Sunday, September 28, 2014
Liberals are so upset with Obama's foreign policy they have begun to equate it with Bush's. Paul Rosenberg writes that Obama, in his recent speech announcing war against ISIS denounced them in terms similar to President Bush. According to him this bodes badly for our chances to defeat them. The President went rogue when he said "It (ISIS) has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way." This is too black and white, too Bush esque for Rosenberg's taste. He quotes Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to show us that you need to know your enemy to be able to defeat him. By ignoring ISIS vision of the establishment of an Islamic State President Obama, according to Rosenberg is taking the neo conservative route of mindless violence.
There is much wrong with This logic. To begin with he tells us an example of Obama being nuanced is when in his ISIS speech he says "We cant erase every trace of evil from the world." This is really just another of the Presidents famous straw man arguments since no one is arguing that we do such a thing. He just says this to make himself look more responsible and reasoned than his political opponents. In reality President Bush never stated we should erase all evil from the world or even that all Islam was the problem. Bush's nuanced view of the war on terror was on display when he said "ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for."
Further President Obama has never shown he understands the vision terrorist organizations have going all the way back to 2001. He sat in Jeremiah Wrights church when he said that America was to blame for 9/11, that our chickens had come home to roost. Obama was then quoted as saying that the main reason for the attacks was that the terrorists lacked empathy. Then again after the attacks on our embassy President Obama blamed it on a video that degraded the prophet Muhammad. Contrast that with Bush's view of the terrorists vision, "their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane...whatever its called this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." This is exactly the vision Rosenberg wants Obama to recognize in ISIS.
What Rosenberg believes is the Presidents nuance is just his attempts to obfuscate the real motivation of terrorists because he is unwilling to confront them. The beheading of an American citizen awakened the public to the threat ISIS poses, forcing the Administration into action. We can only hope Obama takes the Bush approach which led to victory in Iraq instead of his nuanced approach which led to an ISIS on the march.
Robert Pickup Jr is a constitutional conservative from Massachusetts. He likes to write conservative responses to liberal op-eds. His personal website is conservativecontrarian.wordpress.com.
Friday, September 26, 2014
If a woman wants to wear such an outfit, that might be her business.
However, isn't the more pressing issue at hand the women being forced to wear these getups in areas where the particular form of extremeism such garments exemplify is on the rise?
Is one to conclude that the jihadists that hacked off the breasts of Christian women were instead simply trying to liberate these women from body dysmorphic disorder?
Regarding adherents of this creed that parade about in full heathen regalia to the extent that even their faces are concealed.
What assurances does an instructor in an academic setting have that it's the same student that shows up everyday adorned in such a potentially deceptive manner.
What if a member of the Ku Klux Klan showed up making their daily rounds in public in complete costume?
Tolerancemongers will insist what the Klansman is doing is intended to excite a spirit of fear and express hatred.
But so is the Mohammedan.
For such ensembles are not donned so much out of sincere religious devotion but out of contempt for our liberties that allow such subversives to cavort about without opposition or even question.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
It might be one thing to light a candle on behalf of his memory as a human being.
However, if he had not met his parting from this world in a manner that could be exploited to further assorted politically correct agendas, would this church have lit a candle for him?
Given that his church is located in the Washington/Baltimore corridor with its own disturbingly high rate of homicide, does this church post photos of candles lit on behalf of other murder victims explicitly by name?
Tagged on to the name of Michael Brown is mention of “our work to end racism”.
There is really no proof that the Michael Brown incident had anything to do with racism.
The foremost examples of racism involved surrounding this issue were of those that rampaged in the streets of Ferguson.
Does this Nazarene church intend to post candles lit beseeching divine protection for the shopkeeper brutalized by Michael Brown in the last hour of his life and the owners of the property pillaged by his supporters?
Or has the Church of the Nazarene been so given over to the social gospel embraced by much of the Emergent Church to the extent that the leadership of this particular congregation contends that property owners get whatever they deserve at the hands of the allegedly disadvantaged?
