ALL HAIL THE THOUGHT POLICE

Have you ever been shamed into silence? Well, be prepared to be shamed, because it has become a favorite tool of the hypocrite.

Here's how it works. You make a point, and then you are told that you have no right to make that point. For example, I had condemned ISIS burning infidels alive. Then, I was informed that I had no right to make that point:

* Vietnam. Happy memories! Good old America!!! You jest. Biggest killers in the whole wide world. It is inbuilt. American Indians can testify. But, oh, no, they can't can they? African Americans they also have had a lovely time. Honestly, you Americans make me laugh. I have to laugh otherwise I would cry.

How do we respond to this shaming technique? Here's my response:

* You seem to be arguing that we Americans have lost our right to speak because of past sins. If this is so, then no one has a right to speak and every injustice receives a free pass. And, besides, what gives you the right to speak?

She warned me that I had no right to judge. Meanwhile, she was judging me! Do you see the hypocrisy?

This hypocrisy has gone viral, especially on the college campus. Students are screaming speakers down, claiming that they have no right to judge, never once regarding the fact that they too are judging.

No Christians and persecuted minorities allowed By Abraham H. Miller, Washington Times

I just had to repost this article which is no longer available on the Net.

Standing before the cameras in Turkey, President Obama found his safe place to indict half his countrymen for raising the issue of religion in their concern over his plan to open America’s gates to tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” from Syria. Subjecting refugees to a religious test runs counter to American values, said Mr. Obama.

The Harvard Law School graduate got it wrong, again. As Andrew McCarthy notes, the immigration law explicitly requires religious considerations. How could it do otherwise? Religion is a prime reason why people are persecuted and expelled from their homelands.

The Obama administration’s Department of State also considers religion. Syrian Muslims showing up at the border with Mexico are being welcomed, but Chaldean Christians fleeing the horror and brutality of the Islamic State are being incarcerated in a federal detention center outside of San Diego, and Yazidis are not even on the administration’s radar.

Chaldean Christians and Yazidis cannot get into the United Nations refugee camps and, consequently, are not certified as refugees. You cannot be a refugee unless you are certified, and the Muslims, who dominate the camps, do not want the Christians and Yazidis in the camps. Still, the Muslims prefer refuge in predominantly Christian countries. Moreover, Muslims perpetuate their persecution of Christians in resettlement centers in Europe.

When you belong to a triumphal religion, hypocrisy is not a concern.

Mr. Obama’s statements in Turkey display profound ignorance mixed with contemptible hubris. Neither the Chaldeans nor the Yazidis present a security threat. In fact, the local Chaldean community in Southern California is more than willing to sponsor their brethren and affirm that they are not a security threat. Their pleas have fallen on the administration’s deaf ears.

The Muslims, in contrast, present a proven security threat. While not all Muslims are terrorists, it is true that Muslims are responsible for most of the terror and war in the world. The Islamic State has openly boasted that it has thousands of fighters among the refugees, and at least one of the terrorists responsible for the recent carnage in Paris was a refugee who entered Europe through Greece on a false Syrian passport. To date, the Islamic State has not made idle threats.

The fatuous retort from progressives is that terrorists are more likely to come from Muslim communities already here than from refugees. As if that were truly comforting.

To this is added the typical liberal attempt to blame the victim. It is our marginalization of Muslims, we are told, that causes them to run to Syria and become terrorists. One wonders if the liberal explanation for rape is that by rejecting men, women marginalize them and damage their self-esteem, causing them to rape, just as Muslims are similarly pushed to become fighters for the Islamic State.
The former example is just as nonsensical as the latter. But in the liberal mind, it is the victims who are responsible for what befalls them when the perpetrators are members of protected classes.

The best way to understand the potential consequences of bringing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees into America is to look at the consequences of Muslim immigration in other societies. In Europe, Muslims have created parallel societies. The European dream of a pluralistic, integrative, multicultural society has become a nightmare. Multiculturalism is a failure, and some European politicians have directly said so.

Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe, and the government has pressured the Swedish media to hide the ethnicity of the Muslim rapists, a policy that exacerbates the situation. Reality is always assumed to be worse when it is hidden. A similar Muslim-based rape culture, some of it directed at infidels, took root in England, and authorities disgracefully covered it up for years for fear of being labeled Islamophobes.

Despite denials by politicians, both London and Paris have no-go and Shariah-compliant areas enforced by Muslim thugs who have decided that their beliefs supersede the law.
While not all Muslims support these affronts to humanity, community policies are set not by the majority but by organized and militant minorities. And in Muslim communities, while ordinary people are trying to rear families and survive economically, the active minorities are busy forcing their fundamentalist view on society.

