Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part III

/in , , , /by

Part III of an article designed to answer the question: “Is homosexuality sinful?”

Objection: The Old Testament’s objections pertaining to homosexuality were documented when the earth was still in need of being populated. That’s not the case now, so same sex marriages are permissible. Overruled: The issue isn’t the number of people on the planet, rather it’s the issue of disobeying God’s Instructions (a.k.a. sin).

Sin is against God. The number of people your rebellion affects, while that does matter, is subordinate to the fact that you’ve rebelled against your Heavenly Father. The fact that there were less people in the world when the Pentateuch was written has no bearing on the substance of the moral law that God laid down. If we were to extend the logic of this argument to its inevitable conclusion, then murder wouldn’t be as much of a problem because there are more people today than when God first said, “Thou shalt not kill.” The issue is sin and not the number of people that sin may or may not affect. A great verse to consider when you’re looking for a good example on how to process wrongdoing in general is 2 Samuel 12:13:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam 12:13)

The prophet Nathan had just confronted King David with the fact that he had committed adultery and murder. David killed a man in order to cover up the fact that he had slept with his wife. Bound up within that one scandal, you had two capital offenses (see Lev 20:10; 24:17). Yet, David doesn’t respond according to the way in which a convicted felon might agonize over the manner of justice that’s about to be handed down by the courts, or how his actions affected the surviving family members of his victim. Rather, David responds by acknowledging that his actions, while they are crimes that will be processed and punished by human institutions, they are first and foremost sins against God. However sin pollutes and contaminates an otherwise innocent and healthy situation in a physical sense, it is in the spiritual realm where sin is first registered. Look at these verses:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord. (Gen 13:13)

No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? (Gen 39:9 [Joseph explaining to Potiphar’s wife that the compromise she was encouraging him to make would be registered, not only as a sin against his master, but more importantly, against God.])

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (Ps 51:3-4)

Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. (Lk 15:18 [The confession the Prodigal Son made to his father upon his return.])

Matthew Henry offers some great commentary on this Truth:

That it was committed against God. To him the affront is given, and he is the party wronged. It is his truth that by wilful sin we deny, his conduct that we despise, his command that we disobey, his promise that we distrust, his name that we dishonour, and it is with him that we deal deceitfully and disingenuously. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Psalm 51)

The substance of sin cannot be dismissed by suggesting that because a particular act affected only a few, that it’s no longer categorized as wrongdoing. Granted, the sins of those in Sodom are referenced throughout Scripture as being especially significant in that their acts were not only twisted, they were also blatant (see Is 3:9). And while some want to insist that God loves the sinner and hates the sin, fact is there are some who have worn out their welcome and God allows them to experience the full extent of the consequences their chosen depravity produces (see Ps 11:5; Rom 1:18-32). But the point is that regardless of the intensity of a person’s sin, it is sin and it is an offense against God. The argument that homosexuality is not an issue anymore because an abundance of human offspring is no longer a priority, leaves out the fact that homosexuality is a sin because it is first an affront to God. Whatever dynamics are produced from a human standpoint are secondary to the fact that it is God Who is offended and that is the determining factor. Avoiding sin translates to a quality life Throughout Scripture, you’ve got a formula:

Obedience to God = Blessing | Rebellion Against God = Trouble

First off, if you love God then obedience is expected (see Jn 14:21). Someone who claims to love God, yet maintains a consistent pattern of disobedience to God’s commands falls under the category described in 1 John 3:6:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)

Being obedient isn’t always easy. You see that struggle described in Romans 7 where Paul elaborates on the constant tension that exists between the obvious good represented by being obedient to God’s Leadership and the pointless mirage of seemingly logical and attractive options provided by one’s sinful nature. But while it isn’t easy, it’s more than do-able and the payoff makes the effort more than worth it. The key is to simply let Christ work in and through you:

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ…13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live…(Rom 8:9, 13)

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil 2:13)

To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me. (Col 1:29 [see also Heb 13:20-21])

However attractive or insignificant sin may appear to be, or however trivial a certain sinful behavior seems, it’s counterproductive to the success and prosperity we all long for (see Josh 1:8). So rather than trying to justify it, the smart play is to simply recognize it for what it is and avoid it altogether. To proceed to Part IV click here…

Apologizing to a Fool

/in , , , /by

How do you handle someone who insists that you have hurt their feelings, despite the fact that you’ve done nothing wrong?

