoid of contact with society, and not participating in some “innocent” play, although such an “innocence” is debatable. What I am talking about is this militant stance in defending these types of activities not prescribed in the Bible as if they were somehow to be revered as something directly from heaven’s throne room! And how some do that? Answer: by calling anyone who opposes to such celebration a “anti-Christian” waging a “war on Christianity”, especially if one is not a Christian.

I said it before and I will say it again: God has used anyone to speak for Him, including a donkey, and God will also use those who are currently the enemies of His Gospel if that is what it takes to remove the attention from a stupid egg hunt that, in my view, a Church should not be promoting, and make the Church really turn their attention to what we are celebrating that day, that is, if we indeed celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. When a Muslim is outraged because of something that he was told is a Christian thing, read that outrage as perhaps God speaking through a donkey preventing us from turning the Gospel into a fairy tale sort of nursery rhyme, devoid of its meaningful and sacred and eternal meaning, and the ever changing power that it has been through the ages. Think about it!

Enhanced by Zemanta

What’s next?

So the Mozilla CEO lasted 11 days. Let’s be clear about this, he did nothing wrong on the job. He did nothing to indicate that his personal feelings on marriage being one man and one woman would affect his work. He released a statement explaining that there was no intention to change Mozilla’s policies regarding same sex couples and that he would work to enact programs designed at reaching out to the LGBT community in order to help that community be more involved in the technology sector. He did nothing wrong.

Now, if you have read a news piece about it, what was said depends largely on whether you read your news with a little right wing or a little left wing mixed in. The news of the right says he was ousted for his belief in traditional marriage, the news of the left says he was ousted for his anti-gay or discriminatory views. The truth is that an internet dating site posted a notice when people tried to log on with Mozilla. Yep, that’s correct, an internet dating site claiming discrimination ruined a man’s career and reputation.

Mark Zuckerberg marches in Pride parades, and Jeff Bezos has spent millions in Washington to promote ‘marriage equality’. Has anyone ever suggested that an employee of theirs would be treated unfairly for their personal views? Of course not, (I hope not and if anyone has said so, they were just as wrong as those who attacked  Brendan Eich ) and I don’t believe they would be. I don’t believe that anyone at Mozilla would have been either.

All the buzz about this claims that those of us who hold ‘traditional’ views on marriage are going to be forgotten and our anachronistic views will fade to a bad memory. Maybe they will, time will tell. We are told fairly often we are on the wrong side of history, and maybe we are. Time will tell. What I do know is this, destroying a man for his personal views is never ok. He is a man. He supported a political cause with the massive donation of $1000. He was destroyed by a group of people who, in the name of tolerance, acted like tyrants, and tyranny is always on the wrong side of history.

My statement on the World Vision reversal

So… The decision by World Vision to respect denominational differences so that there can be a united voice on ending poverty was reversed. In other words, it is more important to discriminate against those you believe are sinners than it is to unite to end something we all generally agree is evil.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Open Borders, Relaxed Immigration Laws and its Consequences

Okay, you can call this Muslim a nut, you can call this Web site “whatever”-wing. This only means that you live in an comfortable zone where you prefer to act as an ostrich as you sink your head in the sand thinking you can’t be seen, whereas condemning those who are beginning to feel uncomfortable while all these things happen in their neighborhoods. Oh, you can also be one of those who “surrenders” by saying: “Why don’t these Americans move to another area?” Or, you can take this seriously as it is coming to an area near your!

Recently someone said in a comment in another post that they doubt that foreigners who come here will demand their cultures to be implemented (as a visitor who comes to your house and demands that you do things as he does in his own home). Well, read this. Call me paranoid, but a pair annoyed is worse than a paranoid… but I hope to annoy you so we do become a pair annoyed. BTW, this is also happening in Oklahoma.

Michigan Muslims demanding their own Sharia Law patrols

 

Soon, you can deny your children health care. Thanks @RepAaronSchock

U.S. Congressman Aaron Schock on Republican Da...

U.S. Congressman Aaron Schock on Republican Day at the Illinois State Fair (2 of 3) (Photo credit: myoldpostcards)

The U.S. House has taken up the charge of protecting the religious liberty of absolute morons — faith healers. “Schock says the Affordable Care Act currently allows a few select faiths to exempt themselves from paying individual penalties.” (here) This bill essentially allows faith healers a recognized status.

