Sunday, 10 December 2017

Shall We Judge Roy Moore? (Part 2)

Dear Christian Voters of Alabama,

Greetings in our Messiah. I apologize for sending this Part 2 of 2 to you so close to the day of your vote, but the truth is, each time I sat down to compose it, I became distraught. I tried to provide helpful perspectives which make clear why it’s a net-net/no-brainer to support and vote for Roy Moore to fill the senate seat formerly occupied by now Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But, speaking of sessions, each time I engaged with the topic, the illogical, irrational, disingenuous and/or embarrassing excuses to reject Judge Roy Moore started clamoring for attention, leaving my original simplicity looking anemic or inadequate.

Consider, for example, Thursday’s WSJ tirade against Brother Moore. It is the perfect example of debilitated, RINO, “conservative” thinking, and that last word really doesn’t even apply. The Journal piece concedes that trial by newspaper is distasteful and ought to be avoided. It acknowledges that the 40 year-old expiration date on the complaints is significant. But, say they, “there are strong moral and practical reasons to reject Mr. Moore.” After reading it, I wondered why they didn’t provide any.

Listen, please: the opposition to Roy Moore that I’ve seen is all connected to the positions he was known for prior to winning the Republican nomination. There is not a single cogent position against him relying on the gossip. It seems all that dastardly effort did was provide faux cover for people who dislike fundamental tenets of Christianity and certain facts of American history. For them, adopting the baseless and empty rhetoric which has them horrified at his non-deeds allows them to imagine that their disloyalty and their falsehoods emanate from some high moral perch. They don’t.

You want to talk about practical concerns? I have one. If these bottom feeders succeed in their Alabama wool-pulling, you may be certain that in every future campaign for elective office in which an unashamed Christian American runs as an unashamed Christian American, there will be this brazen trolling for dirt, there will be the journalistic “want ads” soliciting filth they can artfully dress as “news,” and the phony melding of isolated events of uncertain character into a public cyphering which won’t stop until enough voters reckon zero + zero + zero equals three—and “Three’s the charm.”

It was especially distressing to hear Christians who have bought wholesale into a practice born out of the gliberal worldview. What practice? The one in which violations of their Leftist Commandments result in the violator’s ontological reassignment. The meaning of this is important, so bear with me. It is best seen by comparing systems.

Christians recognize we are all sinners. Christians recognize that sinners sin. But we also know the grace of God, that grace which can and often does lead sinners to repentance. The Bible is extremely clear about this. Paul, in one place, lists many kinds of sinners, sinners who embody assorted evils—he mentions idolaters, thieves, male prostitutes, homosexuals, drunkards, the greedy and slanderers and more. But then he says “Such were some of you.” You are not such any longer! Yes, even homosexuals and idolaters can be transformed. Through faith in, and repentance toward, Jesus Christ they (and we) become new creations. They were washed, St. Paul explains: sanctified and justified. Jesus is also very emphatic in demanding that we believe and own this truth: “Do not,” He warned, “call unclean that which I have (cleansed and) made clean.” We know that true repentance is not a function of lip but of life, therefore we look for changed lives from those who were sinners but want to be right with God

Unbelief knows nothing of this whole world. They know nothing of God’s righteousness (or rather, they know it, hate it and therefore fight it and deny it). Neither do they see or grasp His mercy. I beg you to notice how, when they go after someone, if they can convince people that ‘Person X’ violated one of their many unpardonables (which change favored victims like Baskin Robbins changes its flavor of the month), they feel their job is done. There’s nothing more to do. Once they have put a person in their ontological box, there is (to their minds) no escape. “He IS a deplorable. She IS a racist, etc.”

Redemption simply does not factor in to the leftists’ view of things. Christians live gratefully because of it, in terms of responsibilities rather than entitlements. Conservatives can reason toward improvements. But redemption and reason are not prominent for NYTwits (those whose thought is anchored in the drivel of the New York Times).

That is why you’ll hear them flippantly condemn vast swathes of people based not upon what the people have done, but by what Leftist ideology holds those people to be. It is the same idea which lies behind hate crimes as a distinct category. You’d think the fact that a guy murders you is hate enough. But no, if he did it with full recognition of the magical group you belonged to, well, that’s a real crime. This is, of course, in league with their belief that gender is not objective (a direct consequence of atheism). It can only be objective if there is a Sovereign Determiner. Denying Him now means everyone must be put on hold until they are informed what gender category a person has chosen.

The Bible teaches us that a man can hardly be confident he knows himself (Jer. 17:9), let alone all others! Yet the state of affairs ushered in for us by NYTwits imagines an elite able to peer into others’ hearts, yet at the same time, they cannot tell boys from girls. Talk about the blind leading the blind! This is all connected to the reams of daily identity judgments proffered by the media, not so concerned with actual deeds but positively obsessed by which category you belong to. They even dispense awards based not at all on merit or value, but on the end of achieving balance along a contrived spectrum. (As in, Women must be tech heads whether they like it or not.)

This is why they are comfortable condemning every White person as inescapably racist. It has nothing to do with his deeds, though they are ever ready to grasp at the slimmest hair to serve as “proof”! It is also how they (in neo-feminism) come to regard all males as unreformable rapists. It is what you are—and what you do won’t help. The guillotine never tires as it falls on all members of disfavored categories.

Now I’ve labored to contrast these worldviews because I want you to understand how, in a worst case scenario, we ought still to vote for Judge Roy Moore. Moreover, not to vote for him would be to embrace and to live by the ethic of unbelief.

First, please make a note that I am not privy to any inside information. In fact, I already told you that one of the reasons we must ignore the gossip so dear to the Washington Press is that it is very unlikely, it is unrealistic to think any of us can come to know with certainty just what happened in the scenes being alleged. It was back in 1993 that I founded an outreach called Meantime Ministries, exclusively for women who had been sexually abused as children. I had to learn and unlearn a lot as I sought to bring the amazing grace of God to the lives of women who had been profoundly scarred as children. One thing I learned in spades is that “memory” is not a zero-sum entity.

The point is simply this: For people willing to believe the worst about these allegations, two very distinct groups should appear. The unbelievers who buy it, the Christ rejecters, have all they need to write Roy Moore off the planet. They are so manipulated by New York hypocrites that they’ll manage not to notice that between 2000 and 2010, CBS News reports, there were 3,853 minors married in New York State (and hundreds of thousands nationwide). You read that right. And not only are minimum age requirements absent in 27 of our states, but at one time New York minimum age for marriage was 14. Guess when that “Neanderthal policy” was abolished. Anyone? 1927 you say? 1968? Nope. The law changing the minimum age of marriage from 14 to 18 entered the NY books in June of this year. That’s right—in January of 2017, 14 year-olds, the youngest age of the Roy Moore’s alleged courtship “victims,” were eligible marriage partners in New York State.

Another factor: the 70s was the last generation in which girls envisioned marriage and family normally, i.e., not too long after physical maturation. With feminism’s devious and for-the-time-being triumph in relegating the home and family to the dust bin, girls have been bullied into birth control, harmful, temporary relationships, and into postponing marriage until after they’ve become good working men. If you’re going to judge, get all available factors in your judgment.

