Talking vs. listening to God: who you going to believe?

This is a post I wanted to write and didn’t want to write. Wanted to because I think it is important, but didn’t want to because I know people roll their eyes or get turned off talking about faith or Christianity. Still here goes.

A few weeks ago Joy Beyhar made a comment on the View attacking Pence for his Christian beliefs. Then she was forced to apologize by Disney. But Pence, in his kind way, accepted it and urged her to make a public apology to the millions of Christians she offended. Finally, she did make a public apology on TV.

Yes, regardless of the apology, it is still worthy of discussion. IOW, that is not the end of it.

What she said was the subject of the matter.

“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Never mind the grammatical faux pas, she referred to it as mental illness. Great job offending ignorant Christians who just don’t know better. Her apology did not make it go away. She was just voicing a common misconception about Christians.

Apology — “I was raised to respect everyone’s religious faith and I fell short of that,” the comedian said. “I sincerely apologize for what I said.”

The crux of the matter is listening to God. That is the big offense here. Apparently talking to God is fine but listening to God is not. That, in a nutshell, is a common liberal opinion out there. In othe words, it would take a Christian to be offended at that because most other people would not be. No wonder we are where we are in society.

Listening to God, can it be possible that is a chief offense? Is it really the stuff of loony tunes and crazies? Nonsense, but it makes for a good sound bite.

However, it is completely backwards or reversed from Christian tradition. We talk an awful lot to God. Some people pray regularly. Funny that listening would be the problem. We do have an awesome God who not only hears but knows our hearts and intentions. You don’t fool God. Yes, we are not above error. Much of the problem is not listening.

One of the things we are taught, or learn, is the patience and discipline to listen to God. Call it waiting on Him. Remember He has the ability to speak any way He wants, whether by events or natural means or through people. But God’s message will come through if He wants it to. So then it becomes a matter of us being receptive or listening for it.

Discerning

I would actually say that the easier part is for us to talk, the harder part is to listen. If it were only us talking, it is a one way conversation. You talk to your friends, but you don’t do all the talking.(or you might not have the friend for long) And we don’t have all the answers, which is often why we turn to God. We are seeking something from Him.

God desires a personal relationship with his people. How do you have a relationship without doing some listening? In 2 Chronicles 7:14, it tells us “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

That also means we are heard. It says “seek my face.” Well, seeking is also listening, and following. Through the scriptures, prayer talking to others, we seek. Often we are seeking answers, or solutions. Shouldn’t we be open to answers, even expect them? James 1:22 — “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

Or we could try acting like one of the pundits on TV who talks over the other person blocking out their voice. How can they be listening when they shout down the other person? They ignore other people’s answers. Liberals like that method.

So talking to God is fine, but listening is not.

Just imagine how you would teach your kids then. Tell them “we want you to talk to God, pray. Just don’t ever listen to Him. See, that’s where you get into trouble.” Just like if you told your kids: “if you need help, come and talk to me. Just never listen to me or follow me. So, kids, no listening now….don’t embarrass me.” It is the same message.

This is what we get from society. Joy got a lot of laughs, seemed the crowd was with her. That’s what I expect from the secularists today. Sure they preach their religion, but when it comes to Christians? Well, just laugh at them. Okay, so I forgive her. That is the mentality though and she is not alone. They just have it exactly backwards.

Our bodies are gifts as well as our limbs. It is how we use them that matters. Reasoning is a gift and so is our conscience. It’s another way God talks to us. If we don’t listen to our conscience it would cause a problem. You would never tell someone to stop listening to their conscience. But the world and society might. Maybe peer pressure tells kids to ignore their conscience. Do we tell kids to do that? And the world thinks we’re crazy?

 

Flashback of another famous ‘comedian’: (Christmas day)

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

“They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.” – from The Ethics of Elfland

I should have posted this quote alone, but I could not do it. It occurs to me this is part of what is wrong today. The opposite of this quote rings too true for culture. I don’t think Chesterson is even taught in schools anymore, someone who contributed so much.

There’s a movement by the Catholic Church to sanctify him. Chesterson honored God in what he did. All the more reason he is marginalized from society.

