When it comes to the theater of Christianphobia there’s no better example right now that Tim Tebow. The NFL has had countless famous college football players who weren’t good enough for the league. I’m not saying Tebow isn’t good enough, but if he’s not, that hardly makes him unique.
The only unique thing about Tebow is that he’s a Christian. He’s not just a Christian, but an outspoken Christian. A Christian who could have been aborted at birth if not for the faith of his mother. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understanding why a God hating liberal wouldn’t like Tim Tebow.
Our secular culture seems to understand everything except Christianity these days. It’s odd in a nation with complete religious freedom that a growing number of people have zero tolerance for Christianity. Christians are taught to speak boldly in the name of Christ, but few have the courage to do so anymore. No one wants to offend anyone. How far the modern Christian has fallen; 2,000 years ago you could face death of you preached the Gospel, now all you do is alienate your friends and co-workers. ESPN has a perfect example of religious ignorance in another one of its moronic Grantland articles:
It so happens that 95 percent of the population of the Philippines is Roman Catholic. Catholic doctrine just happens to be in conflict with what Bob Tebow and his son preach in regard to personal salvation. (To devout Catholics, for example, sins are not forgiven “by faith alone,” but through the sacrament of reconciliation as administered by a priest.) Bob Tebow’s goal is not to convert unbelievers. It is to supplant an existing form of Christianity. So who’s the actual Christian here? This is not an idle point to be made. Down through history, millions of people have died in conflicts over what a “Christian” really is, which is what so exercised Madison, and also what brought down a lot of Hitchens’ wrath upon religion in general. History says that as soon as you start talking about “the only true message” in this regard, you guarantee that, eventually, people will get slaughtered in the town square.
Charles P. Pierce writes for Esquire and contributes to NPR. He also wrote a book called Idiot American. Apparently he’s an expert. We’ll start with the fact that 80 percent of the Philippines is Catholic. Writing about religion in a sports magazines apparently means no fact checking. Oh no, “the one true message.” This is what made Jesus Christ an extremist from the beginning.
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” John 4:16
This is one of the fundamental differences between Catholics and Protestants. Jesus Christ talked about “the one true message.” The Catholic church is kind of like the McDonalds of Christianity, or better yet, a middle man. Jesus clearly said that he’s the “way, the truth, and the life.”
Charles P. Pierce seems to believe that in a world of doubt there would be no war. Apparently religion is the sole reason for conflict. As if greed and a lust for power or any number of mankind’s unfashionable traits have no bearing on the history of the world. Pierce’s problem isn’t with Tebow, but with God. Here’s the money quote:
Before he ever took a snap in the NFL, he appeared in an anti-choice television ad with his mother that was sponsored by Focus on the Family, an influential anti-choice, anti-gay-rights organization founded by the Rev. James Dobson
How sad. Pierce doesn’t have to contribute money to Dobson, but my tax dollars help pay for this bigot’s appearances on NPR. If you read the Gospels Jesus is anti-choice, anti-fornication, anti-adultery, and anti-gay-rights. To put it bluntly Jesus is anti-sin. That’s where we reach the boiling point. No one is preaching to Pierce except his own conscious and that’s what convicts us all.
I have never understood Christianphobia in the United States. Why is there this fear that Christians are trying to create a theocracy? I grew up in the South. I’ve lived in Georgia, North Carolina and in Florida. I have two uncles who are pastors of Assembly of God churches in the Northwest. Never in my short 32-year existence have I heard someone say that Christians should take over government. Not only is this manufactured fear myopic and dumb, it’s not Biblical.
The only reason why some liberal progressives feel this way is because of ignorance. As secularism has increased in the United States so has ignorance about Christianity. In fact, many who claim to be Christian know very little about what they believe or the scriptures behind their faith. In popular culture Christians are depicted as hypocritical, judgmental prudes who don’t practice what they preach. From a Christian perspective this isn’t surprising. This is what happens to every wealthy society. A society that has everything it needs is never satisfied.