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Will he be suspended from his broadcasting duties like the correspondent that simply asked why Janay Rice would deliberately marry a known domestic abuser?
Will Black media personalities insisting that the beating of their youth by parents is just the way things are done down South insist that Paula Deen's fortune be restored because what she said in the privacy of her own home to her husband that resulted in no bodily injury is just the way things were done down South?
Since it was the way things use to be done, are those applauding the beating of a four year old to the point of bodily injury going to also tell us that it's also appropriate to deny children wholesome affection such as hugs or that to lavish attention and resources on one child to the point of neglecting other less desirable children in a family for no legitimate reason is acceptable.
Those kinds of things use to go on as well.
According to former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, the propriety of a parental action such as a beating is to be determined by the pile of money or status that accrues to the recipient of such tactilely intensive correction.
If Adrian Peterson has approximately seven children by near as many women none of which he is married to, there has obviously been some kind of shortcoming or breakdown in the parental process somewhere.
Adrian Peterson's methods of discipline are being justified or overlooked on the grounds that that was the way things were always done.
Peterson is estimated to have fathered seven children.
He refuses to disclose the answer to this question himself definitively.
Nor does it sound like he is married to any of the mothers.
In those heralded golden days of yore invoked to justify the bruising of a four year old, didn't you usually get married before procreating that prodigiously?
Perhaps we should hold off a bit before lavishing this reprobate with father of the year accolades as some in certain conservative circles seem eager to bestow upon him.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
As an example, Pastor Platt praised John Bunyan who was tossed into prison for refusing to stop preaching when ordered to by Anglican authorities despite the hardship endured by his family in general and his blind child in particular.
The Christian should not deny Christ.
However, Bunyan was initially imprisoned for preaching without a license.
Whether we agree with that or not is a secondary matter.
Often in a fallen world, the situations are so bad that the individual is forced to prioritize from a list of less than ideal options.
From the Wikipedia entry on John Bunyan, one gets the impression authorities were not initially inclined to imprison Bunyan until he blurted out that he'd be out preaching again the next day.
That causes one to ponder was it necessarily Christ that Bunyan was infatuated with or the adrenaline rush one can get from a good fight.
I Timothy 5:8 admonishes that those that do not take care of their own family are worse than an infidel.
The same ones praising John Bunyan for in their minds putting Christ in a proper place above the needs of his family would turn around and heap condemnation upon others for not taking care of the Bunyan urchins.
However, shouldn't taking care of the spiritual and physical needs of these children have been the foremost life's mission of the Bunyan parents?
Why couldn't have Bunyan been as an upstanding Christian example ministering to the needs of his ailing child and instead return to spreading the Gospel to others behind the back of authorities at a later time?
Jesus did indeed counsel that the believer's love of family should look like hate in comparison to that for Him.
However, the most profound expression of devotion to Christ may be in loving our family members in those times we feel like loving them the least or get distracted by a cause we deem much more exciting than the mundane duties of this world.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 15, 2014
Rather he argued against it from the standpoint of the Reformed belief against the impropriety of man authorizing holy days not found in Scripture.
In this homily, he seemed to praise and certainly did not criticize Scottish authorities at the time of the Reformation that forbade under penalty of law those celebrating such commemorations after Presbyterianism became that nation's established church.
However, if man does not have the authority to compel extra-biblical holy days, on what grounds does one then forbid an individual from incorporating these practices as part of their individual devotion after they have been informed that observation of the day is not necessarily a requirement?
For does not Romans 14:5-6 seem to indicate that these sorts of matters are more in the realm of individual conscience?
In a sermon against Halloween, Presbyterian Brian Schwertly described a prank he use to engage in during that particular time of year where he would light a bag of, in his words, “poop” on fire and leave it on someone's porch.
Instead of remorsefully recounting this story in a tone of repentance, he actually laughed about it.