So if they are not teaching him, you can say par for the times of ours. However, if this all continues, at some point they may not know how to teach it — being too impractical.

Conditioning

You can see it in this shooting. To take the general view that people forego principles and morality to accept culture as just the way it is, then it alters what we do. It lowers the standard. It rationalizes morality away. It becomes a state of these are the circumstances we live with now. We act accordingly and presume to be excused because of it all.

We can/do teach that in schools: these are just the conditions we are dealt. Teach that shootings are now normalcy. Just accept that is the way it is.

Chesterson was making a point to say that you don’t have to take that view, or concede your fundamental beliefs and principles. That is much the reason we got to this state.

Right Ring | Bullright

God’s morality police of the left?

Jerry Brown—Who Favors Legalized Killing of Unborn—Says: ‘I Don’t Think President Trump Has a Fear of the Lord

CNSNews.com
By CNSNews.com Staff | December 9, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who favors the legalized killing of unborn children, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he does not believe President Donald Trump “has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God” based on the fact that Trump removed the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.

The “60 Minutes” episode will air tomorrow. On its website, CBS News reported this about it:

“Brown told Whitaker that President Trump is wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and misguided for calling it a bad deal for America. ‘That’s a preposterous idea, not even a shred of truth in that statement,” Brown said. “I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility… and this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.’” [……./]

More https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/cnsnewscom-staff/jerry-brown-who-favors-legalized-killing-unborn-says-i-dont-think-president

 
Well, since Jerry Brown is now a member of the Inquisition — no, he may be running it — I guess that is supposed to be the final verdict.  At least Hugo Chavez sprinkled his rhetoric with the “smell of sulfur” coming from the UN podium after Bush left it. The latest charge is God opposes Trump. Just imagine that being an official position on Obama?

Recently Alan Dershowitz called out Laurence Tribe to a debate on the Constitutionality of leftists’ obstruction of justice charge. He demurred, so far. He struggles to defend it.

But Tribe did lash out at Dershowitz for “defending” the legitimacy of the “Devil Incarnate” who is president, Donald Trump.  So Tribe has turned theologian, too. 

Yet all because Dershowitz appealed to the Constitution.  Tribe asserts that he cannot debate it now, before Mueller’s investigation is concluded. (hoping he can find something to hang his unconstitutional hat on and stretch the document into play doh)

And just days ago, Nancy Pelosi played the God card. Oh yes she did! Ah, Nancy takes the path to say that God is on the side of Democrats and their amnesty strategy for DACA and illegal aliens. Pelosi must be the chosen prosecutor for the Inquisition.

Following her lead, am I to infer that if the government does shutdown, it must be divine intervention in favor of the Democrats’ lawless positions? Well, it is the message.

Coming Insurrection: BLM to Antifa

What me worry? It is not that I worry much about leftists protests, Marxists have been running this scam for a long time. What disturbs me more is the faux religious tone of some Christian clergy getting involved, (I’ve grown accustomed to the face) not just supporting but promoting it. Then there is the evolving names of the left. When one name gets soiled, just choose another. But it’s the same thing.

So just follow any search for refuse fascism and you’ll find the org, the links and the clergy involved. I will note this time at least they are supposedly only using the church names for “identification purposes.” That means they are not directly saying the church endorses the movement. (though implied) I doubt feds or IRS will be investigating their tax status.

From a leading organizer of the movement:

Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany, Los Angeles
“…There is only one way way for us to bring justice and tolerance back to our national life: To hit the streets to demand the removal of this regime on November 4. We are all coming out into the steeets, people of faith, people of conscience, and we are going to stay there until this regime is removed…”

Here’s a snippet of what they say in their long appeal, reading like Luther’s theses, except that they are opposing the Trump administration. All in the name of “Humanity”.

In spite of what many on the religious right are claiming, we know that the politics of division, violence and intimidation that are being employed by the Trump/Pence regime do not represent the heart and soul of what our religious traditions teach. Our traditions insist that we are keepers of the vineyard who have a responsibility to care for this world and its inhabitants. Justice is not peripheral to our identity as religious people; it defines the very core of who we are called by our traditions to be.