We hear all the time about the evils of religion, but it was Christian leaders that stood up against slavery and segregation. It was Christian leaders that led the suffrage movement. It was Christians and churches that helped with the poor and the disadvantaged before the progressive movement pawned it off on the state. Since the New Deal Americans have cared less and less about their fellow man and let someone else do it. Creating a bureaucracy to take care of your neighbor because you don’t want to do it isn’t noble. At some point the nation will find itself both morally and financially bankrupt. It will not be because of Christ.
In a geocentric universe the sun has nothing whatsoever to do with earth's climate.
That’s right. I’m waging a personal war on science at home and abroad. It is, nonetheless, a limited war whose prosecution is not aimed at destroying science. The aims of my war are simply to hold “science” accountable for its claims.
Progressives love to “question authority,” but only when the authority in question that’s being questioned does not toe the Progressive line. Those authorities that do, however, are not in line for questioning; they are to be believed without question.
And, if you do question Progressive authorities you will be smeared as a racist, a homophobe, anti-science or even as the clichéd and worn-out Nazi Holocaust denier. There will be no debate, since debate would expose the single-minded, irrational totalitarianism of Progressive ideology.
There are various areas where this applies, but I’ll tackle two of the most recent and newsworthy battles: Evolution and global warming/climate change. Recently, someone asked Rick Perry about evolution, to which he replied that it’s a theory with “gaps” in it. He also mentioned that he’s not sure how old the earth is.
Inevitably, the Progressive priesthood cried foul and began to brand Perry as an ignoramus who is waging a war on science. To add insult to injury, Perry is skeptical of man-caused climate change, or global warming, or whatever. This was too much for Rolling Stone’s Jeff Goodell, who opined:
Never mind that larger droughts in the southwestern U.S. have long been predicted by scientists who model the changes we are likely to face due to ever-rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Never mind that Texas dumps more carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other state in the nation – higher than California and Pennsylvania combined. Were it a separate country, Texas would be the seventh largest carbon polluter in the world.
Never mind that, during his first term, Perry signed legislation to speed construction of 11 new coal plants for the state. Or that he has lead [sic] the charge to undermine the EPA’s right to limit greenhouse gas pollution.
None of this matters. Because as Perry wrote in his new book, global warming is “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Still, the earth’s climate is changing, and so we must pray.
God help us.
Note that Goodell does not address scientific skepticism about global warming (climate change, whatever), of which there is plenty out there. Rather, his evidence is that there’s weather, Texas is trying to generate energy for its citizens and Perry believes in God. This is the typical line of reasoning on the Progressive left, since those who have completely bought into evolution and global warming have bought into a religion.
Also note Goodell’s contempt for the Constitution. Goodell says that Perry seeks to undermine the EPA’s “right” to limit greenhouse gas pollution. Under the Constitution, the EPA has no “right” to do so. That “right” is restricted to Congress and well it should be since members of Congress were duly elected by the people. Where do I go to vote out the EPA? That’s right. I can’t.
Just as Galileo’s inquisitors were fully invested in a geocentric universe, Progressives have morphed theory into dogma. Progressives are philosophically wedded to both theories – evolution and global warming – because they both degrade the individual as a polluter and cosmic accident.
Rather than a special creation with basic rights endowed by the Creator, the individual is of very little worth and should be subservient to the so-called “public” good. As a polluter and contributor to global warming, the individual needs to be restricted and restrained by those who know better, because the planet is more important than the individual. As the Apostle Paul put it: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever praised. Amen.”
Please note that “those who know better” are exempt from the rules they create to restrict, restrain and regulate the masses. This brings to mind a passage from my favorite book in the Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis:
“Well, then, it was jolly rotten of you,” said Digory.
“Rotten?” said Uncle Andrew with a puzzled look. “Oh, I see. You mean that little boys ought to keep their promises. Very true: most right and proper, I’m sure, and I’m very glad you have been taught to do it. But of course you must understand that rules of that sort, however excellent they may be for little boys – and servants – and women – and even people in general can’t possibly be expected to apply to profound students and great thinkers and sages. No, Digory. Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy is a high and lonely destiny.”
