thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

a bit of kibitzing

I haven't done anything like this for a while, and I'm actually anticipating it a little. So, onward and upward!

“Weeping Jeremiahs” is a blog that's been brought to my attention, for good or ill, mostly ill. I don't know anything about whomever write it, or even if “Jeremiahs” is telling us there's more than one person contributing bad poetry to the site. Anyway, this one example is certainly interesting.

The Values of the Lamb

Ah, the language of values. Not morals, not ethics, but values. But, let's be glad that this person knows so much about what Jesus values, right?

“I do not share your values, America:

Well, all right-y, then. Let's give Weepy Jerry credit for coming on strong, bringing the heat.

Now, first, let's note a few things. First, tie this in with the title of this poem, The Values of the Lamb, and note that this person puts these words in quotes, and writes in the first person, I. In other words, Weepy Jerry is claiming that Jesus is the one saying these words.

Wow, that's quite the claim. Take a look at this passage. “Deuteronomy 18: 18– 20: 18 “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.””

First, HT to Michael Beasley and his book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism, an excellent resource for the biblical view of prophecy, such as the verses above, which were in his book.

So, claiming to be speaking for God is not a trite thing. Saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”, even if one doesn't use that phrase, was a matter of life or death in the Old Testament. True, we may be glad that in this New Covenant we wouldn't kill a false prophet, but we shouldn't pretend that false prophecy is not a serious issue. And in claiming that the words of this poem are the words of Jesus, Weepy Jerry is putting him/her/themselves in the place of a prophet.

So, noting that, let's go on.

I value love more

than I value independence

Well, that's interesting. Are love and independence mutually exclusive? Are they bitter enemies, such that we cannot have one if we have the other? Personally, I don't see the conflict, and more than that, I think there are many ways in which love and independence go hand in hand. Even if we look at things on a national level, which country sounds more loving—the independence people have in the US, or the micro-control people suffer in North Korea? I think I'll take the independence we have in the US, thanks.

I value charity more

than I value profit.

So, when did charity and profit become mutually exclusive? You know, you work day in and day out, and when payday comes you get the wages you've worked for, and what is wrong with that? How that is anti-charity? In fact, how are any of us suppose to do much of anything charitable without earning anything?

Is work wrong? Is it wrong to want to earn the money you need to pay your bills, get groceries, and maybe afford a few extras? I guess we can assume that Weepy Jerry has at least one computer, or all the Weepy Jerries have their own computers, so it seems like they have some means. How were they able to afford to get computers? And wireless access? And a home?

Charitable giving is fine and dandy, if it is done wisely. I'm quite fine with charity, but I don't see how charity is suppose to be opposed to making a profit.

I value the native people

you uprooted and oppressed.

Ah, now it's cheap guilt trip time. Yeah, America, you ain't been perfect.

True, God does love native people, whatever that might mean, wherever that might be. He also loves the people that replaced them, and the people who replaced those people. After all, how many square inches of this world can really be said to be in the ownership of whatever people first claimed them?

I assume that at least one of the Weepy Jerries is white, because this person obviously relishes wallowing in his/her white guilt. As a white man myself, I think I'll pass. I know very well that the US has a lot of really ugly things in our past, something true of any nation, something true even of those native people.

How do I know that? Simple. Those native people were like us—fallen, sinful, corrupt, and even their attempts at works of righteousness were no better than filthy rags. They were just like me, because I was and am like that. I am a sinner, I am still fallen, even as I am forgiven and made clean in Christ. I think it is the Lutherans, and maybe the Reformed, who have a saying that we Christians are simultaneously just and sinner.

So, yes, God loves native people, God loves those who took their place, God loves all peoples. And He showed that love in this, that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.

I value your enemies

as much as I value you

No problem there, but what is this person really saying? I think this next verse may show this person's hand.

I value peacemaking

and nonviolence

Yep, typical leftie cowardice and self-righteousness, right there on full display.

Notice the lack of a contrast here—no “I value X over Y”, but “I value X and Y”. As you might expect, I think this is a bit of an either-or, more so than this person's other attempts at contrasts.

For example, why does peacemaking equal nonviolence? I've had some exposure to leftie rhetoric about these things, and, frankly, it's full of contradictions.

Maybe one would think about Jesus' words in what we call The Sermon on the Mount, where He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. All well and good, but does that mean pacifists? Does that mean nonviolence? I think that could be debated. First, by much of the Old Testament, where God often tells His people to go to war, and even seems to indicate that King David got into moral trouble with Bathsheba because he was not at war at a time when kings went to war. Warrior images are also often used for God. And there is no contrast between God the Father and Jesus. One isn't the thunder-god who just wants to do a lot of smiting while the other is the meek and quiet one who's pulled off an Occupy Heaven type of takeover. No, there is no conflict between the Father and the Son. Jesus completely approved of everything in the Old Testament, and the Father completely approved of everything Jesus said and did.

To put it another way, the same God who told Yeshua to lead the people of Israel into a conquest of The Promised Land is the same Yeshua who said that peacemakers are blessed, and He will be the same Yeshua who will return as a king and a conqueror, as Revelation tells us as do other prophet passages.

