This is inconvenient

A new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on Friday revealed that homelessness is on the rise in the U.S. and that Democrat-controlled California is the main force behind the overall increase of the homeless population in the United States.

“While the rest of the country experienced a combined decrease in homelessness in 2019, significant increases in unsheltered and chronic homelessness on the West Coast, particularly California and Oregon, offset those nationwide decreases, causing an overall increase in homelessness of 2.7 percent in 2019,” HUD said in a statement. “Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported declines in homelessness between 2018 and 2019, while 21 states reported increases in the number of persons experiencing homelessness. Homelessness in California increased by 21,306 people, or 16.4 percent, which is more than the total national increase of every other state combined.”

The report found that 567,715 persons experienced homelessness on a single night in 2019, which was an increase of nearly 15,000 thousand people from the previous year.

Regarding the CT Op-Ed

“Political Christianity can't attach itself to left or right. 

It parts ways with a right that disdains social justice.

It part ways with a left that imagines social justice can be achieved without regard for man's final end.”

I thought the biggest flaw in the CT Op-Ed was failing to acknowledge that the attachment of Christianity to politics was that it was one sided on the right.   I’m not totally sure I agree with this simplistic view on social justice, but I think he’s in the ballpark.

I want to dig a little deeper with this.

While I do agree that the evangelical (right wing) church did get to a point that it was focused on personal salvation to the exclusion of engaging on social issues, I believe that there was a moment where this mistake was acknowledged and that there has been a move in the evangelical church to engage with both physical and spiritual needs.   Further, I'm seeing progressive christians continue down the road toward excluding the spiritual even more from the social.    What's interesting is that both extremes failed to grasp that Christianity includes loving God (spiritual) and loving neighbor (physical).    

Where I see a continuing difference is that progressive christians tend toward government solutions for these problems.   The ongoing problem with this approach and a healthy balance is that once care for neighbor is turned over to the government, then the spiritual piece of the puzzle is forcibly removed from the conversation.     

To get back to the CT op-ed, and what it misses, is that as Christians or hope is not in the government, it's not in political candidates, it's in God.  Whenever either side chooses to put more hope in politics than in God, we see problems.   

Mutually exclusive

So, which is it? Live and let live, "knock yourself out..."? 

Or, "This is NOT a Christian song. Period. I have decided."..?

What you see above is a false choice.   The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

The fact is that the song Hallelujah by Cohen is not a song intended to communicate a Christian theology, philosophy, or worldview.  Further, none of the lyrics or themes of the song explicitly references Christmas.  I suspect that if Cohen were asked he’d agree.    That part shouldn’t be controversial.

The question then becomes, is it wise for an individual or a church to incorporate this song in particular, but secular (not explicitly Christian lyrics, themes, or worldview) into personal or corporate worship?    As far as personal worship goes, that’s pretty much up to the individual.   If the song points them to God in a healthy way, then who am I to tell them no?   If someone wants to enjoy a song (or any piece of art), then I say live and let live.     If an individual chooses to worship or engage with God through art that isn’t necessarily Christian, that’s their choice.   But pointing out the reality that the song isn’t Christian doesn’t negate or suggest criticism of the choice.    It’s simply pointing out the reality that a song that uses Biblical language and stories isn’t automatically Christian,   In this specific case, if the song was referred to as Jewish, I wouldn’t quibble, there’s a sense that it’s even sort of Biblical.   But in either case, that’s not specifically Christian.

As far as corporate worship using secular songs or art. I think it depends on context and intent.  But that doesn’t negate the reality that the art isn’t specially Christian.

I’m guessing that if the song in question was Disciple by Slayer, instead of a song that uses Biblical language, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

Impeachment

I haven’t said much about the impeachment for multiple reasons, but there are two things that lead me to believe that this isn’t serious.

1.  The refusal of the senate dems to accept the rules passed 100-0 that controlled the Clinton impeachment trial.

2.  This playing games by passing two vague articles of impeachment, then refusing to send them on to the senate for action.

The first is simply confirming that this is petty and political.   The second indicates both a disdain for constitutional responsibilities, and (seemingly) a strategy designed to play on people’s ignorance of the process.    It’s equivalent to charging someone with a crime, but not following through on the constitutional process of allowing the accused to face their accuser and put forth a defense.

I’m not sure how this’ll play out, but it’d be ironic if this is what gets Trump re elected in 2020.

It’s ironic the DFL expert in impeachment, Noah Feldman, has clarified that Trump hasn’t been impeached until the articles are sent to the senate.

Affirmative Action

The solution proposed to increase the “diversity” for the DNC debates, is to lower the standards for inclusion.   I guess that’ll teach those racist dems.

Silence of the Libs

 So, Cenk Uygur is running for congress, and apparently he's a fan of bestiality and has a problematic history of what seems like inappropriate behavior.    Although Berine did rescind his endorsement, we've really heard nothing from the majority of the political left.   

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-rescinds-endorsement-after-womens-groups-blast-misogynist-cenk-uygur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxp76bwIogQ


Probably some of us have seen the video on social media of the 14 year old boy, brutally attacked for wearing clothing that indicated support of Trump.   I point out that we've probably seen this in Social media because I haven't seen much, if anything, from the mainstream media on this story.   I certainly haven't seen any of the lefty bloggers of social media commentators I follow spend any time on it.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7787635/Florida-school-bus-bullies-pummel-14-year-old-boy-Trump-hat.html

Of course, we have seen the violent protests in the UK after the liberals went down in flames against the CW.



