Should Those Bucking Public Opinion Be Banished Unto Utter Desolation?

Acolytes of tolerance and inclusion are applauding one Indiana town where these values are not to be extended to a congregation daring to exercise its First Amendment rights with a sign simply reading “LGBTQ is a hate crime against God.”

For nothing more than summarizing a basic Christian doctrine or moral presupposition, the congregation has been kicked out of the structure in which its services were convened.

Those holding to an absolutist libertarianism will likely respond that the individual should be able to evict any tenant that advances values with which they do not agree.

Perhaps so.

So should landlords be able to remove from their premises leasees that are practicing coupled homosexuals or heterosexual shackups that romp in the sack without benefit of matrimony?

In response to this message, one activist little better than a graffiti vandal rearranged the letters to read “Stay open minded”.

If private property is now to be upheld as the inviolate standard, will there be as much hue and cry over this particular individual imposing their preferred morality upon a means of public expression that does not belong to them.

For unless we have indeed descended into mob rule, property rights are not predicated upon compliance with the herd mentality.

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

More Off Target With Moonie Offshoot Than Firearms

On an episode of A&E’s “Cults and Extreme Belief”, correspondent Elizabeth Vargas profiled an offshoot of the Unification Church called the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary.

Instead of detailing how the sect’s theology differed from that of orthodox interpretations of Christianity or even the questionable recruitment techniques utilized by Moonie organizations, the episode spent an inordinate amount of time harping upon the sect’s admittedly idiosyncratic incorporation of firearms into certain aspects of its liturgy.

While such might not be a normal part of spiritual practice, such is not without historic precedent.

As such does Elizabeth Vargas intend to broadcast similar exposes with accompanying ominous voice over narration asking do Sikhs really need those ceremonial daggers and just why does a sword play a role in certain Masonic rituals?

Not once do I recall anything said as to the legality of the guns depicted which had been deliberately emptied of ammunition.

Instead, a lengthy reflection dwelt upon the tragedy that could result should the firearm end up being misused by a less rational adherent of this theology.

For as you know, the line of argumentation continued, anyone that doesn’t embrace the transgender movement and believes that legitimate marriage can only be between a man and a woman is by definition well on their way to being diagnosed as mentally deficient.

As proof, the plight is followed of a former Unification member whose mother was paralyzed when she was accidentally shot by his brother because the youths in the sect enjoyed recreational shooting.

One cannot help but sympathize with a family that has experienced such a tragedy.

But isn’t it the fault of the one that shot her, her own child?

Off all of the abridgments of human decency perpetrated over the years by the Unification Church and now apparently its offshoots, this incident really isn’t one for which these parties bear responsibility.

Elizabeth Vargas has been open regarding her struggles with alcoholism.

As such, because some people can’t control themselves around alcohol to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others, does that mean no one should be allowed to utilize the substance in ways otherwise considered legal?

If not, then why this journalistic production where one constitutional liberty is invoked for the purposes of subverting another?

By Frederick Meekins

The Perdition Declension

The disorienting light swept over me unexpectedly. The pain and nausea was overwhelming for a moment, but subsided nearly as quickly as it had arrived. My mind was a bit slower to recompose itself. I slowly lifted my head and opened my eyes. I looked around in the attempt to figure out where I was.

“Where, where am I?” I asked.

One of the gathered nearby responded, “I don’t know.”

My head continued to clear. “I…I think there was some kind of explosion.”

We looked at one another.

Another added, “I was in a hospital room.” I supposed that would have made sense. She was, after all, adorned in what looked like light-blue scrubs of some sort.

But we were no longer obviously in a hospital or any other kind of medical facility.

We appeared to be outside.

The realization swept over me in a renewed wave of nausea. I solemnly informed the gathered,. “I think we are dead.”

The eyes of those closest to me widened.

“Dead?” they mumbled in considerable yet hushed silence.

We took stock of our situation. We looked up the verdant clover and grass-covered path that sloped continually upward. One could not avoid feeling drawn towards it.

We realized that was one of two possible directions. However, reluctance began to build to view what laid in the other. Yet there was a greater cosmic compulsion regarding each person to view it nonetheless.

Before us, we could see charred and burned trees. Not a single leaf clung to the lifeless limbs of the trees lined along the dry rocky path that sloped downward.

Beyond what were once vibrant trees in the distance, dark smoke billowed slowly into the sky. Its ascent seemed as reluctant to reach for the sky as had been our reluctance to gaze it its direction.

The smoke lingered to form what could be described as nothing but a warped, sinister halo. At the center one could glimpse at briefly before having to look away an intense flaming orange and yellow. It made a blazing sun seem cool and refreshing in comparison.

“That must be Hell,” I said to clarify things as much to myself as anyone else around me.

By deduction, someone else concluded, “Then that way must be Heaven.” They pointed in the direction for added emphasis.

The reality of where everyone was continued to sink in. Still, no one was really all that eager to make a choice.

Hesitation continued to grip me. But I knew I had to say something. It seemed that no one else would.

“I guess we go in the direction dependent on whether or not we want to see Jesus.”

“Jesus?” someone responded in a tone mixed with both surprise and disgust.

Murmuring spread amongst the group. One of the particularly more vocal enunciated,. “Well, I certainly don’t want to see him.” A few nodded in agreement.

Another lamented, “But I’ve been so bad he won’t let me near him.”

“Hold on, “ someone tried to comfort, “all you’ve got to do is to want to see him and be sorry about what you’ve done.”

Parties began to form. We found ourselves with one last chance at a choice in light of the evidence with which we were confronted staring us in the face. Despite being on the very boundaries of the Afterlife, the larger group still did not want anything to do with Jesus. Perhaps one or two changed their minds, but not many.

Most were convinced that they had never done anything wrong. Some were eager to flip Christ off for even the bare minimum of a requirement to avoid the Hellfire blazing before their very eyes. Their disgust and contempt overrode even the primal instinct to avoid the fire and billows of smoke at the end of the decimated path strewn with jagged rubble. They did not want to commence their perambulation into perdition, but through the stubbornness of their own wills, they conscientiously began the descent nevertheless.

The remainder of us looked on stunned in silence, aware of the torment and suffering that awaited them at the end of the journey. Despite pleading, they went in that direction anyway.

We watched for a while. Morbidly, one supposes, our own lamentation and regret for them subsided as they passed out of sight into an eternity of their own choosing.

Nothing could be done for them. Even with the evidence of the two paths set before their very eyes and what was required to avoid the less desirous destination, they had set out in that direction anyway.

After much solemn contemplation and awkward silence, the remaining began to look one another in the eye again. Smiles crossed our faces.

