See President Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh here. See Limbaugh's response here.
Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?
Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.
Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.
It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.
Showing posts with label Hate crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hate crimes. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
NEWS: Obama's first day priorities include abortion.
See the report here.
"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).
Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.
We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.
ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:
"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).
Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.
We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.
ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:
Tomorrow morning, President Obama’s first act will be what had also been Bill Clinton’s first act as president, to overturn the Mexico City Policy, thus allowing federal funds to be spent on abortions overseas.
Well, that does not give me much hope. This is interesting:
"President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.
President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it."
So, this policy keeps going back and forth - Republicans come in, they end funding for overseas abortions, Democrats come in, and the “first thing” they do is put the funding back.
It almost seems like the first thing they’re doing is making a token offering to Moloch - to the Culture of Death.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Race and Culture in Politics and Religion
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).
Was there no racism or sexism in the world Paul lived in at the time he wrote the scripture above? Of course there was. If memory serves, and I could be mistaken, then Galatians was written contemporaneously with Caligula's rule of the Roman Empire, which was famous for making slaves of men of all races. Slaves were also forced to risk their lives as both gladiators and prostitutes in Rome to increase the girth of their masters' purses. So what did Paul mean?
"You are all one in Christ Jesus" was a deliberate departure from a world filled with slavery and prejudice. Remember, "The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).
So, it is clear from scripture that, insofar as God is concerned, we are all equal. So why, for instance, would wives be called to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)? Because, being "equal" does not make us the "same." There are obvious and significant differences between men and women, which only begin with anatomy. No one would look at a hammer and a nail and imply any inequality. Certainly, they are not the same thing, but what can one do apart from the other?
I almost hesitate to say it, but there is some truth to that same principle when it comes to races. You know, I have to tan in the sun if I don't want to look sickly, because I am as pale white as they come. Does that mean I am less valuable to the Lord than a latin or black man? Of course not: that would be absurd. Does God love me any less because I can never become pregnant? Does he love my wife less because she can never make herself pregnant?
You see how silly it is to try and sell someone on the argument that we are all the "same" in the eyes of the Lord. Make no mistake, however, because we most certainly are all EQUAL in the eyes of the Lord. We all have an equal inheritance with the Lord, provided we choose to accept it.
I specifically want to discuss racism, which from the passage above is clearly against God's design. Without taking one kernel of truth away from that statement, it is important to remember that differences are also a part of God's design. If we are true to that, then we must accept those differences and realize that they do not make us more or less equal. They are just a part of God's plan.
So why, if we are all equal, do so many people hate others based on their race, culture, or gender? To put it simply, some people are stupid. Notice that I did not say ignorant? I don't buy, in the world we live in, that people cannot figure out that this sort of hatred is wrong. They know it, but they are just too stupid to care. They cannot live with those differences alluded to earlier. Mankind quickly learned from the example of the snake in Genesis, that which is different can kill you quickly, cause you to fall. Still, to assume this is true of everything and everyone different, is stupid.
So how do you confront such stupidity? I do not claim to have the answers, but I can tell you one thing: if you try to blow out a fire, you may just make it worse. Eventually, a fire will burn out on its own, when it has expended all its fuel. If you blow on it, though, you are just providing the oxygen it needs to survive. Better to smother a fire than to blow it out.
Racism is like a fire of hatred that needs desperately to be smothered. Giving attention to a racist is much like blowing on a fire. They thrive on the conflict, and when they see organizations and people fighting so hard against them, then they feel justified in their efforts and beliefs. Racism, and similar forms of hatred are perpetuated in the same way as violence in the middle east. Every attack provokes a reaction, and each reaction makes the opposing side feel that it has struck a chord, landed a major blow, and gained publicity for its cause. Similarly, fighting the racist does nothing to change matters. If you cannot change the heart, then the racist will forever remain a racist. It is engrained deeply in his faulty world view. You cannot convince a man to abandon his hatred through reason. Rather, you have to find a way to introduce love to counter the hatred.