If Halloween really is as evil as the hardline Fundamentalists make it out to be, wouldn't that be the equivalent of fondly recalling before the congregation how Buffy down at the gentleman's club would twirl as she was giving him a lap dance?
Wouldn't an ultalegalist such as himself consider a person exhibiting such glee in the House of God insufficiently contrite?
Yes, he should be classified as an ultralegalist as he insinuated at another point in the sermon series that Roman Catholics and Arminians should be denied citizenship in the idealized Christian Reconstructionist regime.
In the sermon “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision, Part 2”, Brian Schwertly examined the argument that Christian participation in Halloween is valid and legitimate as a way of ridiculing the power of Satan.
Schwertly contends that such a perspective is inappropriate in light of Jude 1:9 in which it is suggested that even the mightiest of angels are cautious about underestimating the Old Deluder.
However, it has been suggested that often conceptualizing of evil in a literary or narrative form similar to a fairy tale can assist the young in placing these kinds of fears and terrors in a proper perspective.
Why can't the symbology of Halloween play a similar kind of role?
But more importantly, perhaps the argument about justifying Halloween as a way of minimizing Satan's influence through good old fashioned ridicule came about as a result of the need in some of the more rigorous wings of Evangelicalism to always find itself in an “on position” in terms of some grand outreach effort or engaged in some never-ending confrontation.
Can't a kid just go out for a night dressed in costume to collect some candy without it being as if the Apocalypse was looming or the fate of the world hanging in the balance?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 4, 2014
The pastor is also author of “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream”.
A description of the tome at Amazon.com reads, “It's easy for the American Christian to forget how Jesus said how his followers would actually live...They would, he [Jesus] said , leave behind security, money, even family for him.”
Here we go with yet another attempt to use missions not so much as a methodology to bring those in other lands to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ but rather as a pretext to bash the American way of life.
For how are those things listed above: security, money, convenience, and family any different than what the inhabitants of nearly every other country on earth desire?
If one does not consider security all that important, perhaps one should be willing to exchange places with the persecuted and slaughtered Christian populations of Iraq and Syria.
Without money and security, it is doubtful that Rev. Platt would have wiggled his way into a megachurch pastorate nor American's rich enough to purchase his reflectively narcissistic manifestos.
God has indeed blessed America with an abundance of these things that have enabled Pastor Platt to become something of a celebrity in Evangelical Christian circles but which he begrudges the remainder of his fellow countrymen and coreligionists.
Is there a reason why we must flagellate ourselves in shame because of what God has given us?
For example, on the list it is insinuated that loyalty to family even when they are not tempting you towards things forbidden by God is not so much a strength but rather a weakness.
Yet the very same leftwing religionists that applaud the renunciation of bourgeoisie values insist that we must embrace nearly every illegal that pours across the border because these new arrivals are such family oriented people (even though the relationship arrangement being admired is not so much pro-child as it is the mother being afraid to cut off carnal access whenever daddy comes home sauced three sheets to the wind).
Interestingly, most of the migrants pour here for the same things we are supposed to be wracked with guilt over like Phil Donahue for possessing.
In his acceptance of the presidency of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board (a body found nowhere in Scripture if one is going to argue how we as Christians could lead more spiritually meritorious lives if we were more willing to embrace penury and destitution), “We talk all the time at Brook Hill [the church Platt pastors] about laying down a blank check with out lives, with no strings attached, willing to go wherever He leads, give whatever He asks, and do whatever He commands in order to make His glory known among the nations.”
And that is absolutely correct.
However, that blank check is to be written out to God, not so much the prelates and functionaries operating in His name through the organized church.
As Ann Coulter quipped, how come no one can serve God in America anymore?
It is about time religious leaders stop bashing those in America leading the perfectly ordinary lives that keep the mundane operations of a complex society functioning so robustly that there exists sufficient leisure time for a particular class to arise that enjoys nothing more than to wallow in this kind of existential criticism.
By Frederick Meekins