But returning to our two worldviews (which, remember, we are putting to a worst case scenario in which Moore is absolutely guilty of all alleged), the unbelieving view says, “Forty years ago? Had something remotely to do with sex? Off with his head!”

But the Biblical Christian says, “Forty years ago? What’s he been doing since?” Because we have an ability that leftists don’t—to distinguish between (not sever) ontology and deeds, we are interested in knowing if even gross, undesirable, perhaps even once criminal behavior has

continued to be a distinguishing feature in Roy Moore’s life? And what do we discover? We discover that, for the 32 years of his married life, even the Washington Post has conceded Judge Moore has lived a squeaky clean life. Now, this leads an intelligent Christian to conclude (again, on the basis of a worst case scenario) that one of two things (or both) happened. Either marriage did to Roy Moore what marriage has been known to do to men, i.e., fix them and turn them in to REAL men; or, Jesus Christ touched his heart and called Brother Moore back to Jesus and back to his senses. But in either case, we are NOT dealing with information confined to 40 years ago. We have info on an entire life!

Those with willfully truncated views—when they come upon a sinful juncture in a man’s life, erect a stop sign and declare (if politically expedient), “This man’s life stopped here, becoming at this point just irredeemable, useless crap. Go look for someone else.” But those with level heads, and especially those with Christian eyes say, “Hmm, well, if that happened, I don’t approve of it at all. But apparently, long ago, Judge Moore (assuming the worst case view) came to the same conclusion, and has lived an honorable life in accord with that self-judgment for more than 30 years.” Which ought to be the instinctual Christian view (in the imagined worst case)?

Believe me, I get the “Gotcha!” that you’re thinking of: “But that would mean he lied now in denying it.” First, that is still a maybe—we do not know this. But let’s call it a yes. And if it was a yes, I’d ask you, Dear Christian: is it beyond your ken to fathom why a man would want to keep such a difficult to fathom piece of his past from a “trial by newspaper,” especially something which, on any right view, is no longer truly the case? Is it a trial to grasp why a man would reflexively act to keep it from a venue where only one verdict would be permitted—and where the guillotine is on hand, in view, night and day?

I get why you might find this inadequate. We’re just trying to be thorough, playing out various possibilities. For me, for the reasons offered, all roads lead to a Moore vote, without hesitation or apology. Nevertheless, for the fortieth time, we should remind ourselves we are presently in a land of pure speculation. And that’s where this matter will remain, in fact, like it or not, until long after the election.

The Wall Street Journal, in an arrogant, hypocritical, dishonest and self-serving cynicism, tells Alabamans that a vote against Moore is righteous even though it is a vote for dead babies—now. Why is that, oh Grand Poohbah Journal? It is because you detest the positions he took in controversial instances. And unless I’m very mistaken, I think it is especially against his Biblical view of homosexuality as sin that you carry the most resentment. It would be easier if you were honest, but you leave me only to follow the signs of your lies to their likeliest cause, rather than plain words (which require clear consciences).

Just one more item to consider before I test your patience with a short word on those twin controversies connected to Judge Roy Moore.

In September of 2010, an 18-year-old Rutgers freshman named Tyler Clementi—a homosexual who had confessed his self-understanding to his parents just prior to beginning his college

career—committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Before the suicide Tyler had been pranked by a straight roommate who, though yielding their room to Tyler for a liaison with a “date,” had first set up a computer to spy on Tyler & Friend. From another location the feed from the dorm room showed Tyler and a man kissing. Immediately upon Tyler’s suicide, the media went “homophobic” wild. The roommate spy was arrested, jailed, tried, jailed, partially vindicated, the occasion for a law being overturned, but in all, nearly ruined.

I am telling you about this incident because it contains two interesting, pertinent facts you should know. First: Tyler left a suicide note which was not made public or used in evidence because, it was claimed, what he wrote in it shed no light on those criminal proceedings. Say what? The note in which he explained his desperate action was irrelevant to that which put the roommate on trial? Isn’t there in this assertion an unavoidable inference that Tyler did NOT commit suicide because of the prank, or, to use Ellen’s all-encompassing phrase for disagreement—bullying. Reporters NEVER connected the dots for readers, though interestingly, some homosexual observers did. The known fact about his own outing to his parents shortly before his death, i.e., that it had gone very poorly, was covered up. The press, with the mother’s eventual help, would attribute her shock and disapproval when hearing her only son telling her he was gay, to the “evangelical church teachings” they had been subjected to. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the slap in the face of her grandmotherly hopes. Ha. Of course not.

That was one. The second pertinent item is this: Tyler was 18. He was just out of high school, only a month into college. He was, in fact, too young to legally purchase cigarettes in New Jersey, where he lived. But note this well: The “man” who visited Tyler in his State-supported school, was 32 years of age. Sound familiar? Funny how you heard not a PEEP from ANY quarter, yet that stretch exceeds even the “ten years” which one online genius claimed to be “the limit everybody knows.”

But please—get this: Not a whisper of disapproval, not a word of outrage condemning this unseemly cradle-snatcher (in which he got his planned sex, at least, sex as homosexuals define it). Not a single word judging this man who was nearly twice Tyler’s age, no word remotely akin to “predatory” was ever used in the major media. Yet compare the alleged “victims” of Mr. Moore: all healthy, no lasting effects, no nightmares, traumas, damage. Just long life. What well-adjusted victims! No wonder they could wait 40 years!—there was no hurry for there was no worry. But for the homosexual predator—who may well have contributed a material cause to a child’s suicide—for him the press had only words of honor and respect.

Worse. Much worse. Listen: The fully adult homosexual, the child-manipulator, in Tyler’s case, told the judge he didn’t want to personally appear in court. He said his reluctance to testify was because he was gay. He didn’t want to be seen or known. (That is understandable.) However, the law is the law and there is no provision for not appearing when summoned, and there is no allowance for anonymous testimony in a public trial. Such an accommodation had never been allowed in the history of New Jersey. No exceptions.

Guess what? Right. To the nauseating praise of the new religion, the pedophile’s sensitivity was permitted to upend the law code—and remnant of sanity—of an entire state. He not only got away with his sin, not only may he have gotten away with murder once removed (in culpability), but because he belongs to the anointed class of sexual perverts, But more than all this—he was accorded royal treatment when the entire State of New Jersey bowed to his sissy wishes and granted him what no one had ever been granted before: complete protection, anonymity and deference from the court–as if the perp was the judge!

No, the mainstream media is completely complicit in promoting, endorsing, protecting, deferring to children having sex—in every venue, at every turn—and nearly any kind of sex. BUT! But, when it serves their purposes to condemn it, well, they seamlessly don our convictions!

Now,

THE JUDGE ROY MOORE CONTROVERSIES

In the Time Magazine of October 30, 2017, a six-page spread on Judge Roy Moore makes it abundantly clear that he was targeted for rejection by the mainstream media before the Washington Post got to print one word of their slanderous gossip. The reporters were so astonished by Moore’s claims about America’s judicial system that they could only imagine that he made it up. They portray him as delusional. The article starts with these words: “Roy Moore has been talking with God.” Before the paragraph ends, they tell how “the twice-removed former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court leans back in his chair and shares what the Lord has told him (my underline—sms).