The greatest threat to America will not be some terrorist event with mass casualties. It will come from what happens next. That will be a call for a state of siege and a security protocol that will fundamentally tilt the society’s perpetual balance between freedom and order toward order. 
Ironically, liberals who want both the resettlement of refugees, whom the FBI tells us cannot be vetted, and a more open society will find that the two aspirations are contradictory. Every democratic society that finds itself in a state of siege eventually tilts the balance of freedom and order toward order, and those changes, once made, are difficult to undo.

If terrorists and fundamentalist Muslims comprise, let us say, 5 percent of all Muslim refugees, does not our sense of compassion impel us to take that risk? Every person will answer that question in terms of his own value system, but I wonder what ordinary Parisians, especially those who lost loved ones, would say about that risk.

If Americans want to show compassion and concern for refugees who are truly being brutalized, whose religions are being extinguished, and are not designated as refugees,they might begin by expending energy to convince this administration to accept the Chaldean Christians and Yazidis. We can guarantee that they present not even a remote risk to the security of the nation.

• Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and a senior fellow with the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought.

Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and Gross Hypocrisy

Predictably, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines, voting 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage, making it legal for the entire nation.

President Barack Obama also responded predictably:

• "This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Certainly, all Americans must be treated as equals, but this isn’t the point. The law has never treated behaviors as equal; nor should it. In fact, discrimination is the very essence of justice. It is the law’s duty to convict the perpetrator of criminal behavior and to defend the innocent.

I also agree with the President that “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." However, the very opposite thing is happening in the wake of pro-gay rulings. The rights and speech of those who believe in traditional marriage are being violated. For example:

• An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage. Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa -- a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro.  They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years. That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda.

• A Pentagon spokesman has just said in writing that Christian troops will be punished and court-martialed if they dare to talk about their personal faith in Jesus Christ. 

Such violations of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are escalating along with the gay political agenda. Why doesn’t the President apply this same principle - “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free" – to others! Would you call it “hypocrisy?” I certainly would!

The Supreme Court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Kennedy, who argued:

• "Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser."

Is Kennedy truly concerned about the welfare of children? Why then isn’t he concerned about the myriad of studies showing the high price paid by these future parents in terms of abbreviated lives, STDs, mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse? Why does he seem to be dismissive of the overwhelming number of studies showing that children fare far better with their biological parents?

Does he really care about the children? Do any of those who voted in favor of gay marriage?

How Legislative Hypocrisy has made me more Spiritual

The Supreme Court of California recently ruled that judges can no longer be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America.

• California is one of 47 states that bans its judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate against certain groups of people. In more than half of these instances, we are talking about discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or sex.

• In the twenty-two states that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, like California, the issue gets a lot more complicated. In 1996, California’s Supreme Court ruled that judges could not belong to groups that “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation, but they carved out three exceptions: the military, religious groups, and youth organizations like the Boy Scouts.

To understand what’s going on here, we first have to do a bit of verbal reorientation. The issue isn’t or ever has been a matter of “orientation” but rather behavior. No one is recommending discriminating against a man oriented towards adultery or bigamy. However, there are laws against acting out on these impulses. Likewise, employers do not give tests to determine whether or not the potential employee is oriented towards theft or assault. However, they might check their criminal record to see if the prospect has acted out in these areas. That’s their legal right!

Behavior is one thing; orientation is another. Laws rightfully discriminate against theft, assault, and rape and not against orientations. Similarly, the church regards these behaviors as sins. We are all orientated to sin, but we need not act out on our orientation, and this makes all the difference. Likewise, the church doesn’t call an orientation a sin. After all, we are all tempted to sin, even Jesus (Heb. 4:15-16).

An advisory panel to the Supreme Court of California [SCC] had issued a report advising that:

• “Because the Boy Scouts of America [BSA] continues to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation . . . eliminating the exception and prohibiting judges from being members of or playing a leadership role in the Boy Scouts would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.” 

Although the BSA does not discriminate against gay youth, they do discriminate against gay leaders, and understandably so. The BSA has disclosed a long and sad history of the sexual molestation of youth by homosexual leaders. Should society not endorse this understandable discrimination? Of course, they should! Should judges be tossed off the bench because of their association with BSA? Does such involvement cause questions about their impartiality? Of course not!