Proverbs, an Old Testament book, often speaks against violent people. Of course, these violent people were not like King David, or Joshua, or Moses, or Gideon, or any of David's mighty men. Rather, these violent men were murderers, bandits, robbers, ambushers, people who shed the blood of the innocent.

In a human sense, the policeman who stops a murderer or a robber is a peacemaker, even if he uses his weapon and even does so lethally. A soldier fight his country's enemies is a peacemaker. Of course, there are complications—it could be seriously questioned how much of a peacemaker a soldier in Nazi Germany was, and an ISIS terrorist is obviously not a peacemaker at all. Hamas terrorists lobbying thousands of mortars and rockets into Israel are not peacemakers, no matter how much they try to disguise themselves in false concern for the Palestinian people. And there are corrupt police officers, sadly. But by and large, police officers and soldiers do far more peacemaking than leftist radical activists.

I value freedom from sin more

than I value political freedom

Oh, my, how hyper-spiritual. I guess that might work as a cover for leftist attempts to curtail political freedom.

I value your salvation more

than I value your nation.

Ok, so, who is this person now talking to? I thought this person was address the US as a whole, but now it's changed somewhat.

And, again, it's hyper-spiritual. It's a common ploy among those on the left, and sadly even those on the right.

Do not confuse your values with Mine!”

Oh, and now we have “Mine” capitalized, another sign that Weepy Jerry is claiming that these words are form Jesus. So, are we suppose to put this little poem into the Bible? Maybe make it part of the Psalms, or at least a New Testament version of the Psalms?

Sorry, I can't do that.

One wonders if Weepy Jerry is actually taking his or her or their own advise? After all, they are claiming that their own values are the values of Jesus, but are they not then confusing their values for His? I think this little poem shows that they are, and pretty badly, too.

movie review--The Dark Knight Returns, part 2

I have a bit of a memory of when The Dark Knight Returns comics came out, way back when. I didn't read them until later, though. And now, a bit later still, I've been watching the second part of the recent animated movies based on the comics.

Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.

When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.

That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.

Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.

The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.

Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.

This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.

The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.

It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.

Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.

I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.

Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.

BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!

To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.

Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough

And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]

So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.

The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)


“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)

“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.

Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.

good article about giglio controversy

Louie Giglio and the New State Church

And a brief excerpt, to whet your appetite to check out all of it.

We don’t have a natural right to pray at anyone’s inauguration. But when one is pressured out from a previous invitation because he is too “toxic” for simply mentioning once something universal in the Christian faith, we ought to see what we’re looking at: a state church.

red letter nuts 2

I think I've mention Frank Schaeffer a few times before. Sadly, he's one of those types who keeps proving that he can go lower and more unbalanced, again and again.

Republicans “Own” Every Child Killed by a Gun and their Weeping Parents

And therein lies the desolation of the Republican Party’s future: They are going to lose many more of their very own through their combination with obstinate extremism and plain stupidity. I mean who wants to defend shooting toddlers as a constitutional right?

Who wants to “own” the pictures of weeping mothers?

The Republican Party does. As if killing themselves with anti-gay marriage homophobia, hatred of Hispanics (masquerading as anti-“illegal” immigrant initiatives) anti-women misogyny (flying under the banner of preventing women from getting contraceptives) and anti-science fundamentalist religion forced into schools wasn’t enough…

… BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN.

This is the new Republican Party “winning” platform? Good luck with that!

So, if you try to defend a Constitutional right, then, of course, you are responsible for every abuse of that right.

I suppose Frank Schaeffer, who obviously loves his right to free speech, is going to "own" every time someone abuses that right? Or those who believer in freedom of religion (again, like Schaeffer), he's going to own it when some cult is formed, then they kill themselves when the next comet appears in the sky?

Or...wait for it...maybe Schaeffer, being obvious on the left in regards to politics, will "own" the millions who have been killed in abortion?

Nah. That would require him to be an adult and show responsibility. He'd rather get on blogs like the linked to above, rant like a hormone-imbalanced teenager, and make irresponsible accusations without any foundation in reality.

Fat chance. The Republicans seem incapable of keeping up with the times. They just passed up a hell-sent chance to moderate their opinions. They passed it up, just as Romney passed up his chance to win women back by not publicly blasting Rush Limbaugh when he called a young woman a “whore” for standing up for her reproductive rights re contraception.

Ah, yes, the whole Sandra Fluke thing. Now, how was she in any way denied the right to get contraception? She wasn't. She simply whined that no one else would pay for it for her.

The Republicans have aligned themselves with billionaires against the rest of us. Now they are about to embrace the defending the murder of children and trivializing it with talk of “cap pistols.” That’s the moral equivalant of the talk about rape that derailed the fools running in the last election cycle.

Oh, please. We all know that people like you, Mr. Schaeffer, were the ones who intentionally took their words out-of-context, just like you have in this article of yours, to play politics with them.

Republicans will have to get even more used to losing. And those losses will no doubt give some aging white males even more paranoid fact-free “reasons” to cling to their guns and thereby to facilitate the killers of children. This is the price of right wing delusional freedom. It is a kind of “freedom” that looks more like madness with every child being buried this week.