Hmm. What was that? “Our rights come from God,” the 70-year-old Baptist says. “The Constitution was founded upon God. It was made for moral and religious people. It is the fallen nature of man that the Constitution meant to restrain.” You get the feeling it took all their self-control not to laugh in his face.

Thus the press. I don’t know what they learned in college, but I sure know what they hadn’t learned. The idea that Moore might have told them a common piece of knowledge was unthinkable to them. He had to come by that by way of a word from the Almighty! What contemptuous, ignorant idiots.

It is, of course, a legitimate question to ask, whether there was, at our nation’s founding, a belief that our rights preceded our Constitution? Any well-taught school child could tell you—in fact, any person familiar with the topic (thus excluding Time reporters) can tell you the proof: The Declaration of Independence, penned more than a dozen years before the Constitution, explains that we were compelled to form our nation because a certain tyrant denied what we all know to be self-evidently true–the FACT that we are endowed by our Creator (note for Time Magazine: —that means God) with certain unalienable rights. The King of England said our rights come from him– and therefore they can be withdrawn by him. But America’s Founding Fathers said, “In a pig’s eye!” So not only is Judge Moore correct, but the truth he expressed is such an vital,

elementary and important one for us that it is fair to say, we became a nation in order that it may be established forever and beyond doubt. How encouraging that our major media mavens never heard of it. Not!

Perhaps the lunatic reporters were misled by their reading of the Constitution, over which they superimposed notions of America’s commitment to keep God out of public policy, or that they favored a religious neutrality which works out to be: He who believes least has the most say? Such people have a devil of a time explaining things which our Fathers actually wrote, actually discussed, actually adopted and really codified. Things like these:

No man “who acknowledges the being of a God” can be deprived of his civil rights. That’s from a Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights (1776), but the sentiment is found saturating early state constitutions: The rights these documents guarded were the rights of Christian believers. We have been so heavily taught otherwise that the thought seems unthinkable. But there it is!

Delaware: “(A)ll persons professing the Christian religion ought forever to enjoy equal rights and privileges in this state” (Sect. 3, Delaware Declaration of Rights, September 11, 1776).

Maryland: “(A)s it is the duty of every man to worship God…all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection…” (Constitution of Maryland, Section XXXIII, November 3, 1776; incidentally, this is one of several constitutions restricting office to those who make “a declaration of belief in the Christian religion”).

Vermont: “(No) man who professes the protestant religion [may] be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right” (A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont, July, 1777).

Massachusetts: “(E)very denomination of Christians…shall be equally under the protection of the law…” (Constitution of Massachusetts, October 25, 1780). This document actually holds the very purpose of government to be the enablement of people to govern themselves. It is made explicit that the rights of the people under God are original, the government only insofar as it serves the people’s enjoyment of life, liberty and property.

I don’t need to tell you how snide, uppity, haughty and self-important the tone is. It never lets up. And they call that news reporting? Moore’s plainspoken views are true to fact. Yet, with no sign of even polite hesitation, they are mockingly treated like the rantings of a madman, a senile dreamer. The only dreamers are those who disagree with the truth the judge uttered. Did you read that tiny sampling from state constitutions, above? Our generation must mourn the condition of its press. Free? Yes—free to be ignorant, lazy and arrogant, all the while feeling safe and comfortable in their NYTwit blanket of lies.

In Judge Moore’s plain reading of the plain facts of history, modern disbelief finds an irresistible occasion to take their own fixed, insane hatred for God and pour their bile all over the judge.

Most pitifully, however, their contempt for the Lord and truth have blinded them to the fact that Judge Moore’s “controversial” stances actually and genuinely represent their best interests. It has been the unique glory of the American experiment to seek in government precisely what Moore described: that government would, by the least intrusive means possible, restrain the nasty outworking of man’s fallen nature so as to allow the righteous to govern themselves. This land was to be a land for righteousness. Wickedness opposed it. But so did a long human history in which we found a strong human propensity toward tyranny. We sought in America to establish a system sufficiently equipped to inhibit wickedness while containing sufficient safeguards to inhibit tyranny.

The clearest and most direct path to tyranny happens in a system which is imagined to operate supremely, that is, under no Higher Authority. This is an inescapable presupposition drawn from our original founding documents and confirmed by universal experience. Brilliantly distinguishing the American idea of rights from most or all others is the phrase, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

As to the other “controversy,” I can only say, we all should get on our knees every day to thank God that at least ONE MAN told the Supreme Court, “You have no right in heaven or on earth to define marriage contrary to the definition given by its Creator.”

Jesus also spoke of “What God has joined together.”

This no varsity contest, this is a fight for the soul of a nation. Wimps go home—or to Russia. The protests which followed Trump’s November ’16 victory should have been pale reflections of the insanity loyal Americans we should have brought to the streets following Windsor and Obergefell. Five Supremes imagined themselves possessed of power to tell God to go to Hell. And then they DEMANDED all Americans jump at their contemptuous command. In the Jack Phillips (the Christian cake-baker) case, they are preparing to tell us how high. This is the one nation on earth founded to forbid such outrageous usurpation. We bled to keep out of the hands of men any imagined or pretended “divine right” to veto God! Is every Christian so thick-skulled and stupid not to realize that if man possesses the power to redefine marriage, he is claiming the power to redefine everything. There’s not been a more flagrant outrage in the history of our nation. And I know of only ONE public servant who had the guts to tell those fools they were naked, they were wrong, they stepped far outside their proper bounds. If you don’t think Judge Roy Moore was right in that, then don’t vote for him. But if you recognize in his LIFE and WORDS and CHARACTER the voice we so desperately need to speak truth at a time like this, I say in front of God, you have not been given a single reason that could justify your failure to vote for him.

I’m sorry I was unnecessarily harsh. But the issues, I pledge to you, are that serious. The people frolicking as if God is dead better hope they are right. I know they are wrong. What do you know?

May the One who freed us from great guilt and awful bondage—freed us to serve Him in fear and faith throughout our short lives—bless you in the knowledge of Him and in the power of His resurrection.

Yours and His,

steve schlissel

Thursday, 5 May 2011

Ben Lowdown

Some have asked for guidance in their thinking and reaction to the killing of Ben Lowdown. Okay, some quick ones. But first let me assure you that these comments are NOT personal and have no one in view.

That said, I mourn over our unreaction to this unqualifiedly wonderful news and regard our confusion as evidence that we have taken another huge step toward perfect judgment. The outpouring of conflicting opinion is grievously revelatory. What do I mean?

Let us start with the foundation: the norm according to Scripture (see end notes) and all rational historical precedent is this: when a people have been victimized by a bloodthirsty evil low-life scuzz, and when the perpetrator uses all means and opportunities at his disposal to demonstrate his unfitness to live on God’s earth—for, rather than repenting or exhibiting remorse, or even hesitation or second thoughts, he instead TAUNTED, and further threatened those he has assaulted—then NORMAL PEOPLE will have a single, SHARED reaction at news of his demise—especially if by the honored hands of their own military. The ONLY sane response is, “Hallelujah!”