Clearly the left has set up a climate where it's ok to engage in violence against folx on the right, because folx on the right are the functional equivalent of NAZIs, or racists, or evil, and therefore it's appropriate employ an "ends justify the means" strategy to win. 

Anyone who says that nonviolence is an essential tenet of modern political progressiveism is simply  ignoring the reality that we see played out on a regular basis on video.  It's why they make excuses to justify ANTIFA, and remain silent whenever possible on the violence we see from the left.  I’ve been assured for years that there are certain things that are anathema to the left, yet the left seems to increasingly be engaging in exactly those things.    My pointing out the silence on these stories isn’t intended as anything but a note of the hypocrisy of those on the left.   I’ve also made a point of only including stories that have spread beyond the local area.  I’ve never had a problem criticizing folx on the GOP side of things for moral/character failings.    I’m just surprised that the leftists I read aren’t willing to criticize their own with a fraction of the vitriol they unleash on their enemies.

While I'm not sure I totally buy this, it's an interesting look at the back and forth between God's sovreignty and human free will.


https://winteryknight.com/2019/12/12/making-monergism-make-sense-reconciling-divine-sovereignty-and-free-will-2/

Abortion Analogies

Some “celebrity” I’ve never heard of decided that the best analogy she could come up with to justify abortion on demand was the landlord/tenant.   That the baby is a tenant and the mother the landlord.

Superficially this seems apt.   Except that she’s arguing that the tenant should be summarily expelled at the whim or for the convenience of the landlord at any time for any (or no) reason.

The problem is that this isn’t how a landlord/tenant relationship works.   In that relationship there are numerous safeguards to prevent the landlord from summarily ejecting the tenant.   We protect the rights of the tenant, we make it difficult for the landlord to capriciously evict a tenant.   Not only that, but we certainly don’t allow the landlord to dismember the tenant.

What’s amusing is the she probably supports the laws that protect tenants.   She would be outraged if she was kicked out of her rental for no reason.

I’m not sure if it’s just a case of stupidity or the lack of good arguments for unrestricted abortion.

FYI, if you feel the need to tell strangers how happy you are, it might be reasonable to conclude that maybe you aren’t that happy.

The Right Side of History

 For quite some time, those of us who don't wholeheartedly buy into the LGBTQWXYZPDQ agenda have been told that we are on the "wrong side of history" and that the tide of "millennials"  and subsequent generations would submerge would overwhelm us with increasing support for the LGBTQWXYZPDQ agenda.

But a strange thing happened, GLAAD conducted a survey, that gathered data about LGBTQWXYZPDQ acceptance, and found something interesting.    That the jury may still be out on the "right side of history".  

Blaire White wrote an interesting piece which I copied and linked to below.   If you read the piece, you'll understand why Ms White is unlikely to be categorized as a right wing homophobe or anything similar.  

This makes you wonder about people who treat opinion polls as something significant when it comes to things like right and wrong, morality, or the "right side of history".   I'll let Ms Wright give her thoughts rather than add mine.  I also posted the link to the study itself below.






"There appears to be some turbulence ahead for the LGBT community. According to a national survey by GLAAD, LGBT acceptance appears to be declining in America. Interestingly, it’s declining among a group that is often touted as the most accepting and socially “woke”—millennials.
The survey reports that the percentage of young people who reported being “somewhat” or “very” comfortable with LGBT people dropped from 53% to 45%. This is the second year in a row that the number has fallen. While many gay publications have shared this survey and rang the alarm, I’ve yet to see anyone online offer a measured opinion of why this is occurring beyond “ORANGE MAN BAD.”"

"I am a transgender woman and YouTuber who has witnessed LGBT discourse become more extreme and intense year after year. What used to simply be a conversation about marriage equality and treating those who are different than us as equals has become a cultural hailstorm. Our community’s most popular and decorated activists often preach the most extreme of our ideas rather our most practical. Buzzwords and genders are added into the community’s vernacular at such a rate that even I can’t keep up with them. What does that say about someone who is not within the community and their ability to keep pace with the dialogue?"

" I believe it is the T in LGBT (or whatever the current acronym is) that has contributed the most to the erosion of society’s understanding and acceptance of the community at large. When I transitioned 6 years ago, I remember being fearful of receiving rejection because of who I was. Now, I find myself fearful of rejection because of who trans activists have led the general public to believe I am. The push for 5-year-olds to transition, mandatory dating of trans people (unless you want to be called a bigot), and forced acceptance of biological males destroying female athletes in sports are among the most toxic ideas pushed by trans activists in 2019. As a trans woman myself, I believe none of them but often find myself anxious when meeting new people that they may think I do as a default."