The only madness is in your inane ranting, Mr. Schaeffer. There have been similar tragedies stopped because there were armed people around who were able to use their weapons to stop the criminals trying to harm others.

We do not surrender our rights simply because there are those who abuse them. We do not surrender our freedom of speech, simply because there are people like Schaeffer who abuse it with screeds like this. The cure is not less freedom, but more.
.

not sure who to bark at today?

Because, apparently, one must use e-cards every now and again to make a valid point...



Meaning, quite simply, that if you're letting the culture decide what's right and wrong, well, cultures change. More than that, if you think that fallen, sinful humanity is going to come up with an acceptable moral code, you really should dig up a history book.

Moral relativism is a farce, though not often a funny one. Those it makes use of today, it may well turn on tomorrow. The one that makes his or her own morality is also free to change that morality, and who can say they cannot?

Well, someone will. Because the farce behind moral relativism is that people will be allowed to choose their own moral code. They won't. Those who support the voices of opposition when they are at the bottom, will be less welcoming to them when they are in the position of power.

Either man will submit to God, or man will create gods. History shows us how that works out.

a sojrone goes delusion

Yeah, I know...that's not really any new. But, still, this is just loony.

They're Baaa-aaack: Return of the Christocrats (Who Never Really Went Away)

In the 2012 presidential election, the Christocrats are out in force on many fronts: trying to eliminate prenatal care and all forms of contraception; defunding breast cancer screening; opposing civil rights for same-sex couples; contesting evolution and substituting creationism in public schools; denying the reality of global climate change; and discrediting the "lame stream media."

Wow. So, where to begin...

I suspect that the contraception remark has to do with the recent spat of attempts by the government to try to make religious organizations, like Catholic churches and hospitals, provide free birth control and contraception to employees, despite their religious convictions against such thing, and the US Constitution's statement about the government not imposing itself on religion. In other words, this looney sojrone is has hallucinations about how relgious organization defending themselves from a power-hungry US president and lackies is somehow something evil.

Defunding breast cancer? Ah, the little stink a few weeks ago about Susan B Komen and Planned Parenthood. Apparently, to the lefties like this sojrone, it's bad for Komen to separate from PP. You know, PP being all for killing the unborn and all.

Civil rights. Yeah, playing that card in regards to gay rights and gay marriage. Can someone say "slippery slope"? I suppose morality has nothing to do with this sojrone's rantings.

Contesting evolution? Oh, the horro!! Oh, the humanity!! Stop showing how silly evolution is, and just...stop. You came from a monkey, deal with it!! Stop pointing out the facts otherwise, or we'll take you to court and make a judge shut you up!!

And denying global warming? When the proofs for it have been shown to be fake (much like with evolution), then the crazy thing would be to just close your mind and accept it (much like with evolution).

And the "lame stream media" are the ones who discredit themselves every day.

Perhaps the best responds was from a commenter by the name "CommLaw".

I find this conversation very interesting because while social conservatives are concerned about gay marriage and abortion, it's the left that wants to control virtually every aspect of our lives: health insurance, pipelines, carbon usage, and on and on an on. Yet the left claims the right wants to control all of their lives.

Well said.

good for thee, but not for sojo

The Santorum Question: Should Theology Affect the Way We Vote?

In order to understand the hypocracy behind this, image a headline like this "The Obama Question: Should Theology Affect the Way We Vote?", where conservatives look at the things said by Obama's pastor (which Obama himself claims to have not heard).

Sojrones would be falling all over themselves to cover for him.

And, of course, Sojo is constantly pressing for their views, based on their own biblical interpretation or lack thereof, to be used in the way voters or politicians vote on things. They support their views on illegal immigration by pointing to real or supposed biblical injunctions about "welcoming strangers" (apparently, that means strangers don't have to abide by a nation's rules). They go all into hissy fits when the notion of fiscal responsibility concerning the so-called "safety net" is concerning, claiming it's somehow being hard on the poor and oppressed.

And don't get started on war and the military.

So, I find it ironic indeed that people so committing to having their own religious veiws affect (or is that effect?) how people vote, are wanting to raise it as suspicious with regards to Santorum.

But liberal catholic politicians like the Kennedys and Pelosi? Eh, not so much. And Obama's socialistic black liberation theology church? Bring that up, and you're a racist.

The double standard is glaringly obvious. But if you want real amusement, read the comments to that sojo piece. One person tries to raise the issue of the double standard, and committed sojrone commentors say he's being unfair.

sojo promotes immorality

U.K. Innkeepers Fined for Turning Away Gay Couple

On the surface, this seems almost like a regular news story. I think, though, that Sojo lets their biases out in the caption with the photo.

No Room at the Inn. Image via Wylio, http://bit.ly/ADRtVi.

If your familiar with the account of Christ's birth, you know what "no romm at the inn" means--it refers to Mary having to give birth in a stable because the inn was filled.

So, in putting "No Room at the Inn" to this caption, Sojo is linking the birth of Christ, and there being no room at the inn where Joseph and Mary were at, to the fact that the Christian owners of this guesthouse did not permit a homosexual couple to stay in their rooms and so practice their immorality.

England is making the guesthouse owners pay a fine, which is rather bad in itself, but the topic is Sojo.