By deduction we concluded that if those that wanted nothing to do with Jesus went down towards that fiery pit, then Heaven must be in the opposite direction up the verdant hilly path.

Many laughed joyously in celebration. This was what, after all, each of us hoped would be awaiting us at the conclusions of our earthly lives. Some had been expecting it for decades; others not quite so long.

“Well, I suppose this is it. We’d best get started,” some suggested. Nearly every one smiled and cheered. We were, after all, on our way to Heaven.

No one seemed to mind the inclined perambulation at first. Surely Heaven was worth an uphill but otherwise even walk. Some a little ways off were singing hymns.

Joy filled the air.

Despite the anticipation of the destination, minds — even if no longer alive in the terrestrial sense — could not help but wander.

The ease of the ascent did not exactly channel one’s thoughts into the task at hand.

Thoughts of family began to fill my head. How would they get along without me?

Sure, I’d be more than fine in Heaven. However, they’d be stuck in misery for now back on Earth.

I stopped for a moment to catch my breath. It seemed that, with each additional thought regarding my family, the following steps up the leisurely slope grew increasingly difficult to take. I tried to put thoughts of the mortal life and world out of my mind.

As I did so, the pace would become easier. There was much to look forward to at the end of this easy and gentle ascent.

The path was certainly much more pleasant than the jagged crags selected by the majority for no other reason than that they did not want to see Jesus. Besides, not only would we see Jesus, but I would also be reunited with loved ones that passed away earlier. Others would be there that I had never met but loved anyway. Possibly cherished pets might even be there as well in eager anticipation. Speculation about that question alone and curiosity to see it resolved once and for all imbued me with renewed vigor to continue.

Yet family, to the mortal mind at least to one transitioning from one realm to the next, exist as an interconnected whole. As much as my mind focused on grandparents, departed uncles and even buried dogs and cats, I couldn’t block out images of those still on Earth.

Once again, movement forward grew exceedingly difficult. It seemed as if I slid a few steps back down the hill.

“What the….?” I caught myself mentally from completing the thought. There was no need to be nearing the Gates of Heaven quite literally with such verbal formulations on my mind and tongue. Furthermore, having seen some march willingly towards the infernal destination just a short time prior dissipated any of the psychological relief one might under terrestrial circumstances experience verbalizing such profanities of metaphysical reference.

I turned to the other perambulating pilgrims. “Did you see that?’, I asked as they walked by as I slid back. They smiled kindly enough with sincere reassurance but continued with their singing and walking forward.

The more that I felt I was not worthy to number among the happy throng assured of their beatific triumph, the more I thought about family back on Earth, the further back down the hill I slid.

I elevated my head in realization at the extent of my declension. I was back to where I started.

I looked over to my right. It seemed that I was back on Earth. My family was so close that I could have touched touched them if I possessed corporeality.

My finger touched the translucent barrier separating the realms. Ripples cascaded across it like soft shock waves skipping across a pond.

I placed my hand against what I concluded must be some kind of energy barrier. It could not be consciously seen, but one could sense it nonetheless. The sensation was not unlike that of pushing together the same poles of two magnets.

I pushed my hand against the barrier a little harder, eventually making a fist so to concentrate the pressure of my efforts at a single point on the barrier. Maybe I could find a weak spot.

For what purpose, I did not know. After all, I was dead, right? I couldn’t go back.

It seemed at this very point where the material world and what, for lack of a better term, one might term the spirit world weren’t even converging in a cemetery. If I somehow broke through, I wouldn’t even have my body to inhabit.

Despite logic insisting I start back up the hill towards Heaven, I still couldn’t resist the urge to poke a little more at the ethereal barrier. I pressed my fist against it once more.

A cone began to extend through to the other side. My hand disappeared altogether into the funnel.

I stopped. If my entire hand could slide in without too much effort, how much more of me could fit into it?

I extended my arm in up to the elbow. Other than a slight repulsion similar to a light magnetic field, there was very little in the way of sensation or resistance.

I wondered if anyone on the other side could see what I was doing. Maybe my efforts were manifesting there in the physical world in the form of some kind of paranormal phenomena.

I looked down at my arm. From my perspective, the appendage had disappeared.

I stopped for a moment. Should I pull it back out? Maybe I should push against the barrier with my other hand as well. Perhaps I should try to push again at it with my entire body, or at least with what I perceived of as a body.

I braced myself, pushing my hands against and then into the nebulous barrier. I kept walking forward. My nose tingled as my proboscis rubbed up against it. But I did not stop.

As the field approached my eyes, everything blurred. At first, the image was out of focus but eventually everything turned a translucent cream color not unlike looking through a teardrop.

My body tingled as it passed through the barrier. Dizziness and nausea swept over me.

The distortions grew overwhelming. My consciousness began to fade.

Instead of reaching either of the Afterlife’s eternal destinations, would my own existence now dissipate into nothingness? I clung to any sliver of awareness for as long as I could.

Fading.

Fading.

Fading….

The Nothingness. It lasted only a brief second.

Whereas before my vision was distorted by an illuminated blur, that brightness was now replaced by a distinctive darkness.

My heart was racing, the fear causing my tympanic membrane to pound.

Consciousness washed over my eroded mind. Slowly I realized I was not dead. From the weight of the blankets draped over me, I concluded it had all been a dream. A very intense one, but still nothing more than a dream.

My heart slowed. Fear dissipated. Whether right nor wrong would be an issue for theologians with too much time on their hands, but at the moment I was relieved to consider this world my home.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #111

A missionary said that Christians ought to share the Gospel with those that do not look like them. But shouldn’t the Christian also be willing to share the Gospel with those that DO look like them, even if this includes White and Americans? If missiological theory now holds that it is often best to let the natives reach out to other natives if at all possible, why should Whites and Americans be chastised if they are most comfortable with reaching out to other Whites and Americans?

A missionary praised a letter by Adoniram Judson to his prospective father in law essentially berating him that he was a bad Christian if he did not consent to surrender his daughter to a man readily admitting he was unfit to provide for her in the name of missionary outreach. That’s certainly a gutsy approach to persuade a father to grant the hand of his daughter in marriage.

Reflecting on a missionary’s admonition on the need to genuinely respect Muslims, a pastor confided that in public he is careful not to directly look at Muslim women for fear of offending their high moral standards. First, if Muslim women do not want to be looked at, they can return to their excrement pile homelands. This is America. If you are a woman and you don’t even want to be looked at, don’t come here. Given that where many of these women come from they can pretty much be raped if caught in public unaccompanied by a male family member, one would think simply being looked at would be a welcomed improvement. If Americans are obligated to pander to this extent to the Islamist adversary, this global worldview war is already lost. What other defeatist postures are Christians obligated to assume? Are believers in Bible Belt states such as North Carolina now expected to eliminate their thriving pork barbecue culture?