People in this world who cling to and spread hate want a public forum. I believe they want publicity, even if it is bad publicity, so that they can spread their hate-mongering to others. This is true: hate, like fire, spreads fast. As those living in California realize, it's often hard to find enough water fast enough to stop a spreading fire in the forest. Similarly, it is difficult to find enough love fast enough to stop the spread of hatred.
I have learned that there are substantial differences between human races, but we are all still human, are we not? Often, those differences are sensitive topics, and so they are ignored. Other times, those differences are given more attentiaion than they deserve. Personally, I find the notion of hate crime legislation, for instance, to be particularly ludicrous. After all, a crime against a person is a crime. To commit that crime, a person was motivated by hate or, at a minimum, indifference. Whether that hate/indifference was motivated by racism makes little difference. In the end, the result is the same: a perpetrator and a victim.
To segregate perpetrators (treat them separately, differently from other perpetrators) based upon their racial motivations, inevitably ends up segregating the victims too: if Joe attacks Alice for being black and Sue, who is Asian, for no reason, and if Joe then receives a greater punishment for attacking Alice, then Sue has been treated differently because of her race. See how it spreads so easily? What did Sue do to deserve this forced segregation? She was, after all, just as much a victim as Alice, was she not?
By treating our hypothetical perpetrators and victims differently, we have forcibly segregated them all. In doing so, we have stooped to the level of our hypothetical perpetrator Joe: treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin.
The solution to racism, sexism, prejudice, and other hatred is beyond my ability to craft. Thankfully, it is not beyond God's. What I can tell you is this: adopting the methodology of the haters is not the solution. We, as Christians, cannot afford to support legislation and public policies that elevate one type of human being over another. That is simply wrong.
I have not forgotten my earlier point: there are differences between people who are, nevertheless, equal in the eyes of the Lord our God. So, why do these differences not require different treatment in laws and policies? Because that would deprive them of their right to equal treatment under the law.
Whether it is affirmative action legislation that affords minorities increased access to jobs over other races, or whether its segregation laws that send a minority race to the back of the bus, different restaraunts, and different stores, we cannot afford to start commanding different treatment of races by law. Ex-Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, once commented that statistical research showed most violent knife crimes in London were being committed by black youths. Should a law have been passed, then, to impose a curfew on black youths only?
Certainly not. It does not matter whether this method would be effective either: the objection is that we Christians have a duty to fight against inequality. Christ encouraged his disciples to accept the Gentiles in addition to the Jews and to afford them the same rights. I disagree with any legislation targeting a specific race to exact a cost or to confer a benefit. The ends never justify the means.
Rather, the Church needs to lobby for a government that supports equal rights (that's right - I am implying tha the Church should get involved in politics - another blog, another day folks). The differences between race and gender are not something that can be micro-managed by the government. The government should make rules that all must abide by.
The first amendment ensures freedom of religion and expression for a reason: government is not able to play "morality police." Sure, sometimes it tries, but the government cannot fix social issues such like racism with the stroke of a pen. Society, and the Church in particular, must accept responsibility and attend to them. Dealing with differences between race, gender, and culture is something that people must sort out for themselves. The government's duty is to achieve a safe enviornment for human beings, as a people, to interact and work through their differences. Elected officials cannot legislative love and acceptance.
The Church, however, can preach it, teach it, and live by it. We believers can spread love and equality by sharing the gospel. The truth is, no born again believer can legitimately read the Bible to promote racism. As the gospel spreads, and as believers embrace the truth of which Christ testified, hatred must die. No person can both truly accept Christ and also hate men because of their race. That would be an untenable contradiction.
So, it is time to stop introducing race into politics and government, where there is no hope of victory/success. Rather, it must be attacked at its source: hatred. You cannot change the mind of a racist by arguing with him that he is wrong. Instead, show him the Word of God. Share with him the love of Christ, and that CAN transform him.
More than once I have wandered into the "wrong" part of town. Men with dark faces stare at me, on a public street, as though I were a trespasser. The white colour of my skin makes me unwelcome in certain places. Those same people who stare at me with hatred, however, will likely find that the colour of their skin makes them unwelcome in places where mine is accepted.