If their association with the BSA compromises their impartiality, why not also their association with a political group – the democratic party? Of course, such logic would require a judge to live in an antiseptic world without any prior opinions or affiliations. It would also require that a judge to not have any prior rulings, all of which could suggest partiality. This is, of course, ridiculous, as is the California ruling. But it is even worse than that. It is hypocritical! Do not the members of the SCC also have affiliations that might call into question their impartiality? Of course!

Their logic also paves the way for a massive assault against the church and anyone with any church affiliations. After all, the church discriminates. Many do not ordain women or unrepented sinners, let alone unrepented homosexuals! Wouldn’t such an affiliation give the impression of partiality? According to this hypocritical logic, it would!

The next step then becomes a matter of “logic” – ban anyone from office who has any affiliation with a biblically oriented church!

Already, many are operationalizing this twisted “logic”:

• Kelvin Cochran, chief of the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, was suspended in November after he wrote a short book, a portion of which conveys the biblical view of homosexuality. He gave copies of the book, Who Told You That You Were Naked? (self-published in November 2013), to a few co-workers he knew to be strong Christians – but three city employees also received a copy without asking for one.

• Mayor Kasim Reed now has fired Cochran after suspending him for a month without pay, saying "his actions and decision-making undermine his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse work force." Cochran, a firefighter for more than three decades, otherwise had no blemish on his record.

Perhaps, instead, we need to be able to overlook differences of opinion. Do we want a world where no one can have an opinion deemed offensive? Instead, Reed fired Cochran claiming that his views prevent him from “effectively manage a large, diverse work force." However, he hasn’t been able to demonstrate any deficit in Cochran’s management. It would be equivalent to firing Mayor Reed because his commitment to his party prevents him from managing effectively. What hypocrisy!

Reed rests his decision on “the city's nondiscrimination policy.” However, it is Reed who is discriminating against Cochran, denying him his constitutional rights of the freedoms of religion and expression:

• The mayor has stated publicly that Cochran's "personal religious beliefs are not the issue," but that the city's nondiscrimination policy is "nonnegotiable."

The implications of such a ruling are far-reaching. If a public employee cannot express his religious opinions, even off-the-job, and cannot associate with a group that has views currently regarded as “discriminatory,” no Christian is safe, no business is safe, no public engagement is safe for the political outsider. Even social media may soon become off-limits to those who “discriminate,” even if just in their thought-life or associations.

Such decisions will compel people-of-faith to violate their conscience or to live fearfully in silence. For another example:

• An employee of Ford Motor Company lost his job last year for expressing his Christian beliefs when asked by the company for his feedback. Now he is asking for federal intervention on his behalf. Thomas Banks worked for Ford in Michigan for more than three years as a product engineer. But one day he received an email, left a message in the comments section, and two weeks later – in August 2014 – was fired after being told he had violated Ford's anti-harassment policy.

Harassment? Having a politically incorrect belief is now harassment! However, the secularist is oblivious to this unconstitutional grab of our basic human rights. Nor will he care until he becomes the object of such injustice!

• The Christian couple who declined to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple in 2013 were found guilty of unlawful discrimination by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries January 29. Aaron and Melissa Klein reportedly rejected the baking request in January 2013, saying same-sex marriage conflicted with their their religious beliefs. Now the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners will have to pay the two women up to $75,000 per person who filed the complaint. 

As a result, the Kleins have lost their business, as have many others, but who cares! Instead, the Mainstream Media spins this as a victory against their right to discriminate. However, this is not at all the issue. This Christian couple has gladly served gays, as have many others now forced out of business. Instead, it is not about the Kleins discriminating against gays, but the State discriminating against the Kleins, coercing them to perform acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs. It would be like coercing a Muslim photographer to film an orgy or a gay baker to inscribe a cake, “Yes to Traditional Marriage.”

I am not left unmoved by these decisions and the direction of this nation. Instead, it has caused me to pray more and to draw closer to God and church, as we are encouraged:

• Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25)

And that Day is approaching:

• "All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.” (John 16:1-2)

This is the evil I see all around us. But evil is now called “good,” and good is now called “evil.” Terror has become “workplace violence” committed by the deprived and the mentally ill, not by culpable human beings. Meanwhile, those who are committed to loving others and the welfare of their communities are hated, vilified, and deprived of livelihood. We have left the domain of reason into one of immediate fulfillment at any cost. Lord, come quickly!