Their Justice train is a little late. The proud who’s who in the movement:

National Faith Task Force for Nov 4 (initial): Rev. Frank Wulf, Pastor-in-Charge, Echo Park United Methodist Church; Ernestine Henning, Supervisor (ret.) AME Church; Rev. Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany; Isabel Cardenas, Salvadoran-American activist, co-initiator of Refuse Fascism; Rev. Frank Alton, Provost, Cathedral Center of St. Paul; Ted Jennings, Professor of Biblical and Constructive Theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary; Father Bob Bossie, SCJ; Rev. Taigen Dan Leighton Ph.D., Soto Zen Buddhist priest and Dharma teacher; Rabbi Michael Davis; Fr. Richard Estrada, Church of the Epiphany, Cornel West, Fr. Luis Barrios, Holyrood Episcopal Church, Jon Nathen Wurzel, Atonement Lutheran Church, Lyda Eddington, Pastor, La Tijera United Methodist Church, Sara Lee MacDonald, Communications Director, St. Peter’s Santa Maria Episcopal Church, Rabbi Michael Pollack, March on Harrisburg, Patricia Capers, New Paltz, Shawn Anthony Ward, Luis Harris, Jerry Rivers, The Vineyard Church, Rev. Jim VanderWeele, Northlake Unitarian Universalist Church, D.I.V.A.S Ministry Group ~ (affiliations for identification purposes only)

But then it won’t be long, depending on the endurance of the protests that more churches, clergy are added. And they more actively promote the movement to Christian flocks. So my issue is not as much with the predictable left doing what they do; but once again at clergy for following suit like puppy dogs. Spinoff of Antifa complete. The name was smeared. Make it a little more palatable, refuse fascism.

Congrats, clergy, for identifying more with insurrection than resurrection.

 

Allow me to take the liberty to summarize a message for them:

‘We are first-class religious Hypocrites. We lecture against meddling in electing a president; but run one out of office, or impeach one? You bet! We’re all about that.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician.

What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith is deep and authentic,” gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, “and it informs her work as a senator.” How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone’s faith is “authentic?”

We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, “a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade.”

Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man.

This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. …/

Read more https://www.billoreilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html

 
Of course O’Reilly is spot on. I would just add that if she is devout, then it is in practicing at Bernie Sanders’ Tabernacle of Revolution. Why would they choose her sect over — or in place of — Bernie’s in 2020? They’ve already seen the fruits of his. Or maybe Bernie can be high priest and Elizabeth can be the high priestess on a ticket?

Media’s promotion of her faux Christian credentials would “require the willing suspension of disbelief” by the congregants. It’s serving the church of politics. That’s what they do.

Remember how media built up Obama’s Christian cred or how they promoted Hillary’s devout, deeply-rooted Christian beliefs? Planned Parenthood didn’t buy it. That’s what they do — hoping to divide Christians in preparation for slaughter at the ballot box.

However, immediately after election media and the candidates go back to sneering and mocking Christians and Christianity. But that is the very thing we were warned about.

Though in both Obama’s and Hillary’s case, their mentors were theologians of Marx. A dead giveaway. Yet the media got away with selling it as ‘pure as the driven wool.’

Obama studied under Rev Wright’s Liberation (Marxist) Theology, etc. Hillary’s youth minister sent her down the path of socialist activism. Warren brandishes a King James version while claiming to be a nasty, nasty woman of the occupy movement. Money changers anyone? All swear to a blood pact on the altar of abortion. Christian leaders?

So why not? These days progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, operate more like a religious cult. It is no wonder the Left would apply many of their policies as, and with, the piety of a religious sect now.

 

References: Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, Luke 21:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Supreme Hubris

The case of the Trinity Lutheran Church wound its way through the Supreme Court this week. A real religious discrimination case, as opposed to a made up one.

Anyone reading here is probably familiar with it, but here is a short summary.

(Syllabus) The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri pre-school and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravel surface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church

What happened was a 7-2 decision in favor of the church. Then the thing that gets me is the 2 dissenters. Sotomayor is a stinging dissent, with Ginsburg and her ACLU ties.