"To be clear, these are also all ideas that are incompatible with the general public. It is society’s natural inclination to protect children and women. So why is it that the trans community has made it their mission to brand themselves as something that at best disregards the harm to both children and women and at worst willingly inflicts it? If this is the route the community insists on going down, I don’t see much hope at all. I expect the decline of acceptance to continue.
There is an LGBT fatigue that has fallen on many in society that is a direct result of the constant bullying, shaming, and virtue signalling that comes out of the community—or at least, the activists that are placed on a pedestal to speak on our behalf. As the GLAAD survey reveals, it is particularly millennials who feel this fatigue the strongest. Millennials tend to be the most plugged into the culture war, so it only makes sense that many are beginning to question—what if this LGBT thing is derailing a bit? Why must I be forced to accept drag queens teaching sex ed to my children, and why am I feeling my heart race at the mere thought of questioning or challenging it publicly?
At some point, the community is going to have to address the overreach and bad ideas we are currently spouting. I am personally exhausted with all of it, but hey—all I can do is continue to try to sound the alarm myself."

 https://www.thepostmillennial.com/this-is-the-reason-why-lgbt-acceptance-is-declining/

https://www.glaad.org/releases/annual-glaad-study-shows-further-decline-lgbtq-acceptance-among-younger-americans

Polling data

“New axios poll, which is a far left pollster, has Trump beating every Democrat in the key Battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, by an average of 6 points. Keep in mind that this is with oversampling Democrats.”

“Poll: Impeachment is helping Trump in 3 key battleground states”

Axios.com

How pathetic is it that the DFL can’t our poll the least appealing GOP president in the last 100 years.   

The namesake of my blog

Every so often, I check in on the person my blog is named after.  Briefly, when I first started reading blogs, Mr Shuck was afraid to allow commenters on his blog who didn't have a blogger account.  So, I created one and ended up writing much more than I ever thought I would.

So, when I went to Mr. Shuck's blog today, I was greeted with his final sermon at the PCUSA church that has employed him most recently.  While light on details, it appears that he is being involuntarily separated from his position as "Minister of Word and Sacrament".   I have no idea what drove them to this point.  Clearly it was fine with them to employ someone who denied the existence of God, the divinity of Christ and virtually every other Christian doctrine.    Perhaps his apparent foray into Islam was the final straw.

As I read his final sermon, I was struck by how a self described atheist,   continues to cling to the terminology of the very thing he denies the existence of.   He talks of a "Reign of Divine Values", while denying the existence of The Divine.   He talks of prayer, while denying the existence of someone to pray to.  

It will be interesting to follow Shuck's descent further into apostasy, but I'm impressed that there is a line that a PCUSA church will hold fast to.









https://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/2019/11/final-sermon-at-southminster-reign-of.html

Keaton Hill

I’ve now seen multiple videos of this idiot physically and verbally attacking conservatives, yet it seems as though he’s pretty much protected from consequences,    I’d love to see Dan do the research and specifically denounce this scumbag.  I guess being gay and liberal protects you from all sorts of thing.

I've been told

I've been told that if I'd just spend more time listening to POC that I'll end up with some sort of undefined benefit.  Now, what I think that that when these folx say POC, they reall mean "POC who agree with me and share my political views".   So what I do is to talk to POC regardless of any preconceived notions about their views on politics or anything else.

Now, in doing so I'm confronted by this excerpt from a blog post by Wintery Knight, quoting Walter E. Williams, neither of whom are white.  Further, they refer to a recent study.  (we know how much certain folx like studies with data).   

If the past repeats itself, I'll be told that these particular POC don't count, are racist, are Uncle Toms, or some other reason why they don't count, yet they represent what appears to be a growing segment of the black population.   (Recent polls show Trump support at 34% among blacks)

So, with that, here we go.

https://winteryknight.com/2019/12/04/economist-asks-whether-policies-of-white-liberals-will-protect-blacks-from-crime/

Let’s… turn to a recent article by Heather Mac Donald, who is a senior fellow at the New York-based Manhattan Institute. She is a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author. Her most recent article, “A Platform of Urban Decline,” which appeared in Manhattan Institute’s publication Eye On The News, addresses race and crime. She reveals government statistics you’ve never read before.
According to leftist rhetoric, whites pose a severe, if not mortal, threat to blacks. Mac Donald says that may have once been true, but it is no longer so today. To make her case, she uses the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization. Mac Donald writes: “According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That ratio is becoming more skewed, despite the Democratic claim of Trump-inspired white violence. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites; whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.”
There are other stark figures not talked about often. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting for 2018, of the homicide victims for whom race was known, 53.3% were black, 43.8% were white and 2.8% were of other races. In cases where the race of the offender was known, 54.9% were black, 42.4% were white, and 2.7% were of other races.

So, what are the policies proposed to protect blacks from being the victims of crime? Well, there are three.

1. white liberals want to encourage black women to raise fatherless children by normalizing sex before marriage, and paying black women to have children outside of marriage.
2. white liberals want to confiscate the weapons that law-abiding blacks use to defend themselves from criminals.
3. white liberals want to deny blacks school choice, trapping them into failing schools so that they can’t get out of dangerous neighborhoods by rising in education, career and finance.

No, it’s not a joke.

Someone with a penis and testicles is upset because a gynecologist won’t schedule an appointment for them.    Apparently they think it’s a good idea to get medical treatment from a Dr. that most likely hasn’t had any relevant experience with this person’s genitalia since med school.  

It’s like something trying to schedule an appointment with an ophthalmologist to have their heart looked at,

Or, it’s just an excuse for a lawsuit.

The party of white folx

The next DFL debate is only between white people.   The majority of these white people are old and male.

Which party has the race problem?

“No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic. 

The implicit racism and sexism of "electability" is deeply damaging to democracy.”

Leah Greenberg

Guess that racist

“The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man."

 "They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro."

 "The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros, and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked, or deceived by the white liberal then Negros would get together and solve our own problems."

