President-Elect Donald J. Trump.
(I didn't vote for either major candidate.) But I am glad that Hillary Clinton was defeated - because of issues.
The left is - a little distraught. But when cornered, most of the "Trump is going to..." fears become "well, I guess I don't really think he'll be able to..."
Anyway...it still feels very surreal...
Quotes from Acton Institute Power Blog.
Many of these quotes put me in mind of leftists who cannot abide "Conscience Clauses" regarding forcing Christians to participate in the celebration of gay unions.
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only be reason and convection, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
—James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance
While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.
—George Washington, Letter to Benedict Arnold
Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile to his conscience . . . . It would be sinful for a man to surrender that to man which is to be kept sacred for God.
—John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable
And on a dumber note, a leftist tries to post a few "gotcha questions" for conservatives.
1. As opponents of “big government,” why do you fervently support an unending stream of government-sponsored wars, vast government military spending, the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens, government interference with abortion rights and family planning, government restrictions on marriage, and the linkage of church and state?
Answers (in order)
A) unending stream of government-sponsored wars,
We don't. We support the unending obligation of the federal government to protect our people, land, liberty. Those who support "unjust wars" should be questioned as to why they consider themselves "conservative."
B) vast government military spending
We don't. Members of Congress excepted, most conservatives I know want to see government waste of all types curbed, including military spending. If money was used wisely, less would be spent.
C) the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens
Hat tip to Ferguson and the rest of the "unarmed" thugs.
This question makes it sound as if local police are wandering around shooting random citizens (lie.)
I believe that (like every other human being) local police officers than the right to defend themselves if they believe their lives or the lives of others are in danger. Outside of that, police who are involved in shootings should be investigated and taken to court, should a grand jury (or other official group) think it appropriate. Oh wait. That happened and the leftists still are not happy.
D)government interference with abortion rights and family planning
By "abortion rights" you mean the right to kill an innocent unborn.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
a police officer defending themselves against a thug trying to wrestle their weapon away = bad. Murdering an unborn child before they have a chance to take their first breath = good.
The second lie becomes visible in recent politics.
Conservatives do NOT wish to interfere with adults practicing family planning.
Conservatives DO wish to interfere with the government forcing businesses to act against their deeply held religious beliefs.
E) government restrictions on marriage
Since the government began requiring citizens to get the state's permission to marry, there have been restrictions, whether that be incestual relationships, polygamous relationships, etc.
It's interesting to note that in many of the states where the courts (government entities) have overthrown the only definition of marriage that we've ever had, it has been the citizens who have voted for constitutional amendments defining "marriage"
So, in reality, we have the majority of citizens voting for the traditional definition of marriage, and the state, petitioned by the minority, telling us "we can't do that."
F) the linkage of church and state?\
the Constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Let's see. Has Congress tried to establish a state religion? No?
And actually, the "free exercise thereof" is being violated - BY THE LEFTISTS!
To even ask that section is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the left.
That's only the first question and my head hurts from the "Alinskyism"
Russel Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles"
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
check. Call that order "God" and the moral truths the Decalogue.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.
Check.
I feel the loss of "tradition" costs us dearly, in terms of connecting with those who have gone before. In church, I miss the hymns, the transcendence.
In reading "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt, we learn that conservatives and liberals all have five moral foundations, we just vary how much emphasis we put on different pillars.
this second point is right in line.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.
Check (see above)
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.
Check.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality.
Check. BUT - I don't see these differences as a "caste system" where you cannot escape your order or class. The possibility of success is a great motivator. If there is no difference in anybody, why work to move up?
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
This reminds me of "Matrix" - remember the first one that didn't go so well? Perhaps more on this later.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all
Check
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily
Forced volunteerism isn't volunteerism at all - it's slavery.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.
This totally puts the lie to the leftist accusation of conservatives wanting to roll back ALL regulations on companies.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The challenge that presents itself lies in how to reconcile.
Yes and Yes. No and No. Yes and no, No and Yes.
I need to explain, yes?
Before reading, take a second to rest your eyes on both images...what feelings do they bring forth? Are the feelings different or the same?
IF one image makes you feel different than the other, how so? Why do you think this is?
Let's take 9-11 first.
People died. We were attacked. Never forget those who died, never forget that a minority of people who want us dead. Use this teachable moment to illustrate honor, memory, the difference between right and wrong. The difference between tolerating peaceful difference, vs. trying to destroy those who disagree with you.
The fact that a belief system can drive a person, or a group of people to violence, and that we, as human beings, cannot exempt from the possibility...never forget...
But...
We must also remember how easily we blur the line between remembering and holding grudges. To blur the line between honoring a death or hardship, and wanting to exact a pound of flesh. In order to fully honor those who suffered, we must resist wanting to profit from their suffering, even if that profit is emotional.
Also vital, to keep in mind that "they" are NOT all our enemy. I remember a story shortly after 9-11 where a Sikh was killed because the murderer was confused by the head covering.
When we eye every person who is different than we are with suspicion, we lose part of our own humanity. If we view every Muslim as a terrorist, we miss something.
Get over it.
And never forget.
The first image appears fresher in our collective mind, but you don't see the suffering up close - we can think not about the people throwing themselves to the ground and just think about the attack.
The second image burns through our brain. Man's inhumanity to man.
The evil that was slavery in the United States should not have happened. But it did happen.
We need to remember the time of slavery in our country, lest it happen again.
We need to remember chattel slavery in our country's history, and remember those - even today - who are kidnapped and made slaves.
We need to remember that many people react to unjust treatment through the lens of history.