This bill, by the way, supports only major religions. Further, it includes heavy fines for those who are seeking the exemption “insincerely.” What does this mean? It means if you take the religious liberty exemption but later seek treatment, you will be hit with heavy fines.

Why is this troubling?

Faith healing kills. It kills children far more than you know. I’ve watched someone die from “faith healing.” Now, our U.S. Congress is attempting to recognize this status and thus ensure that faith healing, or rather the legal abuse of children, is a protected class.

Schock, yesterday on the House floor, said he had taken an oath, an oath to God, to protect the religious liberties of the citizens. Yet, the “so help me God” is not constitutional. Rather, Schock took an oath to the citizens, even children. Here, however, he is insuring he is only protecting his next election.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Irrevocable Mandate

“…give ye them to eat!

No one can deny that Jesus speaks a lot about the poor. In a few texts one may debate whether Jesus is speaking about a type of poverty that can’t be resolved with anything earthly for it is something related to the poverty that go beyond physical needs. But most texts there is nothing to be interpreted about, nothing hidden about the fact that Jesus speaks about those who are socially poor.

Today Christians who are  apologists of the “social Gospel”, or the Gospel of the poor have a tendency to materialize their concern for the poor, sadly, not in their direct involvement with the poor masses, but simply expecting, promoting and voting with the idea that, if a government that they support is “for the poor” then their consciences are clear from any guilt of being apathetic and “involvement challenged”.

Consider this:

  •  There is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus that indicates that Jesus expected or commanded governments to help the poor and the needy. Even when he spoke with influential and rich people, he told them to do something more personal for the poor instead of pleading with them that they could use their influence to change the system and make it more beneficial to the poor;
  • Nowhere in the Gospels or the entire Bible (if one wants to make that distinction) is taught that charity, personal, voluntary, deliberate and sacrificial acts of charity are the same as supporting a government that promotes social engineering, and promises the amelioration of the conditions of the poor by confiscatory tax laws. Redistribution of wealth and Charity are two different things, from two different sources, and mainly, with two different motivations. One is not the other, and the other is not the one…
  • Jesus also did not protest when taxed unfairly; He performed a miracle to pay taxes, said “render Caesar what is his and to God what is His” thus establishing a separation between the two realms from which charity could eventually come. He did not took the advantage to protest against the fact that the taxes weren’t being used enough to help the poor, rather, he said that that money belonged to Caesar, not the poor. A theologian told me that the expression “from the mouth of the fish” meant that Jesus actually told the disciples, some skillful fishermen, to go, fish, sell the fish and use the money to pay taxes. If that is so, or if that is a miracle of supernaturally finding a coin in the fish’s mouth, the fact is that in all the event there is not one mention of taxation as it relates to redistribution.

When faced with a hungry crowd, Jesus told them something that resounds today as a mandate to the entire group of Christians, individually and as the group called Church, “You feed them!” Note that Jesus did not mention anything about separating by any discriminatory group, but He simply commanded His disciples to feed the crowd. Need is the only consideration; not who they are, were, or did… Who knows? Perhaps some of those fed by Jesus that day were not one of those later in the crowd shouting in rage “Crucify him!” In Christianity, need, physical and economical need should be the sole reason for us to give and help the poor. As our Father gives us freely His Grace in Salvation, in spite of all our errors and imperfections, so should Christians give and be charitable to the poor.

Now, just as Jesus was, at least, not clear, or even mentioned redistribution of wealth, the care of the poor via taxation, He was very clear about how we can go about feeding the hungry and helping the poor. It is for us, as His disciples, as the real Church (yes there is an “unreal one”), who are called to the task of promoting genuine and Godly charity! The question is “are we up to the task?”.

Often when religious people come to me with modern ideas of redistribution of wealth promoted by the government I ask them what have they done themselves for one single poor person, not as a distant act of conscience relief, but a kind gesture of service to God? An eye to eye contact, a personal question about their needs, an “right now I am the closest thing you have to Jesus” kind of act? Sadly, not many! At the same time they want the government to do it for them! Well, the mandate still resounds: “Give ye them to eat.!”

A light on the argument of Churches and Charities

Many argue against taxation, welfare, and other government programs based on the suggestion that if taxes were less, churches could do more. Churches, they insist, are the best source of charitable giving.

And yet…

Sunrise Children’s Services is working to recover from a massive budget shortfall after Kentucky churches withheld $7 million because the children’s home had proposed ending its policy of discrimination against LGBT employees.

via KY churches withhold $7 million from children’s home to force anti-gay policies | The Raw Story.