Because of the wave of a missionary’s hand, the congregation of a Baptist church where the pastor once regularly went out of his way to emphasize what a wretched religion Islam is is now harping how believers are obligated to show “genuine” respect to Muslims such as at least hearing out what the Koran has to say. One must ask will such an open approach now be extended to Catholics, science fiction enthusiasts, and women that wear pants?

If ever criticized in Independent Baptist circles for my interest in science fiction and comics, I might just ask how is this different than the “genuine” respect and interest we are now obligated to manifest on behalf of Muslims. If I was any good at outstretching my hand and expecting something to be placed into it, I should have claimed I need funds for outreach to ComiCon.

Of Adoniram Judson, he and his first wife lost their first child through miscarriage, their second child eight months after his birth, and their third child sixth months after his first wife’s death. Of the 13 children he sired, only six survived. Given that these deaths were likely attributable to the squalor endemic to the heathen world, though he is worthy of praise as a missionary, is anyone going to have the courage to point out that he was a lousy husband and father?

Baptist functionary Paige Patterson ahas been castigated for remarks suggesting that teen boys often display an enthusiastic appreciation for female physical attributes. If these marms are eager to chastise men for determining a woman’s worth based on the size of her measurements going to be as eager in disabusing the young women that the value of a man is determined by the size of his bank account or the horsepower of the automobile that he drives?

Because the thoroughfare is named after the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis Highway in Northern Virginia is slated to be renamed Richmond Highway. But since Richmond was also the capital of the Confederacy, shouldn’t that name itself also be just as offensive? If we are to be consistent, shouldn’t the entire city of Richmond be “renditioned” in a manner similar to that which occurs on the USA drama “Colony” in order to remove this geographical “trigger”?

A 104 year old scientist who technically wasn’t terminally ill killed himself at a Swiss suicide clinic. Is there no reason he couldn’t have waited a few days

Technically, isn’t the Captain Marvel being foisted upon the movie going public in the upcoming film actually just Ms. Marvel from the comics before these periodicals become hyper-political?

Regarding this level of abuse that Southern Baptist functionary Paige Patterson is alleged to have endorsed. Does that consist of actual hitting or is this merely of a man simply articulating disagreement with a woman and raising his voice in reply to a voice that was first raised at him? Do these Dana Carvey-style good church women intend to say anything about the increasing number of women that mistreat and disrespect men as well?

If professional sports teams can ban fans living outside of certain zip codes from purchasing play off tickets or from wearing the paraphernalia of the visiting team as in the case of the NHL playoffs, why should we give a flip when these enterprises cry a river about decreasing attendance at these high priced competitions? If people want to be berated and ordered about in a surly manner, they can just go to the DMV.

So will authoritarian progressives feigning opposition to human oppression to the extent that all vestiges of the Confederacy from statues to road names must be obliterated from public consciousness toss hissy fits as vehement against the erection of an 18 feet tall Karl Marx statue paid for by the Red Chinese in his hometown of Trier, Germany to celebrate the bicentennial of the deadbeat philosopher?

In a tweet, Maxine Waters quipped, “How many diet Cokes did Trump consume while he gulped and waited for the defeat of his pedophile candidate?” How is Trump’s consumption of diet soda any more outrageous than those in her preferred constituency known for their proclivity for gape soda? Roy Moore might have dated a few a bit young for his age. But unlike many in the community this particular legislator claims to represent, at least Moore did not leave these gals with a litter of out of wedlock children in his wake.

If it is unacceptable irrespective of what statutory law allows for 30 year olds to date 18 year olds because such young minds are impressionable and easy to manipulate into compliance, why is it acceptable to manipulate those of that age into giving their lives in their country’s wars? Is not the government making promises of education and enlistment bonuses not much different than a man promising to lavish nice things upon a compliant young woman?

It is insisted that Confederate statues should only be allowed to exist if these memorials are placed in an historical context. That means they must be exhibited in a way so as to maximize the amount of White guilt elicited. So if exacting nitpicky detail is the ultimate goal, will additions be made to the Martin Luther KIng memorial pointing out that he fooled around on his wife, denied a number of fundamental Christians doctrines, and that he received support from a number of avowed Communists likely themselves at the behest of the Soviet Union? Or is this one of those instances where we are supposed to overlook Russian meddling in American affairs but are expected to react as if it is the opening scene from Patrick Swayze’s version of Red Dawn if subversive operatives are accused of conducting under the table discussions with Trump administration representatives?

Outrage erupted when Ben Carson observed that a good measure of poverty is actually a mindset. Are those jacked out of shape that this is a criticism of individuals or that government complicity in the welfare racket has been exposed.? This mental shackling has ensnared nearly all of us to some degree. When considering an undertaking or an enterprise, often thoughts no longer dwell upon do I possess the skill need to succeed or what will happen if the idea we think is so great turns out to be a flop. Rather, we calculate is it even worth the effort given the penalties likely to be incurred for failing to comply with with the intricacies of complex taxing regulations or even the violence one is likely to incur for criticizing ideas contrary to the orthodoxies of entrenched elites.

Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson suggests avoiding the public library because of books on the shelves that promote the homosexual agenda rather than simply avoiding those books. Among certain fundamentalist sects, attendance at places such as amusement parks, beaches, and the cinema are also forbidden. Children probably shouldn’t visit museums either because their impressionable minds might be exposed to evolution. Extending this logic a bit further, one supposes these youngsters should not be allowed to go to the supermarket either because they might catch a glimpse of the condom display or the heaving bosoms of the tramps on the covers of Cosmo magazine or those trashy paperback romances. So when is the homeschool child ever allowed to leave the house? Even if they aren’t allowed to date, won’t their mail order brides be exposed to assorted carnal evils racing through the airport on their way to the cordoned off family compound? If those from this Evangelical sociological subgrouping are to live lives this sheltered or separated, on what grounds do such thoroughgoing Protestants gripe about cloistered monks and nuns?

Mitt Romney has condemned the selection of Robert Jeffress to offer the opening prayer of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on the grounds that the Baptist minister is a religious bigot. So what Romney is saying is that it is unacceptable for someone to articulate why they are reluctant over religious grounds to vote for a candidate running for elected office but perfectly acceptable to exclude that individual from a public event over refusal to embrace religious universalism. Technically, Romney is not much different then philosophically from the Romans that tossed Christians to lions in the gladiatorial arena. If dedicated temple Mormons like Mitt Romney really do believe no religion is better than any other with all sincerely held paths leading the individual to an eternity with God in Heaven, why does his sect spend so much time canvassing the neighborhoods of the world with missionaries many of whom have been strongarmed pretty much into this service taken away from their families?