But we have been enduring a range of responses that deviates greatly from the norm, including drunken impiety, boisterous ignorance, guilt-loaded women moaning and castrated men looking for something they’ve lost. We are subjected to blathering attorneys who cannot grasp that the rights of American citizens do not inherently belong to foreign ENEMIES; and we’re reading reports of prating bozos who struggle with the concept that righteousness and wickedness are not the same. We are under a deluge of OPINIONS aplenty because we have lost all covenant cohesion.

So understand this: When the news America hears is that “he’s a harmer bum low-down” (dog) has been executed by God via the hand of one of our Navy soldiers, we are in a setting which fully justifies the expectation of a single, predictable response: the rendering of deep thanks for such a great kindness from the Lord. The only mental reservation we provide for deviation is the one we typically allow for the small number of deviants and defectives among us on any given day. Thus, the sane expectation is for a SINGLE response, which is essentially “Hallelujah.” Therefore, the most significant feature of America’s reaction is its multiformity. We do not HAVE A reaction at all. Instead we have a pouring forth of a plethora of purposeless opinions. The totality testifies that we are suffering from egalitarian tumors on our brain.

This whole exercise of moronic soul-searching, the public second-guessing from the most cowardly of all armchair quarterbacks, and the gushing ignorance drenching the papers and screens—all this desperate “concern” and posturing in the wake of what ought to have been the occasion for our united rendering of gratitude—all of it serves to guarantee one thing: our flailing tongues will effectually tie our hands and arms and cause us to become a target most irresistible to the next evil-minded morons driven by pure envy in the guise of caring about “justice.” Maniacs in waiting abound. We’ve admitted them to our shores, given them welfare and other funding. Our multiple-personality reaction is just a begging of Muslims for more attacks.

It should have been, “Okay, look closely: that’s what happens when you do what he did. Anybody else with similar ideas will meet a similar end, God helping us. Now let’s see, where were we?” Instead we’ve just advertised ourselves as a target most attractive and deserving. If the message of impotence now carried by our media was not stemming from our real national guilt for our very real sins (abortion, perversion, etc.), I’d suggest that the outlets ought to be tried for treason. But we have LOST the ability to understand even what a united, national expectation would look like. We are permanently and pathetically fractured, crippled, lying in wait for the vultures. How painful it is to be that when limitless strength and vigor is but a sincere repentance away.

If we cannot REJOICE together at the destruction of a SWORN AND KNOWN ENEMY, it is because we have broken our covenant beyond repair. We now share NO presuppositions (subscribe to presupp series for more), we have NO unity, we have NO collective values or beliefs, and we are therefore, nothing. There is no United States of America. We have been at war with our Christian history for more than 100 years and have offered no single narrative in its place (how could we when there is none?).

In the meantime, we swelled our shore-to-shore with scores of millions of foreign-born who, unlike all who preceded them, were told implicitly and explicitly that there is nothing for them to adapt to: they don’t even need to speak English. Why? Because NOTHING unites us—nothing whatsoever; not language, not faith, not the past, nor our hopes for the future (that is, anchored, grounded hopes, as opposed to graphic-novel-wishful-thinking). Even the pandering which comprises the whole of political campaigns is fragmented, self-contradictory, hypocritical, focus-group-generated, ephemeral and impossible. (Of course, the unspoken point of commonality is avarice, covetousness and greed. They come for money, period.) I have worked with thousands of immigrants in these last 32 years and I can’t think of one who was aflame with passion for the great principles which came together as the flame in Lady Liberty’s torch. We teach them enough of the Constitution to pass a citizenship test, but they learn from what they daily read that the Constitution, like the Bible in liberal churches, has run out of Viagra and become a flaccid, malleable blob of nothing in particular. One retired Egyptian doctor I recently met told me of his hopes to become a citizen. He had left a one-million-pound luxury apartment on the Mediterranean Sea to join a daughter here in the States. He arrived five years ago but spent nearly one full year of the five in visits back home. He and his wife are supported by various “entitlements” taken from the skin of American-born workers. What happened to the money from the sale of his luxury apartment? When I asked him why it is he wants to become a citizen, he told me unabashedly, “Because I will get about $500 more per month in my check.” There can be NO FUTURE for such a self-hating nation.

The fractured response to the victory of our Navy Seals reveals us to be salt without flavor, fit for you know what. That Americans do not KNOW how to respond to the death of an enemy makes us more pitiful than a vegetarian who is handed a pastrami sandwich from the Carnegie Deli. Useless, futile affairs, both. We have become, in the loss of our national character, of all people, the most to be pitied. Instead of the blood of the Passover Lamb upon the doorposts of our house, we may now see only these words, written though they be, in red: EE CHAVOD. Ichabod!! The glory has departed. We are spiritually dead and psychologically twisted. We have soldiers willing to die in service to us, yet we are unsure if we may be enthused when they are granted triumphs on our behalf. I tell you most solemnly, we have become a people with very few triumphs left in the pipeline. Woe is me—woe to my people. It is over. Ichabod! Ichabod indeed!

I close with two texts for you. The first is from Psalm 58:

The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth.”

One of the errant notions of unbelief which had somehow worked its way in to become a presupposition supporting this week’s grievous display, is this: Because Muslims make false claims about, and have erroneous expectations of their deity, therefore Christians may not make any claims about or have any expectations of the True God. If we did, so the brain-dead reason, we’d be just like them. But sooner or later, I suspect, they will learn that Mt. Carmel cuts through all human history. It isn’t a question of claims per se, but of which God can and will back them up. It was certainly our sins that caused a ten-year delay of justice. But if justice is unrecognized when it finally arrives, if a token of justice is granted by God yet is not met with immediate, profound and sincere gratitude from those to whom it was granted, I fear that it can only mean our hardest lessons are still ahead of us. If you are too sinful to trust God for victory, put away your sin. But if you won’t trust in God for victory, what will you trust? The bad boys ain’t going away, my friends. Whatever we believe it is that will grant us victory, that is our deity. Is it undressing our womenfolk at airports that will give safety and peace? Can we call anything safety and peace that includes undressing our womenfolk at airports? It is in our hesitation to trust and lift up God’s name—the God of Scripture—that we are becoming like the Muslim terrorists. For they are placing their trust in the wrong place and for wrong reasons. Why follow them in their error? Trust in the Lord with all our heart, then watch all enemies flee.

Second text: Proverbs 24:15 says,

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.”

Some silly souls think this militates against all we’ve said above. It does not. First, we are here warned about having a bad attitude. But is the bad attitude warned against an appreciation of the enemy’s downfall? That is quite impossible. Why? Because the text is not finished. It goes on to say:

“lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.”

This text is a warning: if you do “x,” then God will not finish off your enemy. If the enemy’s termination is not to be sought, is not valued, then the passage is gibberish. The passage serves as a warning so that kings who read it wouldn’t miss out on the sweet end of an unrepentant enemy’s demise. Clearly then, the bad attitude in question is SELF-SATISFACTION, a smug and smarmy notion that our power and the strength of our hands have done this. Now that happens to be the very attitude of no small number of Americans who see the whole complex of events occurring under the hand of sovereign man alone. In that light, I ask: how confident are you that we have passed the attitude test?

