Tag Archives: racism

Roundup

How naturalism, not religion, can get in the way of science — just read it.

A little late for Memorial Day, but always worth showing — When a soldier comes home

Reverse racism is still racism — all voter intimidation is wrong.

When voter identification laws are illegal you know the country is on the road to ruin.  Welcome to Obama’s America, where common sense is now illegal. 

The work of Dr. Tiller’s hands — contains a link to a graphic site.  What a freak show.

A little of the side of Harvey Milk that Sean Penn and the MSM “forget” to show (Hat tip: Chester Street).  Some highlights:

Rather than the gentle, soft-spoken idealist portrayed by Sean Penn, the real Harvey Milk was a short-tempered demagogue who cynically invented stories of victimhood to advance his political career.

In the upside-down world of San Francisco politics, Milk curried favor with voters by boasting that his homosexuality had resulted in a dishonorable discharge from the Navy in the dark ages before the sexual revolution. But far from the in-your-face, ponytailed “Mayor of Castro Street” of the 1970s, Chief Petty Officer Milk of the 1950s was a closeted homosexual whose discharge papers reflected four years of honorable service.

What the film and legislation insinuate—in an effort to depict Milk as a martyr for the gay rights movement on par with Martin Luther King’s martyrdom for the Civil Rights movement—is that homophobia killed Harvey Milk on November 27, 1978.

But Harvey Milk’s homosexuality played about as much of a role in his murder as San Francisco mayor George Moscone’s heterosexuality played in his.

Read the link for Milk’s defenses of Jim Jones and how Milk helped send a 6 yr. old to his death.

Can same-sex marriage and religious liberty co-exist?  No.  Consider the examples in the link.

Roundup

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, violence hasn’t primarily stemmed from religion but against religion (the Roman Empire, Russia, China, etc.).  Read about the incredible violence in France in 1793.

Is it OK for Christians to marry non-Christians? — Short answer: No.  Click the link for a great story and conclusion:

The level of influence of a significant other in a non-platonic relationship greatly impacts your ability to achieve the vocational task that the Lord has set for you. My recommendation is to avoid engaging in any romantic relationship in which self-sacrificial service to the Lord is not the main focus. And remember, physical contact greatly reduces your ability to make objective evaluations.

Today, Christians treat the Christian life as a hobby that we engage in for our benefit. And this includes romantic relationships. One way of screening prospective mates is by assessing how well prepared they are to defend the Lord’s reputation, when it is called into question. An authentic Christian should care enough to have prepared to defend God’s existence and character in public.

The Folks At The Dallas Tea Party Are A Bunch Of Racist Whites! — Uh, except that they were not.  CNN and Janeane Garafalo must not have heard about this gathering.  Oh, they dislike President Obama, but because of his awful policies and not his skin color. 

Managing money in a