It seems to me that there’s more to that kind of situation than what some insist is a blanket command to “confess your sins to one another,” in order to fulfill the biblical command to be Christlike.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24)

OK, but if your brother, in this case, is a fool that’s trying to leverage a situation in a way that doesn’t so much help him recover from being wounded, as much as it helps him promote his agenda, that’s not someone who wants an apology, that’s someone who wants power.

In that instance, you want to ensure you’re applying the whole of God’s Word, and not just those portions than can be manipulated in a way where the end result falls short of the Truth.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (Prov 26:4)

If I’m talking to a fool, I’m interacting with a person who’s not hurting as much as they’re hunting for opportunities to conceal their true purpose by posing as someone who’s in pain.

I’m not being Christlike by endorsing a sinful perspective. I’m being complicit, which is neither wise nor obedient.

 

Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?

/in , , , , /by

That was the question on quora. com.

Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.

But this was my response…

It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”

There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).

And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).

One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.

You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.

It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”

Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.

Bad Bunny

/in , , /by

A pastor posted his “struggle” in trying to identify which half time show represented the more Christlike response to the tension created by selecting Bad Bunny as the half time show artist.

This was my response…

Let me get this straight: You’re “struggling” to figure out if the TPUSA half time show option represented more of a Christlike response to the NFL that chose for its half time artist a guy who sings this particular song:

He’s acting like she doesn’t know me (Like she doesn’t know me; no, no, no)
But in my bed, I gave it to her on all fours and in all the positions (In all the positions),
eh I eat her out fully, no one is finding out (JHAYCO)

It’s not that complex. You’ve got a performer who celebrates sexual decadence in his music. That’s not someone I want to listen to and for it to be implied that unless I do listen to it and endorse it as “inclusive,” I’m somehow either a bigot or I’m not especially Christlike, is insane.

And you think because Bad Bunny references the fact that love is superior to hate, that somehow translates to something more aligned with the gospel than Kid Rock’s performance?

Here’s what the Bible says:

First of all, Satan quoted Scripture (Matt 4:5-6). Just because you reference a biblical Truth, unless it’s quoted in its proper context, it’s nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. “Love,” as referenced by folks who see themselves as their own bottom line, are not referring to “love” as its defined in 1 Corinthians 13, in that their idea of love absolutely delights in evil.

The Bible says to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 4). Bad Bunny has denounced the enforcement of immigration law and you can read some more his sexually perverse lyrics by visiting https://www.vibe.com/lists/bad-bunny-songs-translated-into-english/titi-me-pregunto/.

Kid Rock’s performance began with a rehearsal of what he used to be, followed by an extended string section that then segued into a tune where he sang about the transforming Power of Christ.

And you’re trying to figure out which of those most closely aligned with a Christlike perspective?

And let’s end this dilemma about “judging.” Jesus never said not to judge (John 7:24; Eph 5:11). He said not to make things worse by being a hypocrite (Mat 7:3-5). If you were to extend your interpretation of Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, you would be hard pressed to present the gospel because of it being seemingly “wrong” to address someone as a sinner.

You’re not wrong in recognizing that this tension is a spiritual one and it isn’t remedied by an alternative broadcast (Eph 6:12). But we are commanded to be salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and both of those get totally lost when you endorse decadence as a ministry.

The choice was obvious to anyone who’s looking at the Bible as a whole, as opposed to some judiciously selected verses that conveniently allow a person to take a seat rather than taking a stand.

Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist

/in , , , , /by

Jesus wasn’t a Socialist.

At no point does Jesus try to classify people into two categories, as far as those who own the means of production and those who don’t.

That’s the supposed problem that Socialism tries to solve – the idea that rich people are corrupt and poor people are oppressed. To solve that problem, Socialism controls both the supply and the demand and categorizes anyone who would attempt to disagree as being opposed to the concept of sharing and the common good.

The problem is that when you replace personal responsibility with a default corporate endorsement, the end result allows for a toxic level of mismanagement and neglect that leads to poverty and death.

Jesus praised and promoted industry, not subsidies in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30). In the same chapter, He emphasized accountability in the first 13 verses. The book of Proverbs is rife with condemnations of the “sluggard” (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14). 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

Thomas Sowell said that the strongest argument for Socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against Socialism is that it doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher echoed the same sentiment when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you inevitably run out of someone’s else’s money.

Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: Those who want to appear compassionate without having to sacrifice anything, and those who want to be given what they would otherwise have to earn.

Sharing and Compassion are obviously promoted in Scripture. But sharing is not controlling, nor is compassion a subsidy. Both, in the sense that they are commanded in Scripture, are voluntary acts of service and obedience that are ultimately done as a way to honor God, not compulsory gestures of good will designed to empower the government.

According to What You Prefer

/in , , , /by
A question on Quora came up that asked how you can support President Trump as a Christian.
As you can imagine, there are people, both unbelievers and believers, who are hell bent on insisting that you can’t call yourself a Christian if you support President Trump.
I weighed in because I believe in the empty tomb. And I also believe that you don’t necessarily support a personality as much as you support the policies that he champions.
But that doesn’t register with some people. They’re determined to believe that anyone with a manner and a past that doesn’t line up with what they would prefer is not only unsuitable for any leadership position, but anyone who supports such an individual is obviously not a believer.
Here’s the last response I got:
…the Word of God says friendship with the world is enmity with God! That we’re either hot or cold, lukewarm individuals He said He’d spit them out! There is no way ANY child of the Holy and Righteous God can support DJT and what he’s doing and how he’s doing it! He is like his father the devil and is doing his father’s bidding! And I don’t use the word Christian anymore because some have just muddled it up😟! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Here’s how I responded:
Remember how Jesus was tempted? Satan actually quoted Scripture, but he took it out of its original context. My relationship with Christ is based on the empty tomb, not the way I vote (Rom 10:9–10).
That’s the first thing…
Secondly, I don’t support adultery or vulgarity. But that didn’t stop me from serving in the Marine Corps or pursuing a career as a national recording artist or being employed in general. If you extend your rationale to it’s inevitable conclusion, you don’t have a mission field, you have a support group (1 Cor 5:9–10).
Third, my support of President Trump is based on his policies, not his theology. King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).
Fourth, if you refuse to engage the world as it is and support those who God is using, despite their manner or their past, you’re not being Christlike, you’re being disobedient. (Mk 9:39–40; 1 Cor 5:9–10). What makes sin heinous is not so much the sin, as much as it’s Who you’re sinning against. From that standpoint, if we use your approach, no one is qualified to lead. And I’m not saying that you excuse bad behavior by saying “We’re all sinners.” I’m saying you don’t dismiss however God is working simply because it’s not packaged according to what you prefer.

The SIC-ness of the Left

/in , , /by

There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.

But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.

They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.

Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.

When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.

Buckle up!

I Am My Own Absolute

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

It breaks down into three main poisons:

Three Poisons

Truth

Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.

People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.

Right

A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.

That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.

Victim

A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

S.I.C

People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.

Rules for Radicals

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…

Stupid (They’re not qualified)

Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Immoral (They can’t be trusted)

Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.

Criminal (They can’t be supported)

The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.