President Trump is being criticized for acknowledging the hero in the Waffle House mass casualty incident three weeks after the fact. Had Trump thanked the individual at the time, the President would be accused of being a media whore having to interject himself into the story.

By Frederick Meekins

Southern Baptist Convention Undermined By Russell Moore’s Propensity Towards Compromise

Granted, in response to what was seen as encroaching apostasy and unbelief eroding both strong moral and sound doctrine, Fundamentalism at times presented a militant brand of conservative Protestantism that could could occasionally be construed as a bit gruff around the edges. In such circles, a soft answer was not necessarily perceived as turning away wrath as admonished by Proverbs 15:1 but rather as a sign of spiritual weakness and, even worse, possible compromise.

In what is categorized as the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention serves as an interesting sociological barometer in terms of what direction ideological winds tend to be blowing. For example early in the twentieth century, the ecclesiastical association nearly succumbed to the temptations of liberalism and modernism only to be pulled back from this brink by a conservative resurgence that coincided with the ascent of Reaganism on through the Republican Party taking both houses of Congress in the 1990’s.

Now it seems the tide might once again be receding. Those that have in a sense grown up in an environment characterized as overwhelmingly religious are tempted to surrender the ground gained as a form of repentance in their minds for certain admitted excesses and as a way to promote the peace and toleration always being yelled about in one’s ear.

In his early 40’s as of this writing in late 2017, Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Theological Seminary and now the Ethics and Public Policy Commission is often fawned over as a prominent young leader who could very likely shape the Southern Baptist Convention throughout the course of much of the twenty-first century. If that is the case, conservative Baptists mind end up finding themselves betrayed on what could very well be a sinking ship.

Without a doubt, Russell Moore professes those fundamentals of the faith necessary to assure the individual of salvation in Christ and eternity in Heaven. But it is in those areas where it is easy to compromise for broad approval and applause that Dr. Moore presents the greater spiritual danger.

I Corinthians 9:22 counsels to be all things to all men. By this, it is believed that the Gospel message can be adapted within certain parameters or presented in such a way that addresses individuals in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves.

The problem with Russell Moore and an increasing number within Evangelical Christianity in general and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular is the growing conviction that, in order to appeal to what is perceived as untapped demographics, professional religionists must go out of there way to publicly denigrate those expected to financially sponsor these outreach efforts. And in so doing, one is expected to turn one’s back on much of the foundation that was laid as the foundation that got us to where we are today.

This is particularly evident in Russell Moore’s response to the Trayvon Martin incident. As someone that presents himself not only as a clergyman but as someone that also makes his comfortable living as such, one might think Russell Moore would have endeavored to remain above the fray in regards to such an issue by calling for cooler heads to prevail or to point out how quickly individual lives can be lost.

Instead, Moore came out quite publicly in favor of Trayvon Martin and against George Zimmerman. The mouthpiece of Southern Baptist public policy is quoted in the 7/16/13 edition of the Washington Post as saying, “Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong.

Perhaps we really should consider what transpired and especially what it was that Trayvon Martin was doing the moment his life ended.

From what the judicial process has been able to establish, Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman and delivering blows to the head that could have resulted in permanent injury and even death. Why does the criteria Moore invokes to defend Martin not apply to protect Zimmerman in this incident as well?

For example, according to Moore, the chain of events began when Zimmerman disembarked from the vehicle. That may or may not have been the wisest course of action. However, that was probably more legal and less suspicious than Martin zig-zagging late at night in and out of people’s yards like a drunk or reefer addict up to no good.

So if Zimmerman committed a great wrong by laying his hands on Martin, why should Martin be exonerated for attacking Zimmerman who was doing nothing worse than perambulating over a public thoroughfare? However, it is apparently not enough for Moore to simply side perhaps with the party that did not have access to a fire arm in this altercation.

One can barely find a piece of direct mail promotional newsletter propaganda these days that does not go out of its way to denigrate White people for simply being white. A considerable number of these ecclesiastical functionaries have adopted a rhetoric of White guilt more typically emanating from the likes of Phil Donahue and Woody Allen that from behind a Dixie pulpit. One of the foremost practitioners of this victimization narrative is none other than Russell Moore.

To the analysis of the Trayvon Martin issue, Russell Moore added, “And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it related to African Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think makes for a huge crisis.” Moore further observes, “Most white evangelicals…are seeing [the Martin case] microscopically and most African Americans are seeing it macroscopically. Most white Americans say we don’t know what happened that night and they are missing the point.”

As dumb as Whites are depicted now by the hierarchs of the Southern Baptist Convention, it’s a wonder they are able to drop their tithe into the collection plate. But perhaps it is because of such stupidity that Whites so flagrantly mocked don’t take their religious dollars elsewhere.

Notice that nowhere in those comments did Moore ponder that Trayvon Martin might have been as high as a kite or that George Zimmerman might have taken the only course of action that would have preserved his own life. If Moore is going to be this discombobulated over matters of race and ethnicty to the point where in matters of law enforcement and civil adjudication that the primary concern is not so much that of an individual’s guilt or innocence in terms of committing a certain act but rather on the basis of the individual’s membership in certain demographic categories, Russell Moore should be asked just what is he himself willing to sacrifice in terms of comprehensive social equity.

For example, if Russell Moore on a proverbial dark and stormy night found himself confronted by a Black assailant that proceeds to perpetrate violence against this seminarian naive to how the world actually exists, is he going to do what he expected of George Zimmerman and allow himself to be pummeled either to death or into a state of permanent mental imbecility as a result of brain damage received for the good of the cause? More importantly, is Dr. Moore willing for his wife or daughters to be raped in order to balance out what Southern Baptist functionaries such as himself now consider the scales of ethnic justice?

Just as important, should these kinds of tragedies befall Rev. Moore or his ecclesiastical allies and the scumbag is apprehended by law enforcement, are these theologians then going to parrot the fashionable liberal drivel about disparities in sentencing should the perpetrator of the crimes against them be one of the minorities the denomination has come to coddle and fawn over these past few years? For in his praise of Trayvon Martin and condemnation of George Zimmerman, Moore went out of his way to emphasize this issue.

In 2013, the Convention went out of its way to enact a resolution condemning incarceration with little mention as to whether or not those tossed in the slammer might actually deserve to be there. Perhaps the denomination would instead prefer to come out in favor of more explicitly Old Testament punishments such as floggings and public executions.

The Convention also condemned former chairman of the Ethics and Policy Commission and eventually forced into retirement Richard Land for merely verbalizing what it was that the vast majority of Americans were already thinking that President Obama was “trying to gin up the black vote” and that allied racemongers “need the Trayvon Martins to continue perpetuating their central myth — America is a racist and evil nation.”