Unrelated

I'm going to combine two unrelated posts into one, because.

1.  I'm in the middle of reading the McCullough biography of Truman, and was watching Thanksgiving episodes of West Wing last night, and I realized something that bears on our current political situation.    I realized that whether in fiction or in real life the "quid pro quo" is part of virtually all aspects of the presidency.  Especially the executive branch and more especially foreign policy.     WWII was literally ended with a quid pro quo, "If you surrender unconditionally, we'll stop bombing you".     It makes me wonder why more presidents haven’t been impeached.

2.   Thanksgiving day, in OK.   A patrol officer stops into a local Starbucks and orders coffee for the people working as dispatchers on the holiday.    When he looks at the spot on the cup where a name should be, his reads “Pig”.     For all the crap that people on the right take for all sorts of things, I’ll be willing to bet that this flies under the radar and is met with silence from the left.

Quote

“"[Satan] wants us to laugh at sin rather than mourn over it, and to rationalize it rather than confess it and bring it to the Lord for forgiveness. He seduces us to become so used to sin in us and around us that it no longer bothers our conscience." 

Apocalypse when?

"Show me anyone-anyone!-ho acts like the planet has 12 years to avert the apocalypse.  No one ACTS like it which means that no one BELIEVES it.  Climate change is an obvious political racket!"


I'm not sure I totally agree with this, but the actions of people who push this agenda certainly don't match their predictions.   It'd be a lot easier to take these folx seriously if they were living like they really believed this.

Just think about

Just think about what you stand to lose if you don't eat Romaine lettuce from Salinas CA.

How to

If you’re Forbes magazine and you want to piss of a bunch of progressives, here’s a suggestion.     Tweet a link to your article about Bezos donating 98.5 million dollars to help the homeless.  It’s like throwing chum into the middle of a feeding frenzy.   I’ve never seen people so pissed at such generosity.  

????

It seems as though renaming incest as GSA (genetic sexual attraction) might be the first step in it going mainstream.

Not

I know it's been asserted that some people are "good" and that they can be identified by the visible portion of some of the actions they engage in.

If that's the case, then by the same criteria some people are indisputably vile.

Good People

It's been asserted that it's possible to tell which people are "good people" by observing some of their public behavior.  If this is true, then it should be easy to come up with a list of good people, right?  It's just a random list, I'll probably add as I think of more.

I'll start a list and y'all can vote good/not good if you want.   I'm sticking to people who are in the public sphere, because putting Uncle Bob would be stupid.

Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
John Adams
Alexander Hamilton
Dwight Eisenhower
Harry Truman
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Thatcher
Joan of Arc
Ghandi
John Perkins
Martin Luther King Jr
John Knox
Jonathan Edwards
Golda Mier
Margaret Sanger
Charles Darwin
Billy Graham
Clarence Thomas
JFK
Madonna
Katy Perry
Taylor Swift
Martin Luther
Mother Theresa
John Paul II
Jeffery Epstein
John Wayne
Marilyn Monroe
Hugh Hefner
Nelson Mandela
Che Guevera
Neil Armstrong
Coretta Scott King
Malala
Michelle Obama
Helen Keller
Anne Frank
Princess Diana
Marie Curie
Anne Richards
Anne Graham Lotz
Joni Earickson Tada
Tammy Baker
Joanna Gaines
Vera Mae Perkins
Kanye West
Kim Kardashian
Mia Khalifa
Dana Loesch
Allie Stuckey



That's plenty for now.

Un update and reality check.

Wintery Knight,

Takes a look at how Britain"s first married gay couple is doing.  Because we all know that gay marriage is exactly like  non gay marriage, except for the gay part.   That gay's just want to live and let live in happy monogamy "until death parts" them. 


https://winteryknight.com/2019/11/18/lets-check-in-on-britains-first-married-gay-couple-and-see-how-theyre-doing/

Heaven

I've been thinking a lot about the notion of Heaven recently.  As well as the concept of the Kingdom of God and what those sorts of things look like.   This video was shared with me a while ago, and I like the way that it approaches the notion of the sphere of God, the sphere of man, and how they relate and overlap.   I like the idea that the spheres were created to occupy the same space, but that they became separated.  After Jesus, we see some overlap, that there is a space where God's sphere and our sphere meet, as it were.  But that the ultimate goal is the final reconciliation of and restoration of the original creation. 

I'm sure that, like every attempt to explain the nature of the Kingdom of God, it's not perfect.  Having said that, I think that talking about "going to heaven when we die", doesn't really capture the entirety of the future and of God's redemptive plan.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy2AQlK6C5k

Believe

"Believe in climate change as if it's a religion, and not a science."

Mazie Hirono

KH

I’m not necessarily a Kamala Harris supporter, but I keep seeing headlines that her campaign is failing because of some combination of racism and sexism from the voters.

Or, to put it another way, DFL primary voters are too racist and/or sexist to support a black woman.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the front runners are all old, rich, and white.

Well, y’all got one Hispanic to drop out and cut another from the debate.  Just getting whiter and older.

Please elect stupid

“Q: Where do those who work in health insurance go when private insurance is eliminated?

Sen. Warren: "No one gets left behind. Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance. In life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance."”

Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?

Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?

Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?

Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?

If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?

Trans Phobia on display?