Would it solve this problem to pass a law that says all races may use any public street in any neighborhood? Newsflash: the law already says that. So how do we fix it? Well, I don't believe I have ever been stared down by someone of another race, out of hatred, in church on Sunday morning. The reason? It does not synch with true Christian beliefs.
So, obviously, we need to get those beliefs out of the church building into the world where all this hate lives and breathes. Talking about racism does nothing to solve it. Talking about hate does nothing to solve it. Walking in love, sharing the gospel, and reaching out to lost souls, however, does.
Was there no racism or sexism in the world Paul lived in at the time he wrote the scripture above? Of course there was. If memory serves, and I could be mistaken, then Galatians was written contemporaneously with Caligula's rule of the Roman Empire, which was famous for making slaves of men of all races. Slaves were also forced to risk their lives as both gladiators and prostitutes in Rome to increase the girth of their masters' purses. So what did Paul mean?
"You are all one in Christ Jesus" was a deliberate departure from a world filled with slavery and prejudice. Remember, "The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).
So, it is clear from scripture that, insofar as God is concerned, we are all equal. So why, for instance, would wives be called to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)? Because, being "equal" does not make us the "same." There are obvious and significant differences between men and women, which only begin with anatomy. No one would look at a hammer and a nail and imply any inequality. Certainly, they are not the same thing, but what can one do apart from the other?
I almost hesitate to say it, but there is some truth to that same principle when it comes to races. You know, I have to tan in the sun if I don't want to look sickly, because I am as pale white as they come. Does that mean I am less valuable to the Lord than a latin or black man? Of course not: that would be absurd. Does God love me any less because I can never become pregnant? Does he love my wife less because she can never make herself pregnant?
You see how silly it is to try and sell someone on the argument that we are all the "same" in the eyes of the Lord. Make no mistake, however, because we most certainly are all EQUAL in the eyes of the Lord. We all have an equal inheritance with the Lord, provided we choose to accept it.
I specifically want to discuss racism, which from the passage above is clearly against God's design. Without taking one kernel of truth away from that statement, it is important to remember that differences are also a part of God's design. If we are true to that, then we must accept those differences and realize that they do not make us more or less equal. They are just a part of God's plan.
So why, if we are all equal, do so many people hate others based on their race, culture, or gender? To put it simply, some people are stupid. Notice that I did not say ignorant? I don't buy, in the world we live in, that people cannot figure out that this sort of hatred is wrong. They know it, but they are just too stupid to care. They cannot live with those differences alluded to earlier. Mankind quickly learned from the example of the snake in Genesis, that which is different can kill you quickly, cause you to fall. Still, to assume this is true of everything and everyone different, is stupid.
So how do you confront such stupidity? I do not claim to have the answers, but I can tell you one thing: if you try to blow out a fire, you may just make it worse. Eventually, a fire will burn out on its own, when it has expended all its fuel. If you blow on it, though, you are just providing the oxygen it needs to survive. Better to smother a fire than to blow it out.
Racism is like a fire of hatred that needs desperately to be smothered. Giving attention to a racist is much like blowing on a fire. They thrive on the conflict, and when they see organizations and people fighting so hard against them, then they feel justified in their efforts and beliefs. Racism, and similar forms of hatred are perpetuated in the same way as violence in the middle east. Every attack provokes a reaction, and each reaction makes the opposing side feel that it has struck a chord, landed a major blow, and gained publicity for its cause. Similarly, fighting the racist does nothing to change matters. If you cannot change the heart, then the racist will forever remain a racist. It is engrained deeply in his faulty world view. You cannot convince a man to abandon his hatred through reason. Rather, you have to find a way to introduce love to counter the hatred.
People in this world who cling to and spread hate want a public forum. I believe they want publicity, even if it is bad publicity, so that they can spread their hate-mongering to others. This is true: hate, like fire, spreads fast. As those living in California realize, it's often hard to find enough water fast enough to stop a spreading fire in the forest. Similarly, it is difficult to find enough love fast enough to stop the spread of hatred.