It is not only in the area of race relations where Russell Moore falls pitifully short of the kind of leadership Baptists need if the denomination and that particular theological perspective is to not only ride out the waves of the looming cultural collapse but possibly even rescue the nation from drowning in these overwhelming historical tides.

In coverage of the 2013 convention in which Russell Moore was installed as the chairman of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, an observer gushed in one press account that his election brought a more moderate tone. As it was explained, “The new generation is less ideologically motivated.” However, is it that the new generation is “less ideologically motivated” or simply that it decided to collaborate in implementing a more leftist ideology?

It seems Brother Moore is quite adept at implementing a don’t do as I do, do as I say mentality. For on an episode of the Albert Mohler Program broadcast sometimes around 2006 probably around the first time I had ever even heard of Russell Moore, he confessed that, while thoroughly enjoying Halloween himself as a youth, it is now wrong for contemporary Christian children to participate in Halloween.

And the point of raising this issue, some are probably asking with perplexity? After all, such a viewpoint is no doubt common among a variety of theologies found among Independent Baptist, conservative Southern Baptist, and even Pentecostal or Charismatic churches.

Indeed it is. However, the example is brought up to point out that Russell Moore and the young Turks advocating his style of social engagement are not quite of the live and let live mindset those unaccustomed to fully parsing phrases such as “less ideologically motivated” might be led to believe. If anything, it would seem Russell Moore has something of a tendency to crackdown in those areas where individual preference should be allowed to flourish while allowing things to get a bit out of line where, if one slacks an inch, assorted subversives will take a proverbial mile.

How does this represent a more moderate wind being blown into Baptist sails? I can assure you, I know first hand the sort of message has been pounded into the minds of Christian youth for nearly thirty years.

I remember back in my day that, along with whether or not you watched “The Simpsons”, you would speak in hushed tones about celebrating Halloween for fear of bringing the wrath of the more religiously fanatical teachers in Christian day school down upon you. It often seemed that some would even go out of their way to assign extra homework or schedule a test for the next day as a way to punish those that might succumb to the temptation of masquerading for prepackaged nocturnal confections.

This hypocrisy aside, it is not the only issue regarding which this new breed of seemingly less ideological Southern Baptist leader may actually be more ideological than ever before. Baptists might be mocked with the mantra of “Don’t drink, don’t chew, and don’t go with girls who do” in terms of the rigorous behavioral codes many adhere to in the attempt to differentiate themselves from those considered worldly and in an effort to adhere to a lifestyle that they believe would be pleasing to God. However, if there is one area in which Baptists are noted for a spirit of liberation it is in the area of food.

However, Russell Moore and his allies would likely impose an additional set of regulations upon those in their congregations and within their respective spheres of homiletical influence in regards to this aspect of existence in no way derived from Biblical principles such as those regarding booze.

On 1/2/2006, Russell Moore posted an entry on the blog of the Henry Institute at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary titled “Crunchy Cons and Veggie Tales”. The brief essay is a review and elaboration of an emerging ideology known as crunchy conservatism coined by Moore’s “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher.

In the post, Moore describes crunchy cons as, “…conservatives who are religious traditionalists and political conservatives but who are deeply suspicious of the materialism and consumerist assumptions of the reigning culture.” However, the materialism denounced here goes beyond that requiring the latest iteration of the I-Phone when the one acquired last year still works perfectly fine or having to acquire an entirely new wardrobe every year irrespective of whether or not the duds from the previous season have worn out

Rather, it is of the variety of how we mere working slobs are expected to willingly embrace with deliberation and aforethought a harsher and less convenient lifestyle because doing so makes detached intellectuals like Russell Moore that have not gotten their hands dirty in years or even decades feel so much more satisfied with themselves because they know more about how you ought to spend your miserable existence better than you do.

In the TimesOnline article referenced by Moore titled “Mr. And Mrs. Crunchy”, his “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher begins, “We had come to believe that the family, not the individual, is the basic building block of our society.” It depends upon what the writer means by that.

Bravo if by that he is expressing a realization that, upon having children, his wellbeing and that of his wife takes a backseat and their needs play second fiddle to those of the children. However, to those such as Rod Dreher and Russell Moore, the notion likely goes considerably beyond that.

For example, often those of this mentality having procreated believe that they are entitled to an ever-increasing percentage of the income and accumulated resources of those that do not have children, especially if such people are single. This confiscatory compensation can take on a number of forms.

The first is in the form of traditional taxation. Those of a communalist mindset believe that each additional child that they parent into the world should grant them a larger piece of the economic pie to be siphoned off as form of punishment from those not having produced children or not having produced by what in their standard is an acceptable number. One radical homeschooler has even insinuated that those not having at least four (the particular number he just happens to have) of harboring an insufficient love of children. It is about time to end manipulation of the tax code as a kind of mind game to trick supposedly free people into engaging in predetermined behavior of any kind.

In expanding that the family and not the individual is the building block of society, Rod Dreher expounded, “I heretically came to realize that Hillary Clinton was right: it really does take a village to raise a child. We conservatives, with our exaltation of consumer choice and the sovereign individual, were dismantling the village as effectively as the statist libertines we opposed.”

This notion of the village goes beyond simply perhaps curtailing the amount of smut broadcast on television. Rather, it allows for the COMMUNITY often in the guise of government authorities to have final say over decisions regarding your existence that might not really be based upon any principle clearly delineated in the pages of Scripture.

Dreher further elaborates regarding free market principles, “But they were based on fundamentally materialist assumptions about human nature which conservatives ought to have known were inaccurate and which would lead to a loss of purpose, of community, or idealism.”

But is it really the place of government (because that is ultimately what is meant by COMMUNITY to these neo-beatnik types) to police these matters in the lives of individuals and families? For what if these are at variance with what communal elites decide constitutes prevailing values and acceptable citizenship (for lack of a better term for those advocating for the elimination of traditional borders).

For example, what ought to happen when the COMMUNITY decides you as a professional baker you will provide your particular goods and services for gay weddings? Better yet, in such circumstances, what happens when the COMMUNITY decides that its vision of marriage not being limited between a single pair of heterosexual partners but rather open to any combination of consenting adult partners is the view to be taught to your children?

Granted, it is doubtful that a good Baptist like Russell Moore would applaud such social decay. In fact, overall the Southern Baptist Convention has stood for the God-ordained traditional heterosexual family even if a number of the association’s spokesfolk have been hoodwinked into public forums and dialogs where the attendees mired in that specific inclination are not so much looking to be delivered spiritually from that particular sin but are instead attempting to lure the well-intentioned but somewhat naïve Baptist into a state of ever-increasing compromise.