No. The righteous response to the eye-popping of He Swam a Spoon Ladling is HALLELUJAH! Not more, perhaps, but certainly not less.

sms-MC3-nyc

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

America’s Terminal Case

by Rev. Steve Schlissel

Listen, the Times today made it clear that our response to the TSA’s movement against innocent Americans at airports has the potential to do what can only be done in a country such as ours (was): peacefully change policy. Brothers, there has not been a more important issue smooshed in our faces in our adult lifetimes. Our government is claiming the RIGHT to feel up our women and daughters (not to mention our selves and sons). It alleges that this is necessary for national security. The first thing to understand-as in deeply, so it is completely absorbed: If this is our means of preserving the republic, it means THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD. It means the enemy has won, has triumphed. For here we behold an America which has fully turned us against ourselves, has turned us into something we never were, which we fought and bled vowing we’d never become, into something we stood with all our being against.

We must understand that passive submission to this draconian evil does not demand any argument of the “slippery slope” variety. If “freedom” means men being forced under threat of death or imprisonment to watch their wives and daughters leered at by “agents,” or felt-up and fondled by our protectors, than thee is nowhere our condition needs to go. No slope implications would have the slightest value to a people who have become convinced that the insanity and evil which is now policy can, under any circumstances, be justified.

If this “policy” for our “protection” doesn’t spell “U-N-A-C-C-E-P-T-A-B-L-E” to you, then you need to put your television in the garbage immediately. For that brain is not worth a dime which cannot detect that, those we permit to hurt us in the course of helping us are very few in number, have actually been highly trained (in a manner a bit more grueling than the current TSA crop, whose only challenge is in uttering a coherent sentence after taking off the Puff Bling Headphones-which “fell” out of the last traveler’s bag by accident), and these are permitted to hurt us on a case by case basis, and never without our free consent. Imagine: your doctor says, “This is going to hurt,” which moves you to change your mind and leave. Now, what if he took out a gun and said, “Leaving is not an option. I was just warning you so you wouldn’t ruin my work.”  This TSA takeover of our bodies is not in any meaningful way comparable to any other transaction in which we suffer in exchange for benefit. Does anyone see a difference?

Apparently not enough of us. These clowns are trying to tell us, through Agent NY Times, that a majority of Americans are willing to go along with this invasion. I confess that such a lie reminds me of the wag’s barb, “You can never lose money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” But I tell you, no matter how low you might rank us on the charts, I have travelled this country widely enough to say with confidence: I don’t believe it for a second. Let’s take it out of lying pollsters mouths and test it by experiment. Bring a random sampling of 100 families to an airport, then calculate the percentage who stifle any emerging objection as they stand and watch our “highly trained professional agents” feel up their women folk, and/or peer in technologically on their nude bodies. Then report the results the next day. You come up with a majority, then I’d say there’d be quite a few more willing to test the idea of whether a federative unity such as we have today is to be properly regarded as inviolable.

To have descended into this pit so rapidly and dramatically-such that too many of us have forgotten what it means to be an American-is painful on every front and looked at from any angle. Those who think it is xenophobic to filter applicants for immigration by any standard, or who object to classifying immigrant candidates into “desirable” and “undesirable,” could only object after first having decided that America stands for nothing in particular.

Yes, multiculturalism has always sacrificed our true history on the altar of make-believe correctness, but it hasn’t always been so clearly displayed how it is wisdom to stand in the truth, and wisdom to preserve that which has made America truly great. Among these things, a tolerant and adamantine Christian faith has always towered above all other components of our history insofar as they are factors contributing to our greatness. Thus for most of our history, while not requiring prospective citizens to convert, we most certainly expected them at least to abide by our Christian laws, whatever they might think of them. But for decades, and with increasing determination, we have been stuffing our nation full of people who see nothing other than dollar signs in our name. They are neither expected nor required to know, nor are they ever taught, the values of our founding fathers or the foundational Text  (I mean the Bible, not the Constitution, though requiring [submissive]  knowledge of that would be an okay start) from which those values were drawn. Freedom is far too expensive and precious a thing to be handled by people whose every value begins with a dollar sign, who see in us nothing except the U$A. Such a population will calculate those offenses we speak of here. It will be strictly pragmatic. It won’t be a case of, “This is un-American!” Why, since Joe McCarthy, I dare say, you haven’t been permitted to think or say of anything that it is un-American! It will instead be treated as, “If I can keep making good money here, well, then, letting uniformed strangers feel up my wife is just a cost of doing business.” What kind of nation can preserve itself, can win its wars, if not a nation whose citizens believe in its values, in its worth? People who live for money won’t be willing to die for freedom.

(I wonder-parenthetically: Is it knowledge of our self-induced amnesia concerning our founding principles, and the tissue-thin loyalty with which we’ve replaced it-predicated entirely on money, viewing the American Experiment as nothing more than a platform for profit-is it this willful exchange of premises, that makes Washington so comically desperate to have “answers” to economic woes which “work” overnight? That is, they poke and stab at solutions like those who know, if the gravy train stops on their watch, there’s nothing standing between them and revolt. Fools! The America built on transcendent values had a people more than willing to stick with her in bad times as well as good! What lessons there are for us all as we rush toward destruction! May God grant us time-and hearts-to learn them.)

And believe it or not, there was a time not long ago, when America’s answer to terrorism would have been radically different from that which we see today. We are completely lost in the mist of pretending that the world is what the elitist snobs at the Times want it to be: egalitarian, and a product of evolution. Bacillus Bullfosis! We are so expert at pretending (men and women are the same, same-sexes marry, the moon is made of green cheese) that we find it easy to believe the PURE nonsense that our national interests and security are inextricably bound up with our willingness to spit on our own integrity, to devalue the least remnant of our honor and to defile whatever lingering integrity has managed to survive the best efforts in history to pollute each and all of us. A people willing to live with this “Airport Assault on Americans” deserve it. But how painful that this watershed change in our self-understanding has come about in nearly self-conscious conformity with Hannah Arndts’s devastating insight concerning “the banality of evil.” The torrents of banality which have been unleashed in a Federal Feel-up Policy (“for our own good”), were birthed not by express national will, but merely, simply and only by bureaucratic folly. It is either supremely fitting, or a complete travesty.