Does that mean, in her view, that she’s okay with the government discriminating against a church? Should we ask? She seems to be the one most aligned with Obama’s zealous worldview than even Kagan. His bigotry against Christians knew no boundaries.

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

“(b) The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character. Like the disqualification statute in McDaniel, the Department’s policy puts Trinity Lutheran to a choice: It may participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. When the State conditions a benefit in this way, McDaniel says plainly that the State has imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must withstand the most exacting scrutiny. 435 U. S., at 626, 628.”


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

“[In Locke vs. Davey] Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s restriction on the use of its funds was in keeping with the State’s anti-establishment interest in not using taxpayer funds to pay for the training of clergy, an “essentially religious endeavor,” id., at 721.

Here, nothing of the sort can be said about a program to use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. At any rate, [in Locke] the Court took account of Washington’s anti-establishment interest only after determining that the scholarship program did not “require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Id., at 720–721″

There is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. Pp. 11–14.

Yet the Department offers nothing more than Missouri’s preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns.”

But there is no doubt, in my mind, that the left (anti-Christian zealots) will have their own spin why this is a terrible thing — a bad decision which needs to be overturned. Again, why the dissent in this case is what baffles me?

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

“The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.”

Then she proceeded to dig into the mission statement of the Luthran church to use as disqualifiers against Trinity, based on their expressed purpose as a church. Done in a way that only Obama and likely Ginsburg would approve of.

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

“The Church uses “preaching, teaching, worship, witness, service, and fellowship according to the Word of God” to carry out its mission “to ‘make disciples.’”

So she went straight to the church’s doctrine to use against them. Why not put the mission purpose of the church under the spotlight in order to discriminate against it? Basically, Sotomayor’s litmus is based on ‘what it is‘ not what it is doing, or proposing to do. Thus, Sotomayor wants to discrimiate against them solely because of their religious character.

See decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

Feel the Bern: Sanders proposes Christian ban in government

Bernie Sanders doubles down on his Christian hatred during confirmation hearings. Since by the left’s own definition disagreement with other religions is hatred, a phobia, then Bernie Sanders has one gargantuan phobia.

See article for Bernie’s condemnation of a Christian who does not deserve to be in government and should be banned from it on grounds of his belief.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

Oh, I feel the Bern. Had he spoke to a Muslim, I can assure you that conversation wouldn’t have happened. However, a total belief in Marxism would be a qualifier for public office.

Griffin, slide on over… it’s a big pool

So on one day that everyone at least can agree to decry what Kathy Griffin did as vile, another has surfaced to defend her. Go figure, who would be as unhinged as her?

You might have guessed, Keith Olbermann. The guy who’s pimping a new book called “Trump is F****ing Crazy.”($27) He’s just the advocate for the CNN-fired Griffin.

He took to Twitter to lambast the biggest name he could find.
So where did he land his venom and vitriol? Franklin Graham.

Graham denounced the art project of Kathy Griffin on Twitter:

“I work with Christians whose family members have been decapitated. @KathyGriffin is sick and disgusting.”

So Olbermann snaps back…

This is all too rich even for the chronic hypocrite, Keith Olbermann:

“And you’re a professional bullshit artist who exploits the stupid and poor. Shut the hell up #LetHeWhoIsWithoutSinCastTheFirstStone “

That’s a new low for him. Griffin gets wide berth and Graham gets attacked. Graham does a lot to help humanity, even in the Ebola outbreak in Africa, but Olberman needs to preach to Franklin’s demons. Then Keith throws a hashtag at Graham, for merely calling out the disgusting, attention-seeking mockery Griffin swims in.

Let me see, think of a bullshit artist who exploits stupid and poor people and who’s name would bubble right to the top? It has to be the Clinton name. Haiti anyone? They aren’t happy with either of the Clintons. Incidentally, the last I looked. the Clinton Foundation was still using Haiti’s last disaster as part of its fund raising scheme.

If anyone could try to make Kathy Griffin’s act look rational, it’s Keith Olbermann.

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

Pope walks like an Egyptian

The Pope hits the road to Egypt, which especially lately has been paved with Christian persecution by those underappreciated peaceful Muslims. According to CNN :

That history will provide the Pope an opportunity to plead, again, for nations to open their borders to migrants fleeing violence in the Middle East, a stance that puts him at odds with populists in the United States and Europe.