Untouchable

Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

Joseph Goebbels was a National Socialist politician and propagandist. He held several roles in the Nazi Party. He served as Nazi Party chief for Greater Berlin from 1926 until 1945. From 1930 until 1945 he was head of propaganda (Reichspropagandaleiter) for the Nazi Party. In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, a position he held until 1945. Goebbels was an unconditional follower of Hitler and a radical antisemite. (Holocaust Encyclopedia).

This is a portion of a speech he made to an audience gathered in Nuremberg in 1934 where he talked about the power and the influence of propaganda…

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about German soldiers chopping off children’s hands and crucifying women to realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense. (Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934)

This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.

What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).

Ask the Right Questions

Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.

There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.

Simply ask the right questions.

Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.

When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.

You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.

Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.

Illegal Immigration
Question Answer
Who said the following: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama in a speech given in 2005 (Obama’s 2005 remarks reflect strong stance on controlling immigration. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history (abcnews.com)
Who said this: “I think if they committed a crime, deport them immediately! No questions asked…” Hillary Clinton, 2008
Which administration has deported the most illegal immigrants? Obama or Trump? The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in the 20th century. According to the Department of Homeland Security, that number was around 3 million. The Trump Administration has deported only 675,000. 2.2 million have self-deported.

For more info on the way the Democrat party has changed their attitude towards illegal immigrants, Nicole Russell from USA Today wrote a great piece which you can access by clicking here.
Is entering the country illegally a crime, or is just a civil infraction? Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. (American Immigration Council).

However…

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien)

While it is possible to apply for naturalization, that only can be done if you initially entered the US legally. Should you try to leave the US and re-enter according to Immigration Law, you’re barred from doing so for a period of at least 3 years. If you try to re-enter illegally, that is considered a felony.

But an illegal immigrant engaged in criminal activity is to be immediately deported with no questions asked.
Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.(Prov 9:8)
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov 18:12)
Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe. (Prov 28:26)
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. (Ecc 4:5)
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. (Ecc 7:6)

While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.

In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).

Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…

The Truth…

COEXIST

/in , , , , , /by

COEXIST. It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions. As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world. That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical.

Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST

The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity.

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably. Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam    

 A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4).

It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him. This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3).

Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence?

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

…and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

Jihad Against Jews and Crusader
World Islamic Front Statement
February 28, 1998
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)v

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3

This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

The Babylonian Talmud

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestations of His Justice.          

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most significant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction. David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6).

2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God. That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be categorized as holy let alone right.

And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda. So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Islamic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone diluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com

Because of the Constitution, Not in Spite of It

/in , , /by

Ain’t it amazing when you hear people talk about the US as those who have something real to compare it to? Whether by default or design, they are embracing all the freedoms that go along with our spiritual / moral heritage. This is the very thing that the Left wants to retool, believing it to be antiquated and even sinister.

There are some who believe the Constitution to be toxic in that it was written and ratified by a group of men, many of whom were slave owners. What’s ironic about their perspective is that they’re demonizing the very paradigm that gives them the right to be critical.

The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. On June 8, 1789, he addressed the Congress and insisted that the Constitution would not be complete unless amendments were added that explicitly protected individual rights. These would be the first ten amendments made to the Constitution and among them were the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

James Madison was a slave owner. Granted, the irony is obvious. How can a man who views an entire race of human beings as nothing more than pieces of property to be bought and sold not recognize how that view compromises the declared scope of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence? But in the end, the quality and durability of the Constitution is not measure by the moral flaws of the men that wrote it. Rather, it’s gauged according to the substance of the document itself.

For those who want to dismiss the Constitution as racist, it’s not just the Bill of Rights they should be considering. It’s also the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that were made by the Republican party1 in the aftermath of the Civil War – the only war that was fought in the history of our planet that was waged for the sake of eliminating the sin of slavery.