But if we would just return our brains to our bodies for a moment, let us ask if Mr. Morey’s proposal has not found the moment for serious consideration. Put every Islamic nation, and the world’s entire Islamic population on notice. It should read something like this:

“Since we will not attack our own people, and since we will not compromise our freedoms (which the wickedly envious among you fatally hate), and since all our avowed enemies seeking our destruction are freedom-hating members of your sects and religion, therefore, you are put on notice: any attack on American citizens or American soil, which proves by fair investigation to have been perpetrated by Islamic combatants (in this day of post-national combat), will call forth from us this certain and sure response: On the first such attack, we will make a target of the third most holy place as reckoned by your religious leaders. We will turn all our forces and resources against it and do what it takes to remove it from God’s earth. If there is a subsequent attack, we will remove your second most holy site. And if there is a third incident, the only time you’ll see Mecca is when you make the trip without benefit of your bodies. You must understand that we did not breed this sort of terror, though we must respond to it. If you are truly, truly a people of peace then consider this notice an additional motivation to move you toward diligence in seeking it. That means the expense and inconvenience of tracking down and terminating terrorists is hereby, of this day, officially transferred to YOU. You will conduct the investigations, develop sources, seek leads, find the guilty, and punish them. We will not cower in fear and dread. We will not accost our innocent citizens in this most-blessed nation, the beneficiary of Divine favor unequalled in human history. And though we have been unfaithful to Him in many ways, we will turn to Him in repentance now, resolve to live righteously before Him, and ask Him to bless these, our true efforts toward true peace. Should it be His will to severely chastise us for our sins, even to the allowing us to be humiliated before you, at least you will know that we stand ready to accept from His gracious hand that which He knows to be just. But we do refuse with all that could be called certainty to allow you to take from us our freedoms. We refuse to allow YOU to define us. And we refuse always and forever to turn away so drastically from our founding principles as to run roughshod over the rights and liberties which our fathers, for His sake, bequeathed to us. While the outcomes of all things are in the perfect and wise hands of the Fear of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, you must understand that we stand ready, to the man, to live as His instruments-and if necessary, to die. We do not, like your suicide bombing fanatics, take the initiative in violence. If we have ever done so, we here and now beg God’s mercy and resolve to do so no more. Nevertheless, you must reckon this notice as backed by the earnestness of men made free by the God we meet in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. In the cause of the liberties bestowed by this God, consider us, each and all, along with every resource in our control,  willing and ready to fight for our freedom, and to see that the missions outlined in this notice will not have been uttered in vain. This is a warning more precious than oil if you are wise. Don’t let your religion go up in the smoke of a carelessly conceived plan against a nation ever poised to be a friend, but unmatched in ferocity when wickedly provoked. Be wise. The burden, dear neighbors, the burden to end terrorism is now (as we say) in your court.”

If it’s that, or being a pimp to those you’re bound to guard, which would you choose?

So, back to us. You want to stop terrorism? First, know and understand that you cannot preserve freedom by depriving your citizens of it. Second, know that, though death is not in all cases desirable, nevertheless there are worse things. Third, it is better to bring death to those who are trying to kill you than it is to cooperate with them in your own annihilation. Fourth, not all religions are equal. I say this with rather considerable knowledge of the failures and sins of the Christian Church throughout her history. The simple thing Americans must remember is, Christianity’s atrocities occurred when she was being untrue to her principles. In complete contrast, it is when Islamic believers (NOT “zealots, an attempt by the NYT Royalty to exploit terrorism, turning it into a weapon in the Royalist war against Christianity by asserting that it is any intensely believed religion which poses danger-Bacillus Bullfosis! Intensely believed Christianity results in orphanages and hospitals, in service of others even unto self-sacrifice) start to believe Islamic principles that the blood gets to flowing-not their own blood in service to a mankind made in God’s image, but the “blood of the infidels,” that is, everyone who isn’t them. Think of the forbearance demonstrated by Christians (past propriety, I judge), abiding sacrilege and dishonor of all things revealed as holy, compared with the instant death threats when Mohammed gets cartooned. If you are looking for a common threat, it is not in “any two religions intensely believed,” but rather in that intolerance demonstrated in mega-doses of hypocrisy spewed by leftists and the cannon-shot and suicide bombings of their Islamic counterparts.

The assault on our wives and daughters contributes nothing toward our safety when compared to that which we’d gain by adopting profiling as policy. THINK, THINK, THINK!!! If, as everyone knows, it is Islamics who pose the threat, why are we told that feeling up twelve years-old Swedish-American virgins and humiliating 90 year-old Italian-American grandmothers are the necessary steps to preserve our freedom? Why not rather step up the intensity of scrutiny applied to Muslims? Answer that! Right. It is because (we are told) to go against a particular group is UnAmerican. In other words, we say, “If we were to treat our enemies as if they were our enemies, that would be terrible, unfair, contrary to the very freedoms for which we fight and live. It would be, in effect, to cease to be America. It is totally unacceptable.” Where have I heard that before?

Well, what then? What shall we do? Of course! Why didn’t we ALL think of it together? Since we know, as a rule, who the enemies are who seek our destruction (and you don’t need 100%  to find a valid rule, for rules admit of exceptions), we must therefore try all the harder to pretend that our enemies do not bubble up out of Islamic incubators. Nah! Where in the world did you get that idea? Oh, you say it is because that, nearly to the man-to the man and to the ultimate in degraded woman-they have without significant exception belonged to one particular group, one identifiable group? Well, all the more reason to pretend! But since we must do something, then let us attack our friends. No! Let’s go one better: let us attack and turn on ourselves! Let us treat US like our enemy! Why “sin” against one group by inconveniencing them, or mildly offending them (if innocent)? What’s that? Oh, silly. It doesn’t really matter if every combatant wanting you dead came from that group. Far better for our nation if we continue in our denial, and confirm it by literally violating  all your own loyal soldiers instead. Put their wives bodies on display and tell them it’s for their own good. And don’t dare be rude to a Mohammedan! But if a loyal American objects to your hands feeling up his 15 year-old daughter, “Nail him! Who does he think he is? After all, this is for his own good,” they mutter.

Today we have become something we would have rightly abhorred had it been told us of any other people. To blithely and passively submit to a government which claims, “The only way we can protect you is by defiling you,” puts us back to Prima Nocta (which many learned of via the film, Braveheart). Do not scoff at the comparison. We all understand that there is a difference in degree. Too few of us understand that there is NO difference in kind. This is a crisis we are facing, as ultimately determinative of who we really are (or, what we really have become) as any crisis we’ve had in the last 60 years.  The drama taking place at America’s airports truly is, in a multitude of meaningful ways, a terminal issue.

________________________________________________________

Did you know you can support Messiah’s Ministries with the click of a button?

Thursday, 10 September 2009

You’ve heard of “bank failure.” How about NANC failure? Read on…

A glance at the output of contemporary philosophy departments justifies this sardonic assessment: 20th century philosophy suffered so many hernias from pushing Kant against the wall, that the first decade of the next century has proved too short a time to calculate the damage, identify the lost trajectory, or get back to business. Publishing houses long regarded as belonging to the first rank, now promote philosophical tomes insisting that the real world and make-believe worlds share the same reality.

It gets better (worse?). In fact, philosophy has fallen so far off the curb, it has become for the profession less a question of which way is up, as whether “up” has any meaning. If it is suggested by some rapscallion that it does, you may expect another Rabelaisian to immediately publish his thesis in which he “proves” that, if “up” does actually exist, it evidently bears no relation to “down.” Rab and Rap then join forces in securing a Federal grant which enables them to construct a team of scholars ready to demonstrate… something.