We need to remember that we all (no matter what the color of our skin) harbor some sort of "feeling" toward some group, whether it's race, class, religion, sex. It may be a tiny seed, but it's there.
We need to remember that we have all felt that "feeling" aimed at us, by another person.
Never forget...but...
Racism and bigotry dog us through history, and seldom is it the result of slavery. We need to deal with racism and bigotry today as it happens today, as we see it all too often...but...
If "you" (general "you") think that you are owed money because you have ancestors who were made slaves, get over it
If you look at people who look different than you with suspicion simply because of the color of their skin, get over it.
If your "go to" assumption for everything is rooted in slavery...get over it.
What's the heart motive?
Honor or greed?
self-centered or other-centered?
That's the heart of it.
Never forget...for all the right reasons...
Get over it...for all the right reasons.
I use the tag quite a bit, and will be using it quite a bit more.
Visualize the point where either faith directly impacts politics, or where politics directly impacts faith.
In the past, faith has informed our politics; our faith has a direct affect on how we see politics, how we vote, how we discuss the state of our country. More and more, I see politics, or politicians, or the government itself having a direct affect on how people of faith are allowed to live out their faith.
Where people of of faith are forced by law to violate their conscience, visualize that point. Where people of faith are forced to act, or are prevented from acting.
Dictionary.com defines "persecution as the state or act of being persecuted."
Persecute:
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
With this in mind, I suspect that there will be more stories where faith and politics intersect.
an article here
As I read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals for the umteenth time, and as I read this article, I'm reminded that (Rule #5)
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”
I put "false accusation" in that category.
Read this article quoting Mozilla, and consider Brendan Eich.
Eich co-founded Mozilla. His guidance got it up and running. Last week, he quit in disgrace. His "crime?" Eight years ago, he donated $1,000 to California's Prop 8 (Constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage." I'm not going to send any readers there, but find an article on the matter and read the comments.
No longer can "same sex marriage" be a matter of opinion - those who hold the view that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman should be drummed out of the public square.
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
Really. What standard are they not living up to...the one that the co-founder helped to set in place? If this is the "true to ourselves" that they want to live up to, the world, in one week, became a much scarier place for people of a more conservative faith.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
How did we "expect" them to act? Obviously, liberals expected Eich to be forced out (or not promoted in the first place) much more quickly.
Oh...and "engage" must equal "get rid of all those who don't toe the gay agenda party line."
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
As long as "standing for both" means "getting rid of everybody who disagrees," Mozilla is doing great at that.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
And some are more equal than others.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
The rank hypocrisy makes me angry.
This week, not quite so diverse,
Not quite so open,
The beliefs and opinions of those who think that marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman...not quite so encouraged to share.
If their "higher standard" is anti-Christian, shutting down of conversation, and shutting out all who disagree, they seem as if they are on the right track.
As I write this, an alert came in telling me that SCOTUS has declined to hear Elane Huguenin's case in New Mexico. The world can now force Christian photographers to either act against their conscience, or be forced out of the public square.
There can be no disagreement on the "SSM" issue, or you will be ridiculed, fired, sued, forced out, called vile names...
all for the sake of "tolerance."
Welcome to the New United States of...
Denny Burk on "The Accidental Complementarian"
Hear, hear. As always, this is an issue that comes down to biblical authority. Read the rest of this thoughtful article here.
~~~
A new story on old news: Non-Christians Given 'Special Consideration' in Union Teacher Contract.
The text of the contract:
Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board's decision shall be final.
But it's evidently old news:
"Unfortunately, there are no employees in the district who have been here long enough to explain the origins of the language, which we estimate to have been inserted between 1976-79.
~~~
You Asked: Does God Harden a Believer's Heart?
This is a serious and important two-part question, but it is really six questions in disguise. Though human speculation could not touch it with a javelin pole, God's revelation helps to unfold the answer. None of us is made modest by tiptoeing past this question if the Bible offers us answers.
~~~
I also think all Republican candidates should be trained with shock collars and cattle prods to automatically respond, upon hearing some combination of the words “abortion,” “rape” and “incest”: “Yes, of course there should be exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and I also support giving rapists the death penalty, unlike my Democratic opponent, who wants to give rapists the right to vote. Now, back to what I was saying about Obamacare …
~~
Masculinity is not just an act (via Gay Patriot)
(By the way, I love the video)
Just a list of links that I found interesting this week
So what are we to make of the phrase “various kinds of tongues”? Is Paul differentiating between two fundamentally different categories of tongues (as Storms and other continuationists contend)? Does this verse really distinguish between earthly (human) languages on the one hand, and heavenly (non-human) languages on the other?I certainly don’t think so.
~~~
You actually think it possible that He will work out these things, just because you a tiny collection of molecules on a tiny planet in his vast universe, ask for it. Tell me, what are you thinking? It’s insanity. It’s vanity. It’s … ridiculous.What’s that? You say this Being (and his Son) have repeatedly communicated to you that he will listen and answer your prayers? You say he actually commands you to pray to him and ask him for things? That he wants to answer your prayers?
Oh. Well . . . carry on then.
~~~
"Musings of an Election Judge"
And you wonder how fraud is committed in elections…
She has been happily serving gay people in her shop for years. She served one gay couple for nearly a decade and had become good friends with them. But when they asked her to participate in their wedding ceremony, she politely declined. She is a Southern Baptist Christian, and she told them that she couldn’t participate because of her relationship with Jesus.
Word of her refusal spread through social media, and the attorney general of the state of Washington sued her for breaking the state’s nondiscrimination law. On top of that, the gay couple who she had been friends with for all those years also sued her. And now the ACLU has piled on as well.