Russell Moore could be one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of the twenty-first century with the possibility as many as five additional decades of theological productivity before him if he is blessed with mental vitality and a long life. As such, American Evangelicals need to be cognizant where his accumulating compromises undermine what little remains of the nation’s conservative values and influence upon America’s cultural institutions.

Most would agree that a progressive licentiousness pervades much of the Western world’s media landscape. However, one of the few remaining areas in which conservatives of varying stripes have been able to hold their own has been talk radio.

Yet, if Russell Moore had his way, conservatives —- particularly of the Evangelical variety — would relinquish the ground that they hold in the media or at least moderate their tone to the extent that such voices would be indistinguishable from any other variety of broadcaster.

At the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2014 Leadership Summit, as that body’s president, Moore said that if all he knew about Christianity was what he heard on Christian radio in the Nashville area while driving to that particular conference, he would hate Christianity too. Such an allegation, in and of itself, might have merit. The thing of it is that, since then, Moore has been disturbingly vague and elusive regarding the nature of these criticisms.

In this particular tirade, Moore said, “There are some people who believe that fidelity to the gospel simply means speaking ‘you kids get off my lawn’. That is not the message of the gospel. If the call to repentance does not end with an invitation that is grounded …in the cross and the empty tomb of Jesus we are speaking a different word than the Word that has been given.”

Such a statement is accurate if the venue and/or media under consideration is the pulpit on Sunday morning. However, talk radio (even Christian talk radio) can have a slightly different methodology dependent upon the particular program under consideration.

For example, in his tirade Russell Moore said, “If all you and I are doing is standing and speaking a word, including a truthful word, about sexual immorality…the world does not need us for that. The devil is able to do that on his own. We have not been called simply to condemn. We have been called to reconcile.”

It seems that increasingly in Dr. Moore’s homiletical repertoire that “reconcile” has become a euphemism for capitulation and pandering. There is indeed more to repentance than condemnation. But in order for someone to admit that they are wrong and want to do something about that situation, doesn’t the individual need to informed that they have done something wrong?

Apparently in his attempt to garner the approval of religious leftists, Russell Moore insists that the world does not need us to stand and speak against sexual immorality. But if not Christians and conservatives of various persuasions, who will be left to do so. In light of the Duggar and Bill Gothard scandals most prominently and to a lesser extent R.C. Sproul Jr’s confession to his own carnal temptation, it seems this variety of compromise is even coming to grip those uplifted among us as supposedly the best that Evangelicalism has to offer.

For how long did Russell Moore listen to talk radio during the day in question? Shouldn’t he be required to listen to a station’s entire weekly program rotation before rendering a somewhat objective verdict that the complete Gospel message is not being presented?

Russell Moore dismisses Christian talk radio as little more than the rhetorical equivalent of “you kids get off my lawn”. But if certain people are deliberately somewhere they ought not to be doing something they definitely shouldn’t be, why shouldn’t they be told about it? Professional religionists and clergy such as Moore certainly don’t mind letting this be known when the tithes and offering slack off.

In the effort to protect their stations and privileges placing them on a rung on the social ladder higher than that of the average pewfiller, a number of ministers like to emphasize the passage found in Ephesians 4:11 stipulating that some are called to be teachers, some pastors, and other evangelists. <p>

So why cant this also apply to the various ministries and programs features on an average Christian radio station? Some shows might emphasize family life and personal relationships. Others such as Moore seem to prefer, according to his remarks, to focus upon explicitly evangelistic outreach. Others might be a bit more hard hitting (in a way that seems to turn off Dr. Moore) by exposing the doctrinal deficiencies in systems in competition with Christianity or the moral controversies eating away at the heart of American society or Western civilization.

Russell Moore is partially correct in that if all we know of Christianity came from the assorted radio programs broadcast in the faith’s name one might very well not want anything to do with this particular religion. Does the theologian articulating such scathing remarks intend to repent of the role he has played in such a development surprisingly not always so much the result of an excess of conservatism but often times as a result of his desire to curry favor with religious leftists?

For example, as previously stated, where in the pages of Scripture is the pastor or evangelist instructed to berate the Christian for acquiring provisions from large chain retailers such as Target or Walmart? Likewise, what self-respecting White person is going to want anything to do with your religion when you rhetorically flog them for things that happened nearly half a century ago when it is often the minorities that these self-loathing Caucasians go out of their way to pander towards destroying property and threatening the innocent in the blighted urban areas?

It might be one thing to strive for the Biblical admonition to be all things to all men. However, in the way in which they attempt to do so, Southern Baptist functionaries such as Russell Moore would do well to remember that those having been loyal members all along are just as much worthy of respect and admiration as those attempting to be brought into the fold.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #106

Technically, referring to some of these countries as excrement holes would be an actual improvement as to their actual conditions.

Regarding the tolerancemongers and diversity fanatics outraged that President Trump would invoke blunt earthy language to accurately describe a number of countries. Would these outraged voices continue to reside in neighborhoods with noticeable influxes of migrants from these particular regions continuing to adhere to the second rate standards of conduct sparking the decline of these respective homelands in the first place? Would those placing multiculturalist dogma over survival either vacation in or retire to these particular countries?

In Venezuela, it is claimed that the starving are feeding upon flamingos and anteaters in an attempt to satiate gnawing hunger. But the true outrage would apparently be to insinuate that this particular country is anything less than a first rate place in which to live or vacation.

For articulating earthy language to accurately describe the countries for which some of the most questionable immigrants originate, Donald Trump has been accused of taking the country to a new low. Shouldn’t the lowest point be viewed as the moment when those that govern this nation decided not to enforce immigration law with the utmost vigor and those that guide the culture decided to allow Third World squalor to take root.

Fascinating how multiculturalists are tossing a bigger fit over Trump articulating a blunt assessment to describe certain countries than that significant numbers from these places are allowed to enter or remain here for the purposes of dragging the quality of life in this country down to Third World standards.

So was the $1000 bonus granted to many WalMart employees provided from proceeds retained from Trump tax cuts or from eliminating the positions of those having lost their jobs as a result of layoffs in the company’s Sam’s Club division?

Senator Dick Durbin has said, “I cannot believe that in the history … of that Oval Office any President has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our President speak yesterday.” And are we to assume that when Monica Lewinsky was underneath the desk in the Oval Office and her head between the legs of Bill Clinton that he only spoke to her using terms found in Grey’s Anatomy or in Elizabethan love poetry?

So since the media has declared that we must only speak of other countries in the most glowing of terms, does that mean that the only thing that can be said of Nazi Germany is that the regime excelled at chemistry and the moving of large numbers of people by railway? Ironic that some no doubt complaining the loudest about President Trump articulating an earthy term for digestive effluent are part of the media elite slipping the term more and more into the dramatic dialog of their television and cinematic productions.