This nearly chaotic condition afflicting Socrates’ child offers the raw materials for a splendid, even a riotous, evening. All you need to do is,  1) secure the most recent Oxford University Press catalog of philosophical offerings;  2) buy two or three bottles of  fine Merlot;  3) gather several adults for an after-dinner fellowship; and 4) have each take turns reading aloud the titles, subtitles and blurbs. You cannot go wrong; you will not be disappointed. You’ll create a memory. Consider the following thrilling volumes, each alleged to own real estate on the cutting-edge of mankind’s intellect-in-action:

· Moral Machines, “The first book to address the problem of creating ethical robots…”
·
Philosophers Without Gods, which appears to be a sort of devotional for God-haters. The subtitle says it’s Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, which I take to be a claim that it will aid readers in thinking deeply about what isn’t. Come to think of it, this book might explain a lot—about the authors. They’re missing something for sure.
·
Drugs and Justice,  Oxford says, addresses “the central issues in drug policy: the lack of a coherent conceptual structure for thinking about drugs.” This is clear proof that the authors have not yet taken enough drugs to qualify to write such a book.
·
Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise, explains how you can get a terminal degree while believing “that non-actual possible worlds and individuals are as real as the actual world and individuals.”
·
Value, Reality, and Desire -Oh man, I treasure this book. Really. I want it.

All together, these portend the imminent self-immolation of the Enlightenment Project. Safe bet that the altar flames will be carried first from the Philosophy Department to the rest of the campus. Listen—I didn’t even mention the book which argues for the moral superiority of non-existence. (Stay tuned.) That’s right. For this optimist,  to be or not to be is not the question. “Not to be” is his aggressive preference, for everyone, as a norm. Leave it to a philosopher, well-practiced in his atheistic devotions, to tell us a better use for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Consider this: if, as some have suggested, Nietzsche’s Superman paved a highway for Hitler, what do you suppose awaits us when some leader-to-come operates on the presupposition that bringing everyone into non-existence is to do them a favor?

Here, surely, is the terminus of man’s autonomous reason: exactly as Scripture says—death. And not as a dreaded, hated thing, an intrusion. And not, as the Word calls it, an enemy. No. This is to gaze upon it as a lover. To prefer never having been to life everlasting  is to have allied one’s self with Satan at an earlier, an even more primitive  point of departure than that taken by our First Parents. Their devotion to Satan was so strong that to rescue them God first had to place enmity where their allegiance had been. Just so, all who begin the knowledge enterprise apart from the fear of the Lord, do not engage as neutral players, but as lovers of death (Proverbs 8:28). This love may be dormant; it is easily disguised.

But when, in an age of epistemological self-consciousness—when the darkness covers every landscape beyond Goshen’s borders—that fetid love feels safely hidden. As light causes the plant of pure love to grow, to blossom, so it is when surrounded by darkness that the darnel dares lift up its head. Having neither light to see in nor eyes to see with, still it boasts, it swaggers, it beats against the wheat and calls out to it, “Come! Join me. For behold, my dearest companion has arrived and bids us feast with him. How I have longed for his appearing! And now he is here. Come meet him. Come meet my only friend, the End.”

Yes, this is the truth of knowledge falsely so called. Yet, by God’s common grace, we must acknowledge that this century of philosophy past was not entirely worthless. For example, even a casual survey would reveal that the futility of unbelieving philosophy, has, in several sub-departments, made itself known, if not yet felt. And, skipping past other, brighter spots, there was important progress made in appreciating the inseparability of Word and Being. More narrowly, work of inestimable importance was done demonstrating how language does more than influence, does more than shape our perception of reality. To a very large extent, it determines it.

Not being one to start a celebration while there’s a perfectly good funeral to go to, I must report that the inextricable connection which enables language to define reality has not gone entirely unnoticed. That’s right. It’s been noted, and put to work, by feminists and sodomites and by numerous other entitlement groups. Yet, despite this exploitation having taken place in full view of the Church, Christians have—even with a Bible in hand that disclosed, even on its first page!, the Word/Reality relation millennia before Wittgenstein was a gleam in his daddy’s eye—Christians somehow (one is tempted to say miraculously, but it’s too painful, precisely because it is too true) managed to remain oblivious to the progress noted above, and altogether unaware of its value.

Which brings me to the provocation which prompted this lament—it was a brochure publicizing the Annual Conference of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors. “Wait a minute!,” you say. “Aren’t they the good guys?” Indeed they are. They are the people who are “pursuing excellence in Biblical Counseling.” And therein lies the tragedy. Even those among us who have the proven discipline and skill to win skirmishes, somehow manage to show themselves ever more skillful at losing entire wars.

“Why? What are you talking about, Schlissel?” I’m talking about something that appears on the inside front cover of the brochure. “What? What? What could it be?”

Please don’t be offended if I say, I fear you may not yet share with me the sort of alarm-value indicated by the word I read. But I won’t keep you in suspense. It was the simple, casual, hardly noticeable identification of one of their principal people as “Chairperson” of a certain department.

“Chairperson?! You get this worked up about the use of ‘chairperson?’ How sad!” The writing on the wall, however, is the fact that so very, very few do get worked up by this. For, first of all, the man in question is no such thing. He is the chairman. Of course those determined to turn God’s order upside down would buck and chafe at reminders of His sovereignty, and His ordained order, but those who find God’s will irresistibly sweet must surely embrace the use of reality-impacting language that speaks reflectively in accordance with God’s will.

You see, feminists began their work in good communist fashion, by unjoining that which God had joined together. In order for them to set men and women at odds with each other, in order for them to effectively initiate policies that would destroy families, they had to cast life as lived, not by families, but by “individuals.” In this way, specialized segmentation could take on a life of nearly infinite adaptations. Order is not to be found in that which well serves families, but rather in that which serves individuals, abstractly defined after being first abstracted from families.

If families had one vote each, cast by the head of the family, it was twisted to appear not as “one family-one vote,” but as one vote for a man, and a vote denied to a woman. Never mind that God had declared these two one. When political purposes demand the redefinition of an entity, unbelievers are always quick to make it. The news, however, used to be in how quickly believers joined them. But it isn’t news anymore.

The reason this instance was so very distressing is because I’ve been compelled to witness the demasculization of language as the style-czars cemented it into place as policy governing the printed works of every secular publisher. Then, one by one, it has mowed down (nearly) every evangelical publisher, with hymn-publishers reckoned among the earliest casualties. Thus, I reason, if we can’t speak like God would have us speak when we write for others, at least we can use covenantally inclusive language1 when we write for ourselves. But no! The rot has infested so deeply, so thoroughly, the wall is so horribly mildewed that any priest worth his salt knows it’s his sad duty to tell the dwellers, their abode must be torn down. It is time for judgment to begin with the household of God. When those who advertise themselves as the most faithful among us start using the rhetoric of the Revolution (i.e., as van Prinsterer defined it, viz., raw, anti-Christian unbelief), that time of judgment has arrived.

Why do we prove ourselves ready to censor or alter any word which might remind anyone that God made man to be a covenant head? When Christians self-publish, any willingness shown by them to adopt the rhetoric of anti-Christianity should be met by severe disapproval. Why deliberately reinforce a distortion of reality and a falsehood?

Although the world has waged war on male headship, it seems necessary to remind my fellow Christians that, this war, whose chief weapons are nouveau-speech, redefinition and censorship, is doomed to fail. Why do Christians insist on being distinguished as the folks who walk in the same direction as revolutionaries, only a few yards to the rear? You’ve heard that “slow obedience is no obedience.” But understand this: slow disobedience is still disobedience! Every time a self-described Christian organization adopts the egalitarian style book, they betray their God, His created order, and they give aid and comfort to His enemies.