Jesus’ Parables: A Demanding Love and Radical Surgery

Jesus has been called many things. Among other things, I think of Him as “the Doctor of the soul,” because His parables expose the soul’s rot. And until this rot is exposed, we cannot address it. Inevitably, this exposure is jolting:

• He said to the crowd: "When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does.  And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time? (Luke 12:54-56)

He called the crowd “hypocrites.” How does this fit in with Jesus’ love? Isn’t love supposed to make us feel good? Love sometimes prescribes radical surgery, however painful it might be! And the crowd needed it.

They were each masters of reading the weather. However, they were in denial about the “present time” – the ubiquitous miracles and fulfilled prophesies that attested to Jesus!

When we are in denial about Jesus, we are also in denial about ourselves. If we are blind to spiritual things, we are also blind to personal things, as Jesus’ next words reflect:

• "Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid the very last mite." (Luke 12:57-59; NKJV)

We are always right in our own eyes. This blindness comes at a great cost. If we refuse to see our mistakes and moral lapses, we will not try to correct them. Consequently, we will reject the opportunity to make peace with those we have wronged. This will cause an escalation of the problem, in this case, resulting in court and its serious consequence - jail.

Of course, Jesus isn’t simply giving us advice about how to get along with others or even with the court. He is more concerned about our getting along with God. If we refuse to acknowledge our sins and instead convince ourselves of our “moral rectitude,” we will not humble ourselves before the supreme Judge by confessing and asking for His forgiveness. Result – prison, even eternally!

Standing against the Pro-Gay Agenda and its Taunts

Recently, a pro-gay [PG] “evangelical” took issue with my stance that homosexual behavior is a sin. I challenged him to provide just one verse justifying homosexuality. Of course, he couldn’t. Instead, he argued that Christians are hypocrites for judging homosexuality because we don’t judge other sins that the Bible also deems as sinful:

• I'm demonstrating a parallel between homosexuality and women uncovering their heads while praying or prophesying. Both these behaviors are seemingly condemned by scripture. What I can't understand is why you pick and choose only those verses from scripture that address one of these issues while you let people do whatever the heck they want on the other one. You are inconsistent. You select only those scriptures that support your pre-existing prejudice [homophobia]. Why don't you write blog posts telling slaves to obey their masters? That is also clearly advocated in scripture, after all. I don't see why you get to demand that I cite just one verse on your pet issue of homosexuality when you can't cite one verse allowing women to uncover their heads while praying or prophesying… Admittedly there are gray areas in scriptures, but you haven't provided one reason to prove that women uncovering their heads covered while praying or prophesying is a gray area.

First of all, it should be clear that Christians do/should not judge people with SSA (same-sex attraction). We all have sinful impulses! Instead, we must judge behaviors and words as the Bible judges and as Jesus has judged.

Secondly, the issue of women covering their heads is a difficult one. For one thing, it is only found in one set of verses. For another, it’s hard to know what Paul meant by a woman covering her “head” (1 Cor. 11:2- ). Is it with a veil or her own hair? Then Paul further stirs the kettle. First, he claims that the wife is under her husband as Christ is under the Father and the husband is under Christ, but then he adds another element. Although the woman was created for the man, now, the man comes forth from the woman. Frankly, I am perplexed.

Meanwhile, there is no ambiguity regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. It is never given a green-light! Although the PG is correct that we mustn’t discriminate according to our own preferences regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, his charge that the church is guilty of exercising a “pre-existing prejudice” is unsustainable.

However, even if we are using Scripture in a prejudicial/homophobic way, this might discredit us, but it doesn’t discredit Scripture, which is clear regarding its condemnation of homosexuality!

If we are picking-and-choosing among the teachings of Scripture, we have to correct ourselves. We have to also speak against adultery, pornography, prostitution, and even trial marriages.

The PG indicts me for focusing on my “pet issue of homosexuality.” Admittedly, I do speak more against homosexuality than against trial marriages, but there are reasons for this:

1. This is an area where churches are compromising.
2. This issue is incessantly being pushed by the courts, university, and media. Response is therefore imperative!
3. It is a deadly sin. According to the stats, homosexual men’s lifespans are on the average of 20 years less.
4. Christian youth are not receiving necessary teaching to combat the many voices that are claiming that the church is homophobic.
5. The PG agenda has been threatening our freedoms of speech and religion.
6. As a result, many have lost their jobs and businesses for expressing themselves in favor of traditional marriage. Others have experienced vandalism and threats. These need advocates!

Even in this discussion, an “evangelical” PG has used personal attacks to shame and silence. In defense, we must recall that we are required to be a light to the world.