Look at what they are doing--taking the birth of the sinless Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world, and using it to promote sinful and immoral sexual behavior.

If that isn't blasphemy, I'm not sure what is.

sojrone blames Christians, using bad argument

So, what else is new?

'Dexter Theology': Shedding Blood in God's Name

I’ll admit I’m a sucker for stories about the malleability of human morality. From the mob movies, where a guy can whack his cousin but better not show his Patron any “disrespect,” to justice-seeking serial killers like “Dexter,” there’s plenty of justified violence to be found.

Where do such seemingly contradictory value systems come from? And do they actually happen in the real world today?

How about the politician who claims a platform that values a respect for “all life,” while justifying war and advocating for capital punishment? Or those who celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And the list goes on.

Oh, boy, and there we go...

So, somehow, it's the fault of those who are think there are good reasons for going to war and executing murders that we have "Dexter"?

Sorry, I'm laughing my head off here. Or I would be, if I weren't in a library.

Because, really, how does that work?

I haven't watched "Dexter", and frankly have no wish to. Why should I watch anything that glorifies what is essentially murder, and the glorification of a serial killer no matter his reasons?

So, let's change this argument a bit, shall we? How about if we call it "NCIS theology"? That being one of my favorite shows, I'm a bit more familiar with it.

"NCIS" is essentially a detective show about usually military situations and issues. The team of investigators are law-enforcement officers. They use investigative techniques and technology to solve crimes. Sometimes, that also involves pulling out guns and having to shoot people, and sometimes that means the criminal is killed.

So, we have law-enforcement officers, abiding by the law and rules of their organization (even if they sometimes bend those rules a lot sometimes) and who sometimes have to use lethal force. A far cry from "Dexter", I would guess.

Do they show a disrespect for life when they try to bring criminals to justice and sometimes have to use lethal force? I would say, no. There is nothing in the position that supports capital punishment that leads to a lack of respect for life.

(and would one dare point out that those on the left are the ones who advocate for the real killing of innocents, the unborn, in the form of abortion?)

So, yes, I respect all life, and am pro-life in that I am against abortion, and wish to see it's legality ended. I am also pro-capital punishment, because there are crimes that deserve that punishment.

But, I think this sojrone has a bigger fish to fry.

Some even suggest that a culture of justified violence was applied to Jesus’ own crucifixion. This can even be found in the writings of Paul, who came from a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism as well. So it’s understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus’ death.

His "bigger fish" is the substitutionary atonement of Christ, that "Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures tell us".

Jesus forgave sin while he was still alive. Was this a lie? A Mistake? Or did he actually present a grace to the world that was greater than sin, even then?

How does Jesus forgiving sins while He was alive contradict anything? Christ was going to lay down His life for us. Forgiveness, then, was likely based on Him doing that, just like all other sins before His death were forgiven through it. There is nothing contradictory there.

I believe that Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’ message rings the most true, and it can be summed up in three simple words:

Violence never redeems.

We come to it, the real point of this whole sad sojo post--the death of Christ is needless.

It’s love that redeems, and love requires no blood to be spilled in order to exist, or else it’s not really love. There’s no such thing as conditional love; love never comes with an asterisk, a caveat or fine print. It is whole, complete and absolute in and of itself.

Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may even be considered Biblical in some cases. But it’s not Christ-like.

"Without shedding of blood there is no redemption of sins". That is God's Word, and if the words of Walter Wink or this sojrone contradict it, then they are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".

Even heathens honor those who sacrifice their own lives for their family or countries, but this sojrone belittles and dishonors the Christ who gave His life for us by his trite and unscriptural positions. This is blasphemy, pure and simple. He is one who trods upon the blood of Christ, calling it an accursed thing.

poor pitiful him

Sale Cereal

Much of this post an account, autobiographical I suppose though fiction isn't completely ruled out, of his attempt to get coffee from a Starbucks when his bank account was too low. Yeah, major bummer, he's just so oppressed.

For my middle-class friends — the ones who have snuggled into comfortably paying, socially respected careers—the post-grad years of scraping by, of wrangling coins for groceries and beer — become cutely nostalgic. “Remember when we’d eat Ramen all the time, and could only go out during happy hour, and got clothes at Target?” Now sipping $60 bottles of wine and donning designer jeans, these years become testament to their ability to do it—the whole poverty thing—as if it’s some sort of game, some trial-by-fire, a stepping stone to real, adult life.

Oh, of course, those sell-outs. How dare they "snuggle into comfortably paying, socially respected careers". How dare they do without for a time so they could get educated and trained, so that they could find work that really paid well (thus earning the money that people like this Sojrone want to tax so very badly), so they could afford $60 bottles of win and designer jeans, if that's what they wish to purchase and can afford.

For what it's worth, I doubt they were going around saying things as a testament to their ability to do poverty, but rather to the effect that they rose above it. And maybe some sympathy to the bud who whines about not being able to get coffee-house coffee.