All my life I witnessed men and women speak and write about men—chairmen, postmen, handymen and mankind—with no offense given or taken. It was only when feminists decided to exploit the one area of philosophical progress of the 20th century that women were made to feel as if they should be offended. But it was—and is—all as phony as a three dollar bill. There is no offense to any God-created reality—not for His own children!

As long as men are taller, and as long as women insist on marrying taller men-and as long as the first floor of Department Stores are devoted to cosmetics—feminism confesses itself a fraud. Jesus is the Truth. His church is its pillar and foundation—presenting and representing His truth in this world. It’s time for women of both genders to get used to Christian writers and publishers using language which accords not with a fantasy world, but with the one real world which God has made, the same one He pronounced good.

NANC—repent. Seeing how central gender is to identity, if you can’t honor gender differences (even in language), and the callings respective to each of the two genders, why would anyone trust you to help them become more integrated in terms of who they “really” are? There are rules—and exceptions. That language is legitimate which reflects God-imposed rules. Language which subverts those rules is illegitimate. It is language in service to a revolt against His ordinances.

NANC: Repent. Please. Rewrite. Today.

.                                                                                      .

  1. He/she, or the recent s/he is, contrary to a self-conferred description, not inclusive but exclusive language. The use of “man” so as to include men, women and children is actual, genuine inclusive language. But make no mistake, the double pronouns and strained possessive cases are temporary. Already the burden has led many publishers to abandon s/he and its cognates in favor of straight up “she,” “her” and more. It seems it wasn’t power that was offensive. It was power that recognized and served the family above abstracted individuals—that power was offensive—or so fools were made to think. In consequence of such thinking, they allowed themselves to be set to war against their own interests, for the profit of  parties other than the fool combatants.

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

Egalitarianism As Man’s Chief End

The following paragraph is from a press release honoring Black History Month, by Alan D. Aviles, the President of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation.

Both in New York City and the nation, people of African-American descent often face greater health challenges than the general population. African-American adults are twice as likely to have a stroke and 60% more likely to die from a stroke than white adults. African-Americans have a higher incidence of asthma, diabetes, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, hypertension, infant mortality and sickle cell anemia than other ethnic groups. In addition, they have a higher incidence and poorer survival rates of certain cancers, including lung, prostate and stomach cancer.

We are told that it was Mark Twain who observed that there are three categories of untruth: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is paragraphs such as the above which provide to the gleg observer a disclosure of just how statistics are recruited for such (ig)noble purposes. A moment’s reflection ought to jolt the reader: How is it that these statistical observations are not joined to an explanation of WHY these disparities might exist? Whatever connection these “facts” might have with life is left to linger above the earth, the orbiting satellite of racial guilt, set to pass overhead at regular intervals to remind every American that…what? What exactly is the point of highlighting these disparities if one does not find accompanying the “inequity list” the very best or the most likely explanation which can account for the items listed? If someone really cares enough to notice the disparities, how do we account for them not caring enough to go just a tiny bit further, to bring us a tad nearer to a solution by tracing out for us the root causes of these unequal realities? It is in the Bible one may find the answer: “The mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Prior to the 1960’s the absence of any attempted explanation would have been viewed as a lapse in integrity by the author and/or publisher. What kind of man is it who knows where a fire is raging but refuses to tell the location so that help might be sent? But you see, inequity lists such as these no longer even pretend to be doing front work for genuine concern. Rather, they are purely political, which is to say creedal phrases, recited not so that anything might be done to solve a problem or cure a disease, but to propagate a faith. They are rehearsed for no purpose beyond perpetuating a favorite myth. The Heidelberg Catechism teaches us the religious explanation for man’s problems. Illness and death are consequences of sin. Paragraphs like the one cited intend the same thing: illness and death are the result of a cardinal sin (if not the Original Sin) identified as such by the priests of the egalitarian state. This paragraph is pure catechetical preaching.

In this case, the catechism holds that all of America’s problems are rooted in inequalities. If egalitarianism has yet to descend upon a segment of life, if its visitation of destruction has failed to reach a sphere because the spreading leaven was halted in some way, then the populace is to meditate on it, chant and recite verses that they hope will, by religious fervor and force, finally bring the Great Solution of equalitarianism to all spheres. This is a religious exercise, my friends. It is because we are on this side of the communist egalitarian utopia–which it is our duty to ever hold before our eyes as THE great goal of man and state–that these terrible imbalances exist.

Black people suffer higher incidence of sundry and assorted “leading bad health indicators” because America and its health care systems are utterly racist. Isn’t it obvious? Here is the proof! There are health inequities! What further proof is needed? In the current American environment, at least, to say nothing by way of explanation is tantamount to saying, “Racism did this.”

But surely enough knowledge is available, enough data known to correlate these higher incidences with certain “lifestyle” choices. If the announcement were generic, speaking of total populations (i.e., regardless of race) in region “X” in, say, 1978 compared with the same in 2008, a conclusion stating that the 2008 population was “twice as likely to have a stroke” as the 1978 group, would certainly be joined to a hypothetical explanation. No editor worth his salt would accept the story for print if the reporter didn’t dig further for an explanation. These considerations, I insist, reveal this sort of selective reporting, in which the important questions are left unasked, to be nothing less than race-baiting, less than worthless and inexcusable. To know WHY the disparities exist and to be silent concerning these reasons, especially when seeking to draw attention to the additional burden borne by one segment of the population, is, to every sensitive conscience, unconscionable. But like the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, these people make their living off of racism. Though they put themselves forward as enemies of inequality, the truth is they are devoted to perpetuating and extending it. Without it they’d be out of a job. Any decline in real racism (and its ugly fruits) means a corresponding decline in their bonuses. And hey, these are hard economic times.

So expect lots more of these mysteriously abstracted observations. It’s like the figures bandied about by ignorant (I’m being kind) feminists who ask you to be indignant about “inequitous” (my new word!) pay between men and women. By failing to connect it to women’s choices about what sort of work they are trained or willing to do, or the number of hours they elect to be away from home, or the costs to employers who hire and train women only to find over time that other items on their agenda made it too easy for women to forsake the workplace altogether–by leaving it as an abstraction, it best serves its religious function as a training tool, instructing the next generation just what sin is. It is “any want of conformity unto or transgression of 50/50.”

If you are skeptical, if you suspect that I’ve done my own abstracting, I place before you Mr. Aviles’s next two paragraphs. If you find a reason for the disparity that might prove helpful to Blacks, let me know, will ya?

HHC has a proud history of addressing racial and ethnic health disparities faced by African-Americans in New York City. For example, we have developed numerous initiatives, such as our Web-based electronic diabetes registry, to help our patients with diabetes better control their illness and avoid long-term complications. Similar technology and special care programs help keep our pediatric asthma patients out of emergency rooms and hospital beds.

We continue our work to expand access to preventive screenings for heart disease, hypertension, and cancers; make HIV testing part of routine medical care; help people to quit smoking; and provide optimal perinatal care.

It is time for Americanity to recognize that Political Correctness is not about politics. It’s simply that old Baal showing his version of “tolerance.”