Religionists opposed to Donald Trump’s alleged articulation of an earthy term to describe certain countries is one thing. Because at least these folks are usually consistent about it an eschew such language in all circumstances. However, the hypocritical ones are those that any other time insist such lignuistic formulations are merely words or downplay their use in such urban or ghetto artforms, instead celebrating such as expressions of the unique truth as embodied by the artists bold enough to convey them.

An U.N. spokesman has denounced President Trump’s categorization of certain countries as excrement receptacles as “shocking and shameful”. Perhaps U.N. elites would be willing to surrender the organization’s prime New York real estate and instead set up headquarters in one of these lovely locations the foreign policy establishment apparently feels compelled to deny the prevailing conditions of.

Charlie Daniels is correct in reflecting upon the Taco Bell commercial spoofing concerns regarding the globalist conspiracy that the Illuminati is no laughing matter. So does this often insightful country singer refute the frivolity of his classic “The Devil Went Down To Georgia” suggesting that a mere human could best the Old Deluder at Satan’s own game?

In the President’s Martin Luther King Day proclamation, Americans were told to use the day off to perform acts of service. Given that the employed will be serving the public the other four remaining days of the week, how about directing that imperative at the deadbeats on public assistance that never get off their rears to do anything productive?

Lindsey Graham has denounced President Trump’s characterization of certain Third World nations as “blank hole” countries. Yet in 2013 Senator Graham referred to similar places as “hellholes”. Is one acceptable because some do not even believe that the modifier describing one type of hole doesn’t even exist while proof for the other presents itself whenever someone drops a proverbial number two in the toilet?

Regarding the pastor that got up on his moral high horse regarding what the minister characterized as Trump’s “dehumanizing and ugly” remarks pertaining to certain Third World nations while Vice President Pence was in the audience. Interesting that the church (and most likely the pastor’s residence) is located in the part of the county celebrated the world over for higher than average minority income rather than the part of the county where immigrant squalor and gang infestation predominate to the point that it rated recent coverage by the Washington Post.

The White House website on Martin Luther KIng Day featured an essay the title of which characterized the civil rights figure as a “Model Of An American Patriot”. Will those that regularly get jacked out of shape about President Trump’s past praise or associations with questionable entities of the AltRight pitch a hissy fit just as loud about this? It must be admitted that King’s philosophy of judging by character rather than color is admirable. However, can someone without reservation be celebrated as a “model patriot” if there are documented instances of him working in close affiliation with people and organizations agitating on behalf of Marxist upheaval?

Outcry has erupted over the deportation of a 39 year old father of two residing with his family in Detroit who has been living in America as an illegal since he was 10 years old. This raises a number of questions. First, if his family is not accompanying him by choice, doesn’t that mean that they love the American standard of living more than their father? Do religionists such as Russell Moore and even James Dobson have anything to say about that? They certainly don’t mind invoking alleged Hispanic family values when these can be invoked to bash the rest of us over the head as supposedly being morally superior to those of the average American. Second, if it is not the American legal system that will not allow his family to accompany him back to his homeland, shouldn’t humanitarian and related bleeding heart types be as vocal in their condemnation of Mexican immigration law as they usually are of that of the United States?

A Christianity Today article is titled, “What Student Ministry Really Needs? Homework”. Maybe so. But how is a church or youth ministry going to compel such? If students don’t do the homework assignments of their formalized schooling, they will fail which will prevent them from entering college or even obtaining a desirable job. But if church gets too pushy about assignments, the student is simply not going to return to the church.

According to the Federalist, actor Kevin Sorbo — best known to genre fans as Hercules from “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys” and as Captain Dylan Hunt in “Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda” and to Christian audiences from the film “God’s Not Dead — has been preemptively banned from East Coast ComiCon. Interestingly, this is news to the actor as he revealed to the Federalist that he had no plans on attending that particularly convention in the first place. In the article, others claimed to have been similarly blacklisted by Marvel over matters of ideology. Seems the company has more in common with Hydra than Captain America. Perhaps it is about time for conservatives of assorted varieties to organize their own pop culture conventions or even zine and small press festivals.

In an article titled, “Moralism Is Not The Gospel (But Many Christians Think It Is), Southern Baptist Theologian Albert Mohler points out this important observation. But there is no self-reflective criticism in this essay where he points out where his own ministry has fallen short of this noble realization. For nowhere in the Scripture does one find the condemnation Mohler himself propagates of those not having married by the time they are 25 years of age. What he teaches in this regard is merely personal opinion that has no place in a pulpit claiming to stand for Sola Scriptura.

In an op-ed, Senator John McCain has issued a warning about President Donald Trump’s constant attacks against the media. It is the Senator’s concern that these will harm democracy. As if his own McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act with its own suppression of free speech raised to the level of statutory law with threats of severe punishments did not. While concerning, about all Trump has really done thus far is to shoot off at the mouth. Like it or not, that is still an act protected by the First Amendment.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #105

Bette Midler is demanding an apology for Geraldo groping her in the 1970’s. But if she liked it so much at the time that it led to an affair described as torrid and as her being insatiable, he should refuse to apologize.

If Bette Midler was really so traumatized by what transpired between her and Geraldo back in the 70’s, wouldn’t the time to have expose or refute such been when he was bragging about it in his sleazy memoir?

Sexual assault is a terrible thing. However, an act that was apparently not considered such at the time to the point that it has become part of one’s comedy shtick doesn’t quite rise to the seriousness of such a violation retroactively approximately forty years later.

The use of such is morally questionable. But these radicalized WOMMENNNN had better rethink categorizing nearly every social interaction with men as an assault or most men are going to conclude these threats are not worth the risk and instead seek to fulfill their assorted companionship desires with sexbots.

Is the outrage in Bette Midler’s mind that she was groped in the 70’s or that, as an aging hasbeen, most American’s have not given her much thought in years or perhaps even decades? In the 11/13/17 edition of “America: The Jesuit Review Of Faith & Culture”, an editorial criticized the Trump administration for calling into question the patriotism of NFL players refusing to stand in honor of the National Anthem. Would this publication praise the piety of an individual for refusing to abide by assorted protocols and gestures observed in the presence of the Pope?

Mitt Romney referred to Roy Moore as a stain upon the GOP. To be consistent, shouldn’t he refer to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as stains upon world religion? For at least Moore seemed to at least prefer his adolescent maidens one at a time.