Let’s imagine a world where the welfare system was church based. What would that look like? In many areas, it would look just like the example set by the Kentucky Baptist Convention. What if the child was gay? I guess we should let it starve.

Or Muslim.

Or Hindu.

Or Methodist.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Open Borders? Think Again.

Often I ran into well-meaning, warm-hearts filled with nothing but good intentions who defend and propose that the USA is big enough for everybody and that we should not shun the poor and that would be a great benefit to us if we had open borders, that is, according to their own definition, anyone from any country should be able to walk here first, then get documents later, and attempt to find fulfillment for whatever they could not achieve in their own country of birth.

Many people have a sort of self-righteous stance on the matter and often will use the poor as a reinforcement for their arguments.

Well, Saints, these very same people also have a list of preferences for other causes that are dear to their hearts. Often I have to dialogue with these people in a way that they understand that, if they are really faithful to the other causes along with the poor, gays, minorities, etc. as it relates to the open boarder issue, the very last thing in the world that they should wish for is an open boarder. I reproduced on Facebook a recent dialogue that I had with an open boarder advocate who is also an advocate for gay rights and the conversation went this way:

Person to me: I wish we had open boarders, I am in favor of open boarders. The USA should open their boarder to anyone who wants to come in and work here. We should be taking care of the poor.

Me: Good, I really admire your good heart. But allow me to bring a few thoughts to you especially considering the fact that you are a gay issue advocate. Is that okay?

Person: Yes.

Me: Let us suppose we open the borders. No more immigration and that documents should be issued once a person is here. Consider the possibility that a great number of these people are from a region of the world and grew up thinking that gays should be hunted and killed and at a minimum outlawed; Also let’s suppose that the other group that also enters the gates of the USA with no need for processing and immigration rules, is from a Latin American country dominated by the Roman Catholic Church from the most extreme wing of it, that teaches that gays are “right down there” in rank with the devil on things to avoid.

Continue in that thought and another question is raised: How laws in the USA are enacted? You know, by the legislator which is voted by the people. If these foreigners that came here receive all the benefits of an American Citizenship eventually they will vote. Voting they will elect like minded politicians; Politicians will then legislate according to their constituents. So, naturally it would be expected that these politicians would not only outlaw gays but perhaps even promote persecution against them. Would you like this kind of country?

Person: I don’t think so.

Me: Do you still want to be an advocate for open boarder?

Person: (after a moment of silence) Now that you mentioned, I don’t think so.

This is not a straw-man argument! If you have not witnessed what is going on today in America and Europe with cultural shock as being the background of all sorts of conflict and even riots, you are not paying attention; these things are almost already here! This can happen and would happen if we would allow anyone to come to the USA with their own culture, own outlooks, on world vision. As bad as it is, let us allow to USA to remain as it is and let the laws as they are, and let those already acclimated with its culture and tradition to have a say as to whether we should enact laws to oppress one group or another, for any reason whatsoever. Laws will be vetoed; the minority will have a say, and no one group will be able to change the Constitution on its own.

We can change in my dialogue above the word “gays” to ” blacks, the poor, Jews, Christians, Muslims, women, the physically disabled” and pretty much all of them can be in danger depending on the dominant culture or ethnicity that predominates our country. That without mentioning that they will war against each other!

Oh, someone is already raising the banner of racism on me (which doesn’t work for me) accusing me of suggesting that foreigners that enter our culture will somehow attempt to take over our society with their laws and cultures and that I prejudge certain cultures as bad. No I don’t, I just prejudge them as different and a difference that may not be desirable to many. If you think I am wrong, do yourself a favor: Go to Oklahoma where Muslims are in court battling for the acceptance of Sharia Law; Check the good and faithful Muslims truck drivers that refused to deliver alcohol (good for them, by the way) and were fired, then sued their company and won the lawsuit forcing their employer to make accommodations and maintain employees who will not do their jobs; think about all the Skin-Heads that enjoy Free Speech in this country as it is today. Now imagine for a second if these people become majority. Unless you are one of them, it would not be the prettiest of all pictures for many of us! I not going to apologize for stating a fact!

If you are an open border defender, think again! Be careful for that which you wish! (I hate prepositions in the end of the sentences. If ever have a majority one day I will outlaw it!) :)