My problem is that, for many, it’s not seasonal: the lights go off every month for years, the cards are always declined, pulling on those mythical bootstraps isn’t really an option. Aside from the whole I-want-to-get-married-someday thing, this is probably why I’m a democrat, because I work in the communities that are supposed to benefit from trickle-down economics. Here’s a little secret, though: they don’t. They’re stuck, and not because they lack motivation, but because they haven’t been afforded the same opportunities for success. Poverty preys on their prayers.

So, those communities have benefit from social welfare? Really?

Here's a little secret. They haven't. They're stuck.

Which is why I'm a Republican, because I don't want to get caught in the food-stamp dependency trap.

And because I find it distasteful that whiners like this get so upset because they can't afford Starbucks. Since he works for Americorps, it's my tax money that's paying his salary, and frankly if he can't afford Starbucks, he can go down to the store and buy instant. Maybe doing without Starbucks will allow him to pay his electric bill on time.

I like how one commentor to the post put it. Since Sojo comments now have like and dislike buttons, they comment predictable has been severely disliked by the denizens. All the more reason for me to like it.

If you don't even have $1.85 for a cup of coffee, perhaps you don't need to be in Starbucks. And that $4.59 you had leftover after the transfer will no doubt go towards an overdraft fee. But of course, it's not your fault for not knowing your available balance. You're just way too busy to be concerned about how your failure to manage your own life has negative consequences. It's sad how a lack of personal responsibility in your life has made you unmarketable, but it's nobody's fault but your own. The world doesn't owe you a living, so please do something about it instead of just complaining.

That comment is at -8 right now, and I've no doubt will go down further. This is, after all, Sojo, where all hints of personal responsibility are to be condemned.

down memory gutter

A few days ago, I wound up going back to a place online that I frequented a few years ago, and went back over a bit of an exchange I had with some of the regulars there at that time. It was interesting, and a bit amusing. It'd been a while since I'd been there, and judging by how most of their recent posts have comments turned off, I doubt I'll frequent it much again, except out of morbid curiosity, maybe.

Here's the main entry, the point around which we were discussing or debating or something worse.

WASHINGTON, DC — April 1, 2009 — In an announcement that stunned the nation, Barack Obama called a press conference today to state that he is stepping down as President of the United States. Effective immediately, Hugh Beaumont will assume the role. Mr Obama also said that Joe Biden is being replaced by Ozzie Nelson. Similar replacements are taking place throughout Congress, although it is reported that Nancy Pelosi has locked herself in her office.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.

I'll not give much in the way of what the exchanges were like in the comments area, as it pretty much quickly degenerated into a gang-up. They are still on the site, if you wish to read them. My tactic or strategy was, well, pretty interesting, even now. Mostly, I insisted on asking the same questions over and over, in an insistence on getting the others to answer those questions, while also refuting in as simple a way as possible their attempts to attribute wrong motives to me.

Take a look at the contents of the blog entry. I said that this entry showed the hate that was in them, both the one who wrote it and those who approved it. It showed the hatred they had towards those who dared to disagree with them, and attributes to those people the vilest of things. It was a hateful attack on those who dare to disagree with, among other things, the election of Obama, accusing them of having a distrust in God and trusting instead in government and the country (rather a silly claim, really, when you consider that it is people like Obama and those who support him who are pushing for the government to become the main provider of all things). And it claims that those types of people would kick Jewish people out of country clubs (would they send them to prison camps, too) and kill black people. The hate in this piece of "satire" is blindingly obvious.

Amazing how impossible it was to get them to see that.

It was C.S. Lewis who somewhere in his writings made a bit of a comment about humor, something along the lines that one could get approval for almost anything, could get approval for evil acts, if one could get others to laugh at it. Is this not almost self-evident? From the clever word-play of "Who's On First", we have degenerated to the place where profanity and comedy are almost synonymous, to the place were comedy is used to make less offensive the most immoral of sexual acts and lifestyles, where those who oppose those acts and lifestyles are held up for ridicule in those same comedies, where we are encouraged to laugh at things that should offend and shame us.

So, when the other commentors tried to defend the entry by calling it a satire, it didn't really matter to me. It's kind of like saying "Hey, I'm going to write something comparing those who disagree with me of wanting to ban Jewish people and kill black people, but hey, don't take me seriously, I'm only joking". Yeah, I wasn't going to let them off the hook that easily.

Honestly, I had been commenting there for some time, and things had already degenerated. I can't remember all the things leading to this degeneration, but one I do remember quite clearly is when they got on the case, I thought unfairly, of one of their favorite targets, and I came to her defense.

Strange, how right she has been proven, concerning the young celebrity in question. Sad, yes, but also right. But concerning myself, it was eye-opening to see how much vitriol and hate the commentors at this blog had towards this woman. It wasn't just simple disagreement, it was personal, and they were personally attacking her.

So, when I starting making the comment that "You become what you hate", I knew what I was seeing, and how true that statement was. It would have been one thing if they had voiced reasoned and considered disagreement, but these people were not just crossing lines but running full-tilt over them while laughing about it and denying that they were doing it. And the hatred they denied having became directed at commentors like myself who dared to disagree with them, question them, say that they were wrong.