 Homosexuals won recognition of their rights because, ultimately, the rest of society changes very little in allowing gays to marry, hold jobs, & be free from harassment/violence. It’s a stable movement because heterosexual people didn’t have to radically alter their lives for us. 

The gender movement is an inverted movement. Rather than basic protections common to all people, members of the mvmt are demanding that all of society make radical changes to policy, personal habits, language, parenting, professional (inc. medical & scientific) practice, & more. 

Homosexuals asked that we be allowed what everyone is allowed — That we can marry the (adult, consenting, unrelated) person of our choosing, that we can raise our children, keep our jobs. We asked for inaction in the form of not seeking to punish us for our personal lives. 

The gender movement is demanding that we convert to their ideology and practice their beliefs. You can employ a gay person without voicing moral agreement with them. But current non-discrimination practices for trans employees demand you live as though you share their beliefs. 

This is an unstable movement because it will never not require brute social and political force to maintain. There’s nothing organic about using pronouns that conflict with natural speech. There’s nothing sustainable about asking every person you meet how they “identify.” 

& the gender movement is demanding far more than any true human rights movement in history has. We’re meant to enact scientific & medical practices that aren’t evidence-based. We’re being told to compromise our privacy, our sexual practices, our religious beliefs. 

It’s distressing in the short term and unsustainable in the long term. People won’t accept this indefinitely. It will be torn down, along with every movement that’s being falsely associated with it. This will hurt gay rights, and disability rights, and women’s rights. 

The modern era of social justice thrives on upheaval, & I understand why. It’s thrilling to see old institutions come down. The feeling of seemingly unmovable objects being moved... It feels like anything is possible. But history shows us that not all societal shift is positive. 

Never in history has forcing a population to practice a belief system against their will been a positive change.

Violating freedom of thought, speech, association, assembly — that has never indicated progress toward justice. 

I never believed in gender — this idea that “man” and “woman” are internal feelings separate from chromosomal and reproductive sex. But I supported trans people anyway, because I didn’t feel required to agree with them. I didn’t feel required to submit to their doctrine. 

I used the pronouns to be polite, and because those pronouns weren’t the loaded prospects they’ve become.

But now there’s this “gotcha” quality to it, as if “she” = trans women are women = literally biologically female = all rights are now gender- rather than sex-based. 

I feel betrayed by this movement. As a lesbian, I advocated for trans rights along with my own. Now trans “lesbians” march in opposition to me and my sisters. They demand our resources, our spaces, our platforms, our emotional energy. They demand access to our bodies. 

But I said “she,” & that’s supposed to make the rest of it okay.

So I don’t do the pronouns anymore.

For me, individually, the demands of the movement were unsustainable, and I had to withdraw my support. And other people will do. Every day, more people are. 

But those demands won’t go away. We can’t wait for or expect that.

What we must do is make clear - loudly and often - that homosexuals, women, the disabled - we are NOT asking for people who believe differently than us to affirm us by living as if they agree. 

Feminism is a stable movement. And so is gay rights, and disability rights. We seek to live as ourselves without forfeiting our human rights. That’s all we’ve ever asked for. Society can give us that without infringing on the rights of others. It’s the right thing to do. 

The gender mvmt isn’t limiting itself to protection of human rights. It’s demanding society assist the transgender person in feeling secure about themselves by transitioning our own speech, beliefs, & personal practices.

Freedom from emotional insecurity isn’t a human right. 

We must stop this now and carve out reasonable, respectful protections for both trans-identfied and gender-nonconforming people, protections that don’t infringe on the rights of others or damage our society’s progress in medicine, science, basic human equality, and the law. 

If we, the left, the moderates, the libertarians - & anyone else who believes in universal human rights protections - if we don’t take control of this and resume the fight for APPROPRIATE rights for people of ALL gender expression, collapse of multiple movements is inevitable. 

No one, aside from the most fervent believers in gender, is impressed by the turn this situation has taken. We look like proof that allowing us our rights was a bad idea.

We’re endangering basic liberties like medical decision-making & parental rights for the sake of pronouns. 

The protections we ask for must allow for belief systems other than our own. They must consider the rights of groups we don’t belong to.

We do not have the right to punish people for disagreeing with us, or for saying so.

We do not have the right to compel or stop speech. 

And don’t come at me with “freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence.” To a large degree, that is EXACTLY what freedom of speech is.

You know how speech is repressed under oppressive regimes? With CONSEQUENCES. 

The gender movement is a movement without perspective or empathy. It disdains compromise & ignores any interests it doesn’t share. Because no group (except maybe women) will work against its own interests indefinitely, the gender movement will fail.

I refuse to go down with it. 

This is a lengthy Twitter thread by a woman named Lara Adams-Miller.  Her bio describes her as a "Writer, lesbian, mother, biological healthcare professional, domestic violence and sex trade survivor, MH reformist, gender free".

I have no reason  doubt her characterization of herself.  

This is a great example of how the group identity politics of the Left appears to be self defeating.  

Interesting Article

I don't always think that CT is quite what it used to be, but I thought that this article was interesting.



https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/early-church-thrived-amid-secularism-we-can-too.html

Straw men and proof

I'm noticing a trend recently.  More and more frequently I'll see someone construct their version of someone else's position, then proceed to argue against the made up version, rather than the real version.   I understand why this happens.  It could be anything from simple laziness to intentional falsehood.  Ultimately it happens because it's easy.  It's just easier to construct a straw man and dismember him, than it is to do the research and argue against reality.  What's surprising is that people somehow think that this sort of thing is persuasive or effective.    When the entire premise that you are building from is false, then who cares how brilliantly the false premise is demolished.