As he said this he sighed and looked so grave and noble and mysterious that for a second Digory really thought he was saying something rather fine. But then he remembered the ugly look he had seen on his Uncle’s face the moment before Polly had vanished: and all at once he saw through Uncle Andrew’s grand words. “All it means,” he said to himself, “Is that he thinks he can do anything he likes to get anything he wants.”
We begin this Bill of Rights Countdown with what is likely the most misunderstood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, or Article I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty clear, huh? However, progressives often reinterpret the First Amendment to say:
Congress shall not allow any reference to or discussion of religion in the public square, and shall prohibit the free exercise thereof if the religion teaches something we disagree with; and abridge freedom of speech, and of the press, if we disagree with the speech and deem it to be “hate” speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless we agree with the petitioners.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His argument was that enumerating such rights would allow the government to abridge rights it was never given the power to address in the first place:
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power…
Federalist No. 84, from which I drew that excerpt, deserves to be quoted in full because it is a compelling argument against a Bill of Rights. It was also predictive of the convoluted ways and means by which future totalitarians would seek to abridge those rights and find powers and rights in favor of a centralized government over the people that were never intended to be granted.
Though compelling, I disagree with Hamilton. Totalitarians will always find ways to expand the scope of government interference in the lives of individuals. They don’t need a Bill of Rights to do so. A Bill of Rights gives us something specific to use in our fight against the totalitarian leanings of those who, in the name of “social justice” or some other concept of fairness, will abridge our freedoms in order to enforce an unattainable Utopian brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people, murdered for Utopia.
I have no faith in humanity. The ironic thing is that the left does. On the one hand the left constantly cries about evil corporations and the racist theocrats populating the Tea Party, then on the other expects us to entrust everything to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy.
The left is very selective about the inherent goodness of humanity and who, exactly, inherited this supposed goodness. Apparently, those of us who believe in limited government and that our rights are endowed by the Creator did not receive this magical gift of goodness. We are racist homophobes who also hate children.
The entire concept of denigrating one group of people and painting them as evil incarnate whilst imaging all the people living life in peace as we progress toward some secular humanist Utopia is the definition of irrational.
Please keep in mind that each time someone has envisioned Utopia and then seized the power necessary to make it happen that literally millions were murdered or shipped off to various types of camps for “re-education.” That’s the problem with Utopia; it requires the elimination of those who haven’t hopped on board the Utopian Express.
Ultimately, it’s a spiritual issue. Utopians are, if not anti-God, anti-religion. If they’re not atheists, apatheists (those who don’t really care either way) or agnostic, they believe in the equality of all religions and that none have a monopoly on the truth, though each religion actually claims to be the one and only truth. In other words, they want their cake, and they’d like to eat it, too, despite the fact that this all-religions-are-equal-I’m-a-spiritual-person-but-not-religious nonsense is an intellectual and spiritual cop-out.
All religions, except for New Age BS, force you to choose. However, you actually have to read the scriptures of that particular religion to get the full story. I would wager that most people who get teary-eyed about the beauty of the world’s religions and how they’ve embraced religious diversity have never actually spent time in the scriptures of the world’s religions.
Then, it’s these same people who turn around and call Tea Party members “tea baggers,” say ugly, deeply personal things about people with whom they disagree and generally treat people as objects. And therein lies the difference between the secular humanist, who loves the idea of people but basically has nothing but contempt for them as individuals, and the right-wing fundamentalist wacko Christian. The ignorant Christian is more likely to see each person as an individual, each with his or her own dignity and worth. That’s why Christians, and particularly fundamentalist Christians, tend to be conservative. Christianity is an individualistic religion that stands athwart of the socialist perspective. It also demands that the listener (or reader) decide. Either you believe that Christ was who He says He was – that is, the savior of the whole world – or you don’t. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity put it best:
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.”
The Christian believes that, as John wrote in his Gospel, “…men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” And, they include themselves as indicted and convicted in this verdict. They are no better than their fellow man, and this understanding undergirds all of the beliefs that follow, from individual relationships to politics.
Because the Christian believes in the inherent depravity, not the innate goodness of humanity, including himself, he believes in limited government. After all, if humanity is motivated by selfish aims is it really a good idea to entrust individual control to a small group of powerful people?