I don't think it's too very wrong of me to feel some satisfaction at the state of that online place now. They've changed the name, and it looks like it's not near as busy as it was. The problem with an echo-chamber is that it becomes really dull after a while, hearing the same things over and over again. Why else have places like Emergent Village come almost to a stand-still? Why do they have to go to more and more extremes to try to maintain interest? For example, EV's attempt last year to portray God as being an unfaithful lover. Perhaps they should thank the occasional person like myself who stumbles over their sites, voices a bit of disagrement, and gives the hangers-on an enemy to rally against for a while.

Perhaps the best thing people like me can do is to keep away from places like the old and new Emergent Village, the theOoze, this 3Ps blog I've linked to above, or what have you, and let them die away from boredom, fade away from the silence resounding through the echo chamber, and let the people there feel the existential angst of knowing that they are no longer relevant, while they get sick of trying to top each other in writing the most ridiculous things.

It's a thought, and not a bad one, either.

wallis attacks fox with bad theology

Continuing the tirades against Rick Perry's statements about the War of Christmas, head Sojrone himself Jim Wallis weighs in with a hit piece.

The Real War on Christmas ... by Fox News

Fox News’ “war” is designed to criticize the “secularization” of our culture wrought by atheists, agnostics, liberals, leftists, progressives, and separation of church and state zealots— i.e. Democrats. This irreligious coalition force is allegedly waging a strategic offensive on Christmas, trying to banish the sacred symbols of the season, denying our religious heritage, and even undermining the spiritual rubrics upon which our great nation is built.

Well, at least Wallis has the list of usual suspects correct. But, in typical liberal fashion, it's the perpetrators who are the actualy victims, while the people crying foul about it are the ungodly oppressors.

But, on to the bad theology.

What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.

Now, as you man know, the most convincing lies contain a bit of truth in them. Some parts of the first part of that paragraph are fine, as far as they go. Christmas is the celebration of God becoming flesh, of the birth of Christ. After that, well...

I'm trying to remember where in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ it is said the Mary was a teenage girl. I know the popular depictions--young, pretty, and all that. And maybe they're right. But I can't remember it being said, that way or this. At the risk of sounding like McLaren, what if Mary was actually in her twenties or thirties, and rather on the homely side? Would that add or take away anything from the account?

Now, concerning the economic status of Joseph and Mary. From the account Matthew 1, where we are told that after the dream Joseph took Mary as his wife, are to we assume that they were a homeless couple? It seems to hint rather that he had a place for his wife and family. They may not have been very wealthy, as some have hinted at concerning the sacrifice in Luke 2, but they were not homeless, as Wallis wants us to think.

When Wallis starts going about Jesus being "...a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country...", we can see his own politics coming in. It's a true enough statement, Israel was under Roman rule and occupation, and that seems to be almost a non-issue in much of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels. It does seem that the people were expecting the Messiah to come and liberate them from people like the Romans, but Jesus had a much more serious thing to liberate them from--their sins.

This is important. Jesus was not leading some kind of Occupy Jerusalem nonsense. He was not interested in trying to throw down Herod. When asked about paying taxes, He said that they should pay to Casear was is due to him. Some at Sojo try to read a dismissive or sarcastic tone into Jesus' statement here, but that is not hinted at in the text.

And, finally, Herod did indeed kill many children in trying to kill Jesus. Later, the Israelites were the ones wanting to kill the adult Christ. Roman and Jerusalem, Jews and Gentiles, all stand condemned for the unspeakable crime of rejecting the Messiah.

It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.

Wallis is not the first person I've heard make a big thing about Jesus not being born in a palace, or being born in a rural area, or whatever. I remember a few years ago watching a church's Christmas play, where a character depicting the innkeeper mad a speech about the gift he was giving the Christ child was indifference. I don't know it that innkeeper was indifferent, busy, or what have you what not. Angels appeared to the shepherds, though I would guess none came to the innkeeper to tell him who was to be born that night near to him.

Later in life, Jesus did claim the prophecy in Isaiah to Himself, saying it was fulfille that day in their midst. The sick were to be healed, and the poor were to have the Gospel preached to them. We would be wrong, though, to say that this was some statement of class warfare on His part. Many people of means and power, like Nicodemus and Zacchaeus and Lazarus and the rich young ruler and the Roman centurion, seem to have heard His message and found it at least interesting, even if at least one went away saddened by His demands for him. It seemed the materially well-off had the Gospel preached to them, too, along with the poor. Because, ultimately, all of us are paupers in spirit, dead in sins, helpless to help ourselves, and in need of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.

And, finally, Wallis tries to throw in the social gospel--that "the least of these" are somehow all the poor or prisoners or whomever is suppose to be, in the eyes of ones like Wallis, that least. It's always funny how context is never brought in here, for example that Jesus' statement was "the least of these my brothers". If any are brothers of Christ, it is those who believe in Him. Many Christians are in hard situations, persecuted for their faith in Christ while living in cultures that are actively against those beliefs, in prisons, denied jobs and forced into poverty, sick for various reasons. In one of the epistles, we are told to do good to everyone, but especially to those of the household of faith. The Church is to look after it's own first, while not neglecting the needs of those outside.

The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.

There may be a good bit of truth in Wallis first couple of sentences there, except that I wonder about what he means by some of the words he's using. But Christ came to "show us what it means to be truly human"? What does that mean? Rather, as Paul said, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners".

Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.

Well, let's go here, shall we? What, for example, is Sojourners' budget? How much do they spend on, for example, their magazine? How much during the year do people donate to them? How much to they pay their staff? How about the head Sojrone himself? He doesn't look like he's struggling, and he's had a few books that have sold big. How much have people like Soros donated to Sojo? Maybe Sojo can release their books, and Wallis his own, so that we can stand and be amazed by their amazing generosity as they condemn Americans of spending to give gifts during Christmas?

Whether Americans, or anyone else for the matter, are as generous as they could or should be, is an interest question, and perhaps one impossible to answer. But it does seem that, whenever a disaster happens in the world, Americans by and large are generous in trying to help--donating to send aid to those places, sending the aid themselves, even going their themselves to work. No doubt people from other nations do the same things, I've no wish to hint otherwise, but Wallis' claim that Americans are somehow unspeakably greedy among all the peoples of the world seems to fall flat.

I am not judged by Wallis' standards and shoddy interpretations. Before God, I am condemned as a sinner, but in Christ I have forgiveness of sins.

sojo descends to open blasphemy

I though Sojo showing a video a men dressed as nuns singing Handel was bad enough for one week, but leave it to Sojo to prove that I'm not yet cynical enough.

This is a continuation of Sojo's attacks on Rick Perry, and the most distasteful of the bunch. As far as I know, no Sojrone was involved in the making of this blasphemous video, but boy, do they ever approve its message. And though there are few comments, they are all for it, too.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth would like to take this opportunity to refute Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's most recent TV ad."

FunnyOrDie.com for the win!

And the message of the video is pathetic.

Not that it's new or news, but let it be known that Sojo is indeed shameless, and since Wallis condones this type of thing by allowing it on his blog and not removing it in a reasonable time, he is party to it.

verbal gaffe bias

Well, the bias is in how, when one person makes such a gaffe, it's big news and used against him, while when another person makes the kinds of gaffes, it's pretty much ignored.

For example...

Perry's gaffes continue to add up

Ok, Perry has made some gaffes. Acknowledged. And so what? Given that he has proven himself a capable governor, not perfect but capable, I'm willing to overlook a few slips like that.

If the press wants to make a big deal out of Perry's gaffes, all well and good. But, then, there is another person in power out there (probably more than one, but let's focus on only one for right now) who has proven himself equally inept, if not more so. Particularly when away from his trusted teleprompter.

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

Even President Obama makes verbal gaffes

So, if you find any media person out there at a place like MSNBC saying that this person's gaffe show he is not qualified for his current position of power, please let me know. But if his, usually more serious gaffes aren't disqualifiers, then neither are Perry's.

perry doesn't back down!

That's honking off the Sojrones.

God's Politics BlogPerry Defends his "War on Religion" Attack Ad

PERRY: Well if you sit down with the bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church, they can give you a very clear understanding of how this administration has gone after their charitable operations, on whether it’s trafficking in individuals or whether it’s those hospitals and those clinics that choose not to do abortions because they have a conscious reason not to and it’s their belief and their faith not to give those abortions – so there’s a clear attack on the Catholics in particular from that perspective.

But when you think about the left in general, which the president is obviously a great part of – not allowing our kids to pray in school, not allowing to celebrate Christmas. I mean, the idea that the left continues to send the message of listen – we, our First Amendment right is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And that’s what the left has tried to do, is force all of us who are people of faith to basically say you can’t be involved in the public arena. And that is just wrong.

And dippy sojo comments.

When Governor Perry--I'm sorry to say he's my governor--and other "culture warriors" perpetuate the falsehood about children not being allowed to pray in school, they are either ignorant, or they are intentionally lying. I don't think Governor Perry is ignorant

Governor Perry (I wish he were my governor, but sadly my state seems to like lib-inspired misery) is spot-on. There is no myth about kids not being allowed to pray in schools, because it isn't a myth. Oh, sure, if you want to do it quietly and on-the-sly, so be it. Or, as I remember during a college graduation ceremony, you give a rather lame PC type of prayer to some unnamed power out there somewhere.

And when it is allowed, it certainly isn't because the people on Sojo's side of the issues aren't trying to ban it. This article also has a bit more on the issue.

We included the following quote from the U.S. Department of Education Secretarys Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, which specifically addresses student prayer during non-instructional time:

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

So, yes, kids are still technically allowed to pray, but this is a far cry from the prayer and religious instruction schools could give.

Before 1949, public schools were actually allowed to have religious education teachers, who would instruct the students in the Christian faith and moral values. In that year, the Court stated that public schools could no longer do this because it “breached the historical separation of church and state.” However, the Court did allow a “released time” program, which permitted students to leave school early in order to attend religious instruction given at their churches [2]. By having the students leave school grounds to receive religious instruction, the Court believed that it had reached an acceptable compromise by preventing the violation of the establishment of religion in public schools but still allowing everyone’s religious freedom.

So, kudos to Perry.

so, no war on Christmas?

Kinda a follow-up to yesterday's post.


Media Finally Outraged Over Christmas Censorship – When It Involves the Word ‘Gay’

While the overall premise of the piece is interesting, this is what I want to focus on.