The meetings with prominent Muslim leaders, including the Grand Imam of the venerated al-Azhar University, offers a chance for the Pope to continue an oft-overlooked aspect of his papacy: his outreach to Muslims. [more]

But Francis walks like an Egyptian as Pope. So he’ll make sure to get in his digs, mainly to the West, that opening our borders to migrants from the Mid-East will purify our hearts. If only we would open up to 12th century barbarianism, we’d be the better for it.

When do we stop playing by the Muslims’ Rules for Radicals book?

Anyway, Francis is on the road again. Does he learn, like the first Francis, that you cannot appease these people? Let’s see how empathetic he is for victims of Palm Sunday.

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

A Tale Of Two Terms

Two terms I heard in the last week jumped out at me: ‘intellectual atheist’ and ‘intellectually honest.’ Both struck me as very odd.

The first was used in a Christian apologetic, the second was referring to Obama as “intellectually honest.” I think you can imagine why I had a problem with the second. Obama will give his farewell address in Chicago while his allies prematurely billed him as being “intellectually honest.” Really? Calling Obama honest is dishonest.

I thought the first was very strange way to say someone is an academic intellectual while also an atheist. A person who is an atheist has made a choice not to believe in God. The reasons for their decision may vary, but they made that choice.

If it was an intellectually based decision, then it sort of questions intellectual acumen itself. We know that God is the source of wisdom and good, so why would it be intellectual to deny the existence of a Creator? Solomon wrote a lot about his own extensive quandary in Ecclesiastes. He finally determined, after much deliberation, he held a reasoned and obvious belief in a Creator. Using intellectual capacity for the reason of disbelief seems dishonest. Could that person believe in evil?

As to Obama being intellectually honest, I find that illogical and laughable. He has not been honest. That Obama, in his elite arrogance which taints everything he does, is intellectually honest is ludicrous. When radical political ideology determines one’s actions, is that honest? If one is as bitter as Obama when not getting his way, how honest is that? I guess he is true to his arrogance and narcissism, first.

He spewed out so many twisted lies about Trump in making a case for Hillary that he can not stand on honesty. He strategically lied to pass his agenda. Gruber admitted they could only get ACA past the people by lying. Their arguments were intellectually dishonest.

Of course, they don’t want to call him intellectually dishonest. But why try to call Obama “intellectually honest;” a man who sought out the most Marxist of professors in school, and used racism as the basis for any opposition to him? (it’s a lifelong pattern)

So the common denominator in both terms is “intellectual.” Is Obama now going to make the case that the reason for all his arrogance and shortfalls is his intellectual ability? (his intellectual ability to lie) When intellectual ability is used to deceive and undermine truth, is that an honest use of intellectuality? A person can still be an academic intellectual, but if it is used in that way it certainly cannot be honest.

I don’t know if anyone else sees a little similarity between those terms? Just a thought.

RightRing | Bullright

Interesting Trump, Israel factoid

Elijah List

5777: Is Donald Trump a Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar?

Here Are Some Facts… President-elect Donald John Trump Will Be 70 Years, 7 Months, And 7 Days Old On His First Day Of Office. What Are The Chances Of That Happening On The Hebraic Year Of 5777? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up.

Video at: http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word.html?ID=17219

So add a 5000 to that and what do you have?

Now on the Jewish calendar, this is year 5777. Just an interesting tidbit.

Merry Christmas

One from Gene:

CHRISTMAS EVENING
~~
I still believe in Christmas Eve
That Santa Claus tonight will pause
And bring good cheer like every year
A gift he’ll leave on Christmas Eve.
I still believe in Christmas Eve
We know it’s when good will to men
Is sung aloud in every crowd
So this conceive on Christmas Eve.
I still believe in Christmas Eve
Sing Auld Lang Syne for those of mine
And those of yours gone through the doors
Their lives perceive on Christmas Eve.
I still believe in Christmas Eve
When peace and love come from above
The truths are told, our arms enfold
May two hearts weave on Christmas Eve.
~

                                      ©  Just Gene   2006