This is frequently accompanied by demands for proof.   Yet how often do those who demand proof, fail to provide proof.  Hell, they usually can't even define what the level of proof they demand is.   This is usually accompanied by a lack of subjecting themselves or those they agree with to a similar level of skepticism.

The classic instance of this is, "Prove that Julius Caesar existed?" 

The reality is that it's virtually impossible to prove to a 100% certainty that he existed.  Yet, virtually no one denies his existence.  

This demand for proof, doesn't seem to be coming from a sincere desire to gain knowledge, but rather from a position of obfuscation.

I guess I'd just say that if you're going to demand that others provide proof, then you should define he standard of proof you expect and be prepared to respond in kiind.

I'm not a fan

I'm not a fan of either Kanye West or Kim Kardashian.    I certainly respect the fact that they've been able to have success, but not much else.

However, there's been some buzz recently about Kanye's turn to Christianity.   As with other celebrity "conversions", I am hopeful that this is a real thing and that Kanye actually has turned himself over to God, yet I remain skeptical at this point.

Recently there's been some controversy over Kanye's comments about Kim and her willingness to put her scantily clad, or unclad, body out for every one to see.   Some would argue that this is her brand, and they aren't wrong.

Kanye's problem is that he's reached the conclusion that maybe some aspects of the people involved in a marriage should be only between them as a couple.  That by posting these pictures, she's sharing a part of the marriage that maybe shouldn't be public. 

As a Christian, I'm sympathetic to his position.   But, I think that in a world where porn, hacked naked pictures, and lingerie pictures are literally available instantly that Kanye has touched on a relevant question.   On the one hand, this could be looked at as a question to be answered by individual couples for their individual marriages.   But, on the other it seems like there might be some "best practices' for those who are married.  

I'm not trying to make this about "you must follow my rules' or anything like that, I'm merely suggesting that there is a worthwhile conversation to be had about what constitutes a marriage (especially a marriage between Christians) and what things people might avoid in order to give their marriage the best chance for long term success.  Or maybe if the long term success of a marriage is even desirable or valuable?  

I guess I'm always interested when someone raises these sorts of questions in the context of our society.

Judge not.

“This is the generation of “don’t judge me, Jesus loves me.” And while this is true, Jesus loves you so much that He would tell you some of the sin in your life needs to stop because it’s literally killing you. You’d probably feel judged. But that’s true love. That was Jesus.”

For those who are to stupid to figure this out, of course this applies to me.   To assume that it wouldn’t Is simply prejudice filtered through stupidity.

Life

“A fertilized egg is alive, though.  But life isn't particularly remarkable.  Life is chemistry.”

I wonder why we as a society don’t value human life particularly highly.    I wonder what kinds of behavior this attitude might lead to.

Wealth and Trust

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"

 
This is one of the instances where Jesus is quite clear in sending the message that people who are trustworthy over whatever they have been given (in most of the examples He uses it's money), will be given more because of their trustworthiness.


We see the same theme in Matthew 25 (the part most progressives ignore).

"
¹⁴ “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. ¹⁵ To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,^[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. ¹⁶ The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. ¹⁷ So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. ¹⁸ But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
¹⁹ “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
²¹ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²² “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
²³ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²⁴ “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. ²⁵ So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
²⁶ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? ²⁷ Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
²⁸ “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. ²⁹ For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. ³⁰ And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"

It's quite clear that the man (God) is rewarding His servants for increasing His wealth, while punishing the one servant for failing to increase His wealth.   



It seems that to simply take these teaching as a woodenly literal condemnation of  "money" or "wealth" is to miss the point.

I sat in a CE class the other day where the teacher was talking about how race based real estate covenants have denied people of certain races that ability to accumulate and increase generational wealth.   It seems like one side of the progressive tribe is advocating for increasing wealth (as do most of the folks doing micro lending), while another side is decrying wealth as bad.   

Just one more interesting progressive paradox.


Oh, and just one more instance of the progressives ignoring a seemingly clear reference to a Hell where people are in discomfort.

 

What

What does it say about people whose only responses are limited to straw men, ad hominems, and attributing their own behavior to others?

Apparent Contradiction

A friend of mine who is heavily involved in the “midwife” culture locally has a post on social media that’s interesting.

The post reads..,

“If you’ve had a miscarriage, you’re still a mother.”

Now I agree with her completely, but can’t help but not the fact that this contradicts abortion orthodoxy.    

What’s really interesting is that there is a 100% chance that she’ll vote for the DFL presidential candidate, who will certainly favor abortion after fetal viability.    I wonder if she’ll even notice the apparent contradiction.

Kill a cop, save a life.

We, once more, see the true colors of the tolerant, inclusive, pacifist, turn the streets of Minneapolis into a scene filled with flames, violence, and threats to the lives of the police.  

When will we see this behavior condemned?

At the same time we see the Irish Hispanic threatening to selectively pull the tax exempt status from churches, synagogues, and mosques, who don’t knuckle under to his demands.

I never thought I’d say this, but as I watch the left go insane, I’m considering compromising my principles and voting for Trump.  

I’m probably not representative of a significant number of voters, but if I am, the DFL has no one to thank but themselves if I do.