Proponents of theocracy and Christian Reconstructionism insist it would be improper to vote for a woman running for elected office. That is because, in their view, the magistrate is also to be viewed as a minister of God and Scripture forbids women from such formalized ministry activities. If that is the case, wouldn’t they also be forbidden from backing Roy Moore as well? For he is apparently married to a divorced woman. And, in most of the churches such theocrats attend, that would disqualify this particular senatorial candidate from ecclesiastical office just as if he was a woman. About all that he would be allowed to do in church is to drop his tithe, of course, into the collection plate.

Regarding NewsMax’s list of the 100 most influential Evangelicals, religion columnist Terry Mattingly seemed to lament on an episode of Issues Etc that he was told that there was only a handful on the list that would not be seen on Fox News. In the interview, Mattingly seemed to suggest that even Billy Graham was uncomfortable with this term straddling the boundaries between theology and sociology because of the cultural connotations that have accrued to the concept. This is because, Mattingly suggests, the term has come to describe White Republicans. Why is it that White Republicans need to apologize for their values? Are Black religionists, Muslims, or Jews also expected to articulate such self-reflective loathing on command?

The NAACP is objecting to President Trump visiting the civil rights museum. Had the President not appeared, these racialist agitators would have raised a fuss about that as well. The propaganda office of this subversive front group had probably prewritten two versions of the story to foment faux outrage over either contingency.

Fox News pundit Greg Gutfeld has publically stated that he hopes Roy Moore loses. Thus far, the has been little definitive proof offered that Moore actually violated any laws. The allegations are that he violated the rules of decorum as imposed by an increasingly shrill and uptight cabal of WOMENNNNN that just this time last year getting ready to don their cranial haberdash depicting female anatomy. If this is the case, shouldn’t Gutfeld himself be cautious before his own near constant litany of wisecracks making lighthearted jest about abduction, sexual slavery, and serial killing get him banned from the polite company of the broadcast airwaves as well?

Roy Moore’s wife is being asked to account for anti-Semitism because she publicly noted one of the staff attorney’s is Jewish. In a spirit of ecumenical awareness, are Jewish individuals aspiring to elected office going to be asked to renounce the explicit anti-Christianism of the Talmund?

It is argued that it is unacceptable for a 30 year old Roy Moore to date even a 17 or 18 year old because such young minds are impressionable and easy to manipulate. Then why is it acceptable for those of that age to go into the armed services for the purposes of giving their lives in their country’s wars? Is not the government making promises of providing education and enlistment bonuses not much different than a man promising to lavish assorted material niceties on a compliant young woman?

Liberals are outraged that Roy Moore has not yet conceded defeat in the Alabama senatorial campaign. But so long as his followers are not threatening to take to the streets as an excuse to loot hair care product retailers and electronics establishments, does it really matter? That’s more of an assurance than is provided by these leftist agitation rackets when they don’t get their way.

Rep Mo Brooks announced on the floor of Congress that he has prostate cancer. How long until one of these delicate marms that was rampaging in the streets this time last year decked in a head covering symbolizing female genitalia flies into a tizzy that references to the male anatomy violates her safe space and sparks anxieties regarding patriarchy and rape culture?

So are these WOMMMMMENNN that now insist that social interaction with a prominent or positioned man automatically constitutes an abuse of power irrespective of whether or not he pitches a little woo before trying to cop a feel willing to settle for a variety of dude where a weekend get away consists of dining off of the fast food extra value menu and an occasional run to Ollies or perhaps even Walmart if he is feeling particular extravagant?

A number of Christian leaders are getting on board the sexual harassment bandwagon where not only are unsolicited touching or comments are out of line but apparently any non-professional fraternization is now as well. Many of these same thinkers would then turn to hyperpiety insisting it is unacceptable to pursue romance in a church setting since one is to be there to contemplate nothing but God. Online dating is frowned upon because, well, that’s not the way it was done in the 1800’s and you might stumble upon someone beyond the narrow doctrinal proclivities of the exegete on this sort of tirade. These ministers then get in the pulpit and beat singles over the head because they have not gotten married by the time they are 40 (25 if the speaker is Albert Mohler who stands with draw dropped at Roy Moore’s past even though the jurist’s behavior epitomizes the sort of approach Mohler would have applauded most likely this time last year and certainly nothing compared to the scandal of C.J. Mahaney whom Mohler recently assured still had thousands of Evangelical supporters).

In commenting on the sexual harassment scandals, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that women do not react well to powermongers. Yet they are supposed to go along with the sort of system he advocates where young women are to be discouraged from pursuing higher education and should be married off at the first signs of biological maturity.

A brawl erupted among lingerie aficionados in front of a Victoria’s Secret at a mall in Florida. A concurrent investigation has been launched over allegedly racist remarks posted by a sheriff’s deputy’s wife on social media. Shouldn’t that expenditure of police resources outrage feminists? After all, it does not view her as her own person but rather as little more than livestock that her husband failed to control.

Liberals are outraged over potential Trump tax cuts. Senator Bernie Sanders in response lamented that the treasury is being looted. Rosie O’Donnel offered to donate $2 million dollars to any Republican Senator willing to vote against the legislation. For questioning the legality of such a gesture, the no longer funny comedian told columnist Ben Shapiro to perform oral gratification on a bodily appendage she does not possess as a woman but probably wishes she did as a lesbian. If fiscal solvency is truly a conviction of these assorted ideologues, why don’t they simply continue to pay the amount to the government that their taxes have been reduced by? Since they like nothing more than to propagandize, they could turn this into a movement where those like them believing ultimate meaning is derived from the state can continue to render their financial oblation of their own free will whether it is required or not.

An Atlantic headline reads, “The Intrusion Of White Families Into Bilingual Schools”. First, if Whites are paying taxes, they have every right to be there. Second, if this is now the attitude of the prevailing liberal elites, on what grounds do they pitch their annual February fits about the Southern governors that blocked school integration?

An Atlantic headline reads, “The Intrusion Of White Families Into Bilingual Schools”. And if White payments complained or took action to keep their children out of such schools, the liberal media would pitch a fit just as loud about that.

A&E was advertising a program that was to feature Father Pfleger. Will his relationships with anti-White subversives such as Louis Farakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton be exposed and critically examined? Or do liberals merely agitate to prevent religious controversialists from being broadcast on the network when they are Duck Commander?

If the countries that the media are condemning President Trump for describing as excrement holes are so wonderful, why are so many from these particular lands swarming here?

A whelp at a public meeting in Carroll County, MD insists that she is unable to concentrate in school sitting next to a classmate adorned in Confederate battle flag attire because such an act promotes division. So should the prohibtion being proposed also apply to Black students wearing clothing telling everyone that they are Black (as if such an assessment could not be made from looking at the individual) as well as hijabs, and yalmulkes since these also promote the message of “Look at me. I’m better than you.”

by Frederick Meekins