I have learned that there are substantial differences between human races, but we are all still human, are we not? Often, those differences are sensitive topics, and so they are ignored. Other times, those differences are given more attentiaion than they deserve. Personally, I find the notion of hate crime legislation, for instance, to be particularly ludicrous. After all, a crime against a person is a crime. To commit that crime, a person was motivated by hate or, at a minimum, indifference. Whether that hate/indifference was motivated by racism makes little difference. In the end, the result is the same: a perpetrator and a victim.
To segregate perpetrators (treat them separately, differently from other perpetrators) based upon their racial motivations, inevitably ends up segregating the victims too: if Joe attacks Alice for being black and Sue, who is Asian, for no reason, and if Joe then receives a greater punishment for attacking Alice, then Sue has been treated differently because of her race. See how it spreads so easily? What did Sue do to deserve this forced segregation? She was, after all, just as much a victim as Alice, was she not?
By treating our hypothetical perpetrators and victims differently, we have forcibly segregated them all. In doing so, we have stooped to the level of our hypothetical perpetrator Joe: treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin.
The solution to racism, sexism, prejudice, and other hatred is beyond my ability to craft. Thankfully, it is not beyond God's. What I can tell you is this: adopting the methodology of the haters is not the solution. We, as Christians, cannot afford to support legislation and public policies that elevate one type of human being over another. That is simply wrong.
I have not forgotten my earlier point: there are differences between people who are, nevertheless, equal in the eyes of the Lord our God. So, why do these differences not require different treatment in laws and policies? Because that would deprive them of their right to equal treatment under the law.
Whether it is affirmative action legislation that affords minorities increased access to jobs over other races, or whether its segregation laws that send a minority race to the back of the bus, different restaraunts, and different stores, we cannot afford to start commanding different treatment of races by law. Ex-Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, once commented that statistical research showed most violent knife crimes in London were being committed by black youths. Should a law have been passed, then, to impose a curfew on black youths only?
Certainly not. It does not matter whether this method would be effective either: the objection is that we Christians have a duty to fight against inequality. Christ encouraged his disciples to accept the Gentiles in addition to the Jews and to afford them the same rights. I disagree with any legislation targeting a specific race to exact a cost or to confer a benefit. The ends never justify the means.
Rather, the Church needs to lobby for a government that supports equal rights (that's right - I am implying tha the Church should get involved in politics - another blog, another day folks). The differences between race and gender are not something that can be micro-managed by the government. The government should make rules that all must abide by.
The first amendment ensures freedom of religion and expression for a reason: government is not able to play "morality police." Sure, sometimes it tries, but the government cannot fix social issues such like racism with the stroke of a pen. Society, and the Church in particular, must accept responsibility and attend to them. Dealing with differences between race, gender, and culture is something that people must sort out for themselves. The government's duty is to achieve a safe enviornment for human beings, as a people, to interact and work through their differences. Elected officials cannot legislative love and acceptance.
The Church, however, can preach it, teach it, and live by it. We believers can spread love and equality by sharing the gospel. The truth is, no born again believer can legitimately read the Bible to promote racism. As the gospel spreads, and as believers embrace the truth of which Christ testified, hatred must die. No person can both truly accept Christ and also hate men because of their race. That would be an untenable contradiction.
So, it is time to stop introducing race into politics and government, where there is no hope of victory/success. Rather, it must be attacked at its source: hatred. You cannot change the mind of a racist by arguing with him that he is wrong. Instead, show him the Word of God. Share with him the love of Christ, and that CAN transform him.
More than once I have wandered into the "wrong" part of town. Men with dark faces stare at me, on a public street, as though I were a trespasser. The white colour of my skin makes me unwelcome in certain places. Those same people who stare at me with hatred, however, will likely find that the colour of their skin makes them unwelcome in places where mine is accepted.
Would it solve this problem to pass a law that says all races may use any public street in any neighborhood? Newsflash: the law already says that. So how do we fix it? Well, I don't believe I have ever been stared down by someone of another race, out of hatred, in church on Sunday morning. The reason? It does not synch with true Christian beliefs.
So, obviously, we need to get those beliefs out of the church building into the world where all this hate lives and breathes. Talking about racism does nothing to solve it. Talking about hate does nothing to solve it. Walking in love, sharing the gospel, and reaching out to lost souls, however, does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)