Unintended Consequences

Often we’re the victim of unintended consequences, we think we’re doing one thing when something we thought was in our favor isn’t.

For example, if you approach scripture backwards there might be some unintended consequences.   If you approach scripture by looking for support for your opinions you might find something that seemingly supports one position you hold, while contradicting other positions you hold, it doesn’t seem to be a helpful exercise.  

Further, if you have to read something into the text that isn’t actually there, that also doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

Maybe it’s better to start with what the scriptural text says, and try to follow that where it leads, instead of starting with a point you’re trying to prove and pulling scriptures to “prove” that you’re right.

I know it may not be a popular view anymore, but maybe it’s best to align ourselves with scripture rather than the reverse.

Classy

Class isn’t a word you normally think about in relationship to politics or social media.  But Ellen showed a tremendous amount of class when the liberal Twits attacked her for being friendly with GWB.    If you go back a few years and peruse the archives of various blogs, you’ll find that not all liberals are capable of that much class relating to Bush.

So, to Ellen and George W, well done.   Stay classy.


“Notice no one on the right, no Evangelical Christian leader, is mad at George W. Bush for being friends with Ellen because she's gay. “

Why

Why is Ilhan Omar in such a hurry to file for divorce?

Why is she so impatient that she’s filing her divorce from Burkina Faso?

Why is she in Burkina Faso?

Does anyone know how Islam treats divorce?

Why does Elizabeth Warren get to lie with impunity?

How is performing an ultrasound on a pregnant woman akin to bullying?  

Isn’t an ultrasound part of normal medical care?

Sometimes Twitter isn’t crap

“There is an ugly dualism emerging within evangelicalism wherein some professing Christians are exhorting their brethren to pursue justice, while at the same time judging them for not doing so according to their subjective visage of what that pursuit of justice must look like. Pursuing justice begins with a proper hermeneutic of what justice is. Justice is not an arbitrary, man-conceived ideal. It is borne from the character and nature of God. As such, justice must be understood as God defines it and pursued as God dictates, not as society dictates. To whatever degree some Christians may be less vociferous or demonstrative than others concerning matters of biblical justice, it should never be interpreted as insensitivity, apathy, or passivity. For only an omniscient God knows the motives of a person's heart (Psalm 44:21). Apart from an understanding that justice, as a principle, originates within the nature and character of God, the pursuit of justice can easily become idolatry. It becomes idolatry when we judge the motives and intentions of others, thereby putting ourselves in the place of God. God is sovereign over all that happens in His world (Psalm 103:19) including the injustices that He providentially ordains (Lamentations 3:38). Scripture declares that the perfect and indefectible justice of a holy God will not always be a reality in this sinful and fallen world. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:24 (NASB), "The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after." Ultimately, justice belongs to God, not to us. It is God's standard of justice that His people should pursue, not our own standard. In doing so, however, one must resist the temptation to judge or condemn those brothers and sisters who happen to not be as outspoken or effusive as they (as if that were somehow indicative of what is in their hearts.) Silence should never be presumed to be indifference.”

Darrell B Harrison 

Forgivness

We've all seen the video by now.  The brother of a murdered man forgiving and embracing the woman who killed him and expressing a desire that she find Jesus.

The initial response was that this guy was amazing.  Much like the Amish community that forgave the man who killed a number of their children, this guy was truly demonstrating God's love and forgiveness to a woman who had wronged him greatly.

But hold on.  The woke, progressive, liberal, christians, just couldn't let this outrage stand.   This guy, who was presumably acting from the best of motives.  Who was expressing his grief in a way that was his.  (As someone who's lost a lot of family members recently, I've come to appreciate the importance of not criticizing how others grieve or react to tragedy.)  Is now the target of all sorts of attacks.   It's been turned into a racial issue, a religious issue, a justice issue, and all sorts of things.

What it hasn't been, from those on the left, is an issue of comforting of someone in grief.   Of allowing one individual to express his sorrow, loss, and grief, in his own way.

For a bunch of folx who claim to be inclusive, tolerant, loving, etc, y'all sure screwed this one up. 

Heartless.

PS

The FFRF apparently feels that this was so horrible that the court record must not be stained with the taint of anything that remotely offends their sense of propriety.

Heartless.

When science and liberal orthodoxy clash, guess who wins?

https://winteryknight.com/2019/10/02/survey-of-scientific-literature-finds-that-children-need-their-mom-for-first-3-years-3/



Let's not forget, these are the flx for whom "science denier" is an insult.

Impeachment

If perjury isn’t a definitive enough reason to impeach a president, I’m not sure what is.   But, if y’all are going to impeach, then go for it.    The question in this post is if an actual crime isn’t enough, then does the DFL have the evidence to actually get a conviction, and do they have the spine to actually do something.   It’s clearly easier to just throw accusations around to the point where it seems bad.  It’s something else entirely to actually go through the process.

Personally, I think the push to impeach this close to an election season might indicate fear that the DNC candidate might lose again.   I’d think that pursuing a strategy that is only going to be divisive isn’t smart, but what do I know.   I’d think the easy answer would be to just find a good center-left candidate and win the election.  But maybe this is a better option.

I’ve been up front for years that I’m fine with Pence as president and that the left will be just as nasty to him as they’ve been to Trump.    I’m just getting tired of the posturing.