The 13th amendment banned slavery, the 14th amendment defined a citizen as anyone born in the US which overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited Black people from voting, and the 15th amendment was an expansion of the 14th amendment. It prohibited governments from denying US citizens the right to vote based on race, color or past servitude. Like so many on the Left who labor to promote convictions based on a very judiciously selected collection of facts in a way to muffle the truth, is not only flawed, it’s downright belligerent. 360,000 Caucasians died to ensure the end of slavery as well as create the political environment that would allow for the aforementioned amendments.

By condemning the Constitution, they sneer at the very laws that give them the right to mock their government without fear of punishment. It’s this same legal foundation that provides all of us the opportunity to succeed and grow. And none of this came about without the blood and sacrifice of millions of people in the context of wars that were fought to protect those freedoms.

In short, the Oath of Allegiance that an immigrant has to state in order to become a citizen is something they embrace as a privilege. It includes supporting and defending the Constitution. They joyfully swear their allegiance to our country and its laws because they appreciate the profound rights guaranteed by the philosophical and legislative foundation crafted by flawed men, no doubt, but based on Divine Absolutes that prevent the corruption of power from restricting an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The video clip featured on the right is more than just an inspiring scene of individuals realizing their dream of citizenship in the US. It’s a reminder that we are still a beacon of hope and opportunity for much of the civilized world. And we are that because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

1. 13th Amendment – James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio (Republican), 14th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican), 15th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican)

Nazi’s

/in , , /by

The question being asked was, “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party?“

The responses were typical of the way some want to demonize those can’t dispute without sounding selfish and foolish. They approach the world with a strategy that says if I can’t get you to agree with me, I’ll get you to feel sorry for me.

On the surface, it’s frustrating because of the way the obvious truth is ignored in favor of catering to those who insist that because they’re uncomfortable they automatically qualify as a priority. They’re a casual spectator looking for a quick and easy way to be perceived as sophisticated and compassionate.

But there are others who are genuinely toxic. They embrace the idea that however flawed their rationale may be, if they can reduce those who they disagree with to the status of a villain, they are now no longer obligated to explain why their ideas don’t work, they can now simply “resist” those who oppose them.

Left Wing Violence

Even honest liberals have had to admit in recent weeks that left-wing terrorism exceeds rightwing terrorism. On September 23, no less an emblem of American liberalism than The Atlantic magazine admitted that fact in an article, based on a recent study, under the headline, “Left-Wing Terrorism Is On The Rise.”Less honest liberals, including members of Congress, have nevertheless persisted in denying this fact. Democrat congressman Seth Moulton reacted to a leftist’s assassination of the most prominent proponent of civil debate on the American Right by blaming the Right. He claimed that three-quarters of political violence in the United States comes from the Right, while only four percent is committed by the Left. That claim struck me as suspect, so I looked into just a few examples of left-to-right political violence. Consider the Covenant School massacre in Nashville, for instance, in which a transidentifying shooter murdered Christian children at school after leaving a manifesto outlining ideological motivations, such as gender ideology. That incident, according to authorities, lacked an ideological motive. The Black Lives Matter riots—overtly leftist demonstrations that left dozens of people dead and over a billion dollars’ worth of property damage—likewise fail to show up on registers of left-wing political violence.

Even an attack by Antifa operatives that targeted me personally for my conservative political views appeared in official records and data sets as nothing more than “obstructing law enforcement” on the rare occasion it appeared at all. It turns out the Left commits relatively little political violence when one does not count the political violence that the Left commits. (Testimony of Michael Knowles | Senate Subcommittee on Political Violence, October 2025

You can’t help but notice a common thread running through the talking points of the Democrat party. Same sex marriage, abortion, or a desire to transform our country into a socialist society all require a philosophy that perceives the individual as his own absolute.