What you may not have heard covered in the MSM was an essay penned by one Colin Curran, a 16-year-old high school junior from New Jersey. Taking to the Huffington Post during this same time period, Colin told a story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children’s holiday breakfast. There was one catch – none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the “principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music”.

So, this kid couldn't choose songs that had anything to do with the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Heck, even Santa was verbotin, because I guess what with the word "santa" meaning "saint", that just wouldn't be PC.

Wow.

So, let's see...there goes "Silver Bells", because it mentions Santa. No "Rudolph", though I guess "Frosty" may survive the cut so long as it isn't too closely linked to the cartoon. "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gets axed. Ah, but wait, this kid could still put "Jingle Bells" on the list. Can't offend anyone with that one.

Oh, wait, maybe the PETA kids. After all, it's about riding in a one-horse open sleigh, which means that the poor little horsey is pulling the sleigh, running around and probably cold. Can't have that, gotta nix that one.

Wow, I'm struggling to find any songs at all that this kid could have put in this program. But we must press on, because woe betide if we offend anyone at all in our seasonal music, except those religious people who wonder what happened to anything about the Christ child whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Don't worry about them.

rick perry must NOT apologize

Rick Perry Must Apologize

Oh, dear, and what did Perry say that Wallis thinks is oh-so horrible???

In case you didn't quite catch it all, here's the text:

"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Sounds to me like Perry's pretty much spot-on. No wonder Wallis objects vehemently.

Wallis' response is full of LOL fail.

Governor Perry and President Obama, like millions of other Americans, are Christians. Both of them.

See. Told you. LOL!!!

I'm not on board with everything Perry seems to believe or all he has associated with, he seems a bit too cozy with some of the KC false prophets and apostles, but compared to Obama he's pretty solid. At the least, he hasn't had a pastor going around spewing "God d--- America!!".

Not all Americans believe the same things or worship in the same way, but that doesn’t mean there is a “war on religion”

In America, we respect and support religious liberty.

Oh, maybe we used to. But thanks to people like you, Mr. Wallis, Perry is right that kids can't openly pray in school or, at least in some places, can't celebrate Christmas. Heck, just this past year, one school was even offended by the idea of Easter eggs. What did they call them instead, Spring Spheres?

What denigrates our religious heritage is to accuse someone of sincere faith who disagrees with you by perpetuating the myth of the “war on religion” and accusing him of being a foot soldier in the battle.

No, it doesn't. People like you, Mr. Wallis, who claim to be Christian but mock everything the Bible teaches, are the ones who dengrate Christian heritage.

Diversity of opinion and beliefs is also what makes this country strong.

Coming from someone who's constantly claiming that everyone must agree with him, and who claims that he speaks for God in regards to politics (what else does the title "God's Politics" mean?), you're the one who seems to not welcome diversity of opinions and beliefs. Of, sure, you'll claim to be ecumenical, Mr. Wallis, but isn't it odd that your ecumenism is based on agreement in political aims and means?

Governor Perry should take the ad down, apologize both to President Obama and the American people, ask God for forgiveness and make amends for perpetuating polarization and disharmony in the body of Christ.

Candidate Perry should NOT apoligize. He is simply speaking truth, and offending people like Wallis is part and parcel with speaking truth. Wallis is the one who should be asking God for forgiveness, for misrepresenting Him and His Word into somehow supporting the leftist socialist agenda, supporting sloth while punishing work, promoting class warfare, and openly claiming Christ was a socialist. He is the one who is "perpetuating polariszation and disharmony in the body of Christ".

And if Perry were to repent of listening to and supporting false apostles and prophets, all the better for him.

don't let inconsistency stop a bad argument

Remember a few days ago when I linked to an article at Sojo about how evil Thanksgiving is, and how we shouldn't celebrate it?

But, apparently, that doesn't mean people Thanksgiving can't be used to stop people from doing productive things, like, you know, working.

In Solidarity with Target Workers on Thanksgiving

Some people who work for Target, a major national retailer that plans to open its doors for Black Friday starting at midnight following Thanksgiving, have circulated a petition in protest. They are right to say enough. I stand in solidarity with them.

However, the idea that this society is willing to allow our materialism to go unchecked to the point that we want to force people to lose a significant portion of a day dedicated to giving thanks because some business does not want to lose a “competitive edge,” is shameful. It is a sad commentary on our values. People have been trampled to death in a rush to get into this or that store for the sake of the bargains. This is tragic. It is time to say enough. Let Thanksgiving Day remain sacred, set apart. We can stop the madness if we do not shop before sunrise on Friday morning. Stand in solidarity with the Target workers.

I remember a time I had to be at work at 12:00 AM the day after Thanksgiving. Of course, I had to be there a bit before midnight, in order to actually start on time. How evil of the I worked for. In fact, this year, I was actually at work for a few minutes Thanksgiving morning. What wickedness on the part of the people who pay me to work for them!!! I should return the money I earned from them!!

Well...no, I won't. Because as bothersome as it was, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

I'm not the biggest fan of Target, but if the people who are so honked off about this don't want to start work at midnight, well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be quite happy to take their places.