If you think you’ve got enough to impeach, then let’s see the evidence.   Instead we’re seeing the DFL engaging in a virtual impeachment.   Essentially just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

If y’all can’t come up with a candidate that can beat this horrible human being, maybe the problem isn’t just Trump.

Any Thoughts?

Any thoughts on whether or not we should chemically castrate sex offenders?

I just saw something on FB that talked about how various statistics are reported affect perception.

For example we quantify how many women were raped, not how many men tape women.
We talk about how many women or girls were harassed, not how many men or boys did the harassing.
We talk about how many women got pregnant, not how many men impregnated them.   Personally I think this isn’t in the same category as the others, but I understand the point.

I agree that we need to talk about both sides of those statistics, that it’s important to know how many men are responsible for these behaviors.

My thought/question regards what conclusions we draw from those statistics.

Let’s say that 100 women were raped, yet there were only 30 rapists.    Does that change the narrative?    I suspect that it’s not a 1:1 ratio.   That the men who engage in these horrible behaviors (rose and harassment anyway) probably assault multiple women and that pointing that out might actually minimize the effect of pointing out total tapes/assaults.

I suspect the problem with ascertaining the accurate numbers sought is that there are likely a number of rapes/assaults where the perpetrator goes unidentified.  

I agree with not using the stats to make women seem passive, but I don’t think you want people focused on the (possibly) smaller number of perpetrators to the exclusion of the larger number of victims.

Literally

I’m not the first to point this out, but it’s interesting when people who are critical of those who claim to take scripture literally, claim that they are taking a particular scripture literally.

For example, if you’re going to claim that you are taking one of the Gospels “literally”, how do you then take parts of that gospel not literally?   It seems as though the individual Gospels don’t lend themselves to being subdivided into literal/not literal.

To be clear, when I refer to taking scripture literally, I mean that we take things as they were intended.     For example, a Biblical literalist would argue that parables are literally parables and should be interpreted as such.    In other words a literalist approach, acknowledges that figurative language and style is figurative.

Back to the point.   If you are going to take the Gospels “literally”, (and as factual history told in a more modern sense), how exactly do you deal with the stuff you can’t “prove”?    How do you decide that “demon possessed” equals what we’d call mentally ill?  How do you take “gave a blind man his sight”, to mean that Jesus provided some sort of 1st century medical treatment?

I could be wrong, but it seems like applying a presuppositional naturalism to scripture means that you have to assume that the Gospel writers are either lying, stupid, hoodwinked, or brainwashed.    But doesn’t that supposition call into question the entirety of their writings?  

It ultimately comes down to who Jesus was, and was He trustworthy?   Or, are we required to find a naturalistic explanation for certain events?  

I don’t know how we should handle this

We’ve been told for quite a while now that the people who choose not to go through the proper, legal channels to enter the US shouldn’t be punished or deported, but instead should be welcomed.

Well after the uptick in illegal immigrants sexually assaulting minors in a sanctuary county in MD, we see a gentleman who crossed the border illegally who’s been convicted of sexual assault.    That’s right, he’s a convicted felon, surely he should be summarily deported, shouldn’t he?

If someone said this to Dan,

“How’d you sleep last night? How’s your dream? You mother looked cute. I’d hate for your mother to become yet another victim of gun violence followed by your siblings and...”

“Exactly. You’ll hear the news soon. Just you wait. If i don’t do it soon someone else will for me. Purpose of the tweet to locate them. I’m sure they’ve been waiting to be incited.”


...he’d be apoplectic.   But since it was said to a 17 year old, outspoken, black conservative it’ll most likely be ignored.  

I seriously doubt Dan would even bother to mention it, let alone criticize the writer.

Swimming lessons

“Every religion is giving swimming lessons to drowned men. The techniques vary, but the instructors stay together, safe in the boat. Except one. He alone dives in. He alone submerges. He alone saves.”

An unusual perspective

 I'm not sure how to take this, but there are certainly some interesting things to consider.



https://winteryknight.com/2019/09/25/does-global-warming-alarmism-cause-mass-shootings-of-immigrants-by-eco-terrorists/

Lenses

I’ve been told that the only proper way to interpret scripture is to look at it through a “Jesus lens”.   That we must interpret the entire OT through the red letters in the NT.    But this seems to ignore a couple of things.  

1.   That Jesus spoke in and through the OT.   Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, is for all intents and purposes speaking the words attributed to YHWH.    

Clearly if you deny that Jesus is the the Logos spoken of in John, or that Jesus is the eternally existent  second person of the triune God, you won’t agree with this,

2.   Very often when Jesus spoke in the red letters, he starts by saying something like “It is written...”, then He proceeds to quote the OT.   At His temptation, “It is written...”, His first appearance in the synagogue He quotes Isaiah 61:1.     Which raises the question, if Jesus so frequently referenced the OT on matters of importance, is it possible that we should view Jesus through the lens of the OT instead of the other way around?

I’m also curious about Jesus use of Isiah 61:1.    If we’re to accept that He meant v.1 in a wooden literal way, does that mean that He was implying that all of chapter 61 should be treated the same way?

If the answer is no, why the arbitrary cut off?
If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t that change Jesus message?

We have to remember that it’s likely that His audience would have known the entire passage and it seems possible that they could have finished the prophecy in their minds.

It just seems odd that in so many important instances Jesus referred back to Jewish scripture, maybe that’s more important than we might think.