I’ve noticed an interesting common thread between people who lean both left and right. When you get into a discussion about the relative corruption of one political party or the other, they’ll say, “Well, they’re all pretty corrupt; it doesn’t matter which political party they’re affiliated with.” And I agree with this statement. But if you lean left and believe this to be true, aren’t you arguing against your own ideology? If politicians of all political stripes tend toward corruption, is it really a good idea to entrust them with greater power and more money?
But the progressive seeks to control and manipulate others, using the power of the state to realize their Utopian aims. It’s no different than the priest, pastor or holy man of your choice using their place as God’s spokesman to do the same thing. Given this, and the empirical and well-documented historical track record of mankind, it is only logical to decentralize and minimize the state as much as possible. Otherwise, when the state controls every aspect of the individual, from what he drives to what he eats, the individual is supplanted and liberty is destroyed.
Much has been written about the fact that most Americans don’t consider President Obama a Christian. The Left tends to believe it’s because kooks make up 100% of the GOP base. When it comes to Team Obama no one thinks his problems are due to his own actions. When compared to his predecessor, Obama doesn’t seem at home with religion, especially when that religion is mainstream Christianity.
Take, for example, this speech in front of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama recites part of the Declaration of Independence, and leaves out “by their Creator.” This wouldn’t even be an issue except that it fits the perception. No Christian I know would avoid that line or even worry that it might be offensive (it’s not). However, Obama’s version of Christianity is a lot different than mainstream Americans.
Pronunciation:
\yu̇-ˈtō-pē-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Utopia, imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place
Date: 1597
1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
2 often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
3: an impractical scheme for social improvement
I had a really good time mocking rock worshipers the past few weeks in the run-up to Fire the Grid. Covering this event is my cross to bear so I followed some of the action the past twenty-four hours on Twitter. I have to admit that I’m strangely fascinated by this fantasy-world mindset. It’s odd to believe in a “perfect world” when history has so clearly rejected it. Reality isn’t always clear to people. For example, take Twitter user suryadevi. Her take on the event is a feast for the senses.
the fire the grid meditation was very powerful…i will share some of the messages i recieved….firstly we need to clean up the oceans that is vital, it will be like cleaning the blood of humanity. also its time for women to own their power but not in a dominating manner men and women will begin to work together and heal the divide between them. there was an energetic shift that cut away a very heavy energy of survival mentality & lack consciousness. with this removed it will be easier to manifest and support others because there will be a knowing that everything is provided for. some street gangs and criminal organizations will soon begin to shift away from violence and exist more as social institutions. we need to continue to pour LOVE upon those people who run the world, even those we view as corrupt big changes are coming…stay strong and do not get caught up in fear…thats what i got…love & blessings to all….
Far be it from me to question a musician, angel whisperer, and benevolent gangsta dakini. The most startling part of the seven-tweet grid prophecy is the tasty nugget about street gangs and criminal organizations. Not only are they going to shift away from violence (Tom Harkin), but they’re going to exist more as social institutions. The Red Cross better watch out, because the Crips are going to take over. This kind of fantasy world concerns me. I wonder how many people actually think this way. If a person really believes that the Al Capones of the world are suddenly going to become Mother Teresa because a bunch of people meditated about light for an hour, how can they make logical choices about government?
Now obviously someone is always going to incorporate religion into this discussion, but that would be a stretch. As far as Christianity is concerned, the U.S. government was built in part on the Christian idea that man cannot be trusted (original sin). The whole tenet of Christianity is that man by nature is sinful. Christians know that that any man-made enterprise, government, or bureaucracy will inevitably fail. The great achievement by the founding fathers was creating a government that is able to correct itself after many failures. Even so, the U.S. government has always been corrupt on some level. Look at New Jersey, Louisiana, and Illinois; these states are a bastion of political corruption.
Government will always be corrupt. Gang members will not exist more as social institutions (unless we’re talking about Bill Ayers and the New Left). Anyone who believes that we’ll awake one day to find peace on Earth is living in a fantasy land called Utopia.
Recent Comments