  • I have the right to redefine marriage
  • I have the right to decide who lives and dies
  • I have the right to give away other people’s money

This is part of the reason why the “separation of church and state” is so often cited as a way to maintain the individual as the gauge by which all things are measured. Despite the context of the First Amendment being a safeguard to restrict government’s influence on Christianity, the Modern Day Democrat has invented a whole new perspective where the Bill of Rights was put in place to accommodate the person who wants to envision himself as his own bottom line and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

Of course, that isn’t an accurate interpretation of history, nor does it translate to a sustainable and coherent mindset. But the flaws there are inherent to that approach are not noticed when you’re able to successfully position yourself as a victim and anyone who disagrees with you as a villain.

This is the rationale that drives those who want to refer to President Trump as a tyrant and those who support him as Nazis. What’s really ironic is that those who are the most aggressive in leveling these kinds of accusations against the Republican party are the ones that resemble the Third Reich the most, given their control of the media and the violence they’ve exacted upon their political opponents (see sidebar).

Below is a response I wrote to the aforementioned question: “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party?“ No. MAGA is not the new Nazi party. The only way you can arrive at that conclusion is to not only take President Trump’s comments out of context, but you have to begin from a philosophical disposition that says the individual is his own absolute. In light of a situation that doesn’t exist, you have to believe yourself capable of speaking something into reality and then vilifying anyone with the capacity to reveal the lack of substance that characterizes your platform…

I read the “Donald Trump’s War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance” article you cited. I’m assuming that is part of your response to my asking for specific actions done by the Trump administration that qualify him as a Nazi.

The article cites President Trump saying, “We took away the Freedom of Speech” as an example of how Trump is deploying a fascist approach to government.

But did you read the context of his comment? I did. Here’s what the President said: “Only days ago, Nick Sortor was assaulted in Portland by a flag burning mob and we’ve made it one-year penalty for inciting riots. We took the freedom of speech away because that’s been through the courts and the courts said, you have freedom of speech. But what has happened is when they burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds. They’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots. So we’re going on that basis. We’re looking at it from — not from the freedom of speech, which I always felt strongly about, but never past the courts. This is what they do, is they incite — when you burn an American flag, you incite tremendous violence.”

“Freedom of Speech,” in the context the President was using, was referring to a legal sounding tactic used to justify saying that you have license to say and do whatever you want, and not have to take responsibility for what occurs as a result. In that context, that’s not a “right,” that’s not even an excuse. It’s a tool a coward uses to distract attention away from the true intent and substance of his actions.

It’s interesting that among those who insist that the President is infringing on the right to free speech are those that are very quick to say, “Hate speech isn’t free speech.” Suddenly, censorship is appropriate when a moment ago it was considered unconstitutional.

Fact of the matter is, the things you want to say constitute Fascism on the part of the Republican party should be recognizable to you, given the way the Left has killed, censored, and imprisoned their political opponents, all in the name of resisting the “threat to democracy,” when it fact, it’s a resurrection of accountability.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

I spent nine years in the USMC. Flag burning may be a form of free speech to you, but to anyone who’s ever made a sacrifice for what that flag stands for, it’s a toxic attack on the ones who gave their lives to defend the rights and principles you’re now using to desecrate their graves.

Every expert, every study, every poll, that you would cite to substantiate the idea that Trump is a Nazi, that his supporters are bigots, and that flag burning is a legitimate manifestation of free speech has as its fundamental starting the idea that the individual is his own absolute. Truth is therefore reduced to a personal preference and anyone who would dare dispute what you “believe,” is now a liar and a tyrant.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

There were a number of subject matter experts who were insisting that the Jew was to blame for all of the problems facing Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Thanks to the polls, studies, and conclusions published during that time, Hitler’s agenda was able to gain enough traction where it became a national battlecry.

You’re doing the same thing. In your feeble attempts to associate Trump and anyone who supports him as someone who would’ve endorsed the Holocaust, you’re promoting a paradigm that says a man can compete in female sports, marriage can be redefined, illegal immigrants can enter our country at will, trade deficits can be celebrated, etc., etc. And you’re promoting it using the same tactics the Nazis used to manipulate the populace leading up to World War II.

You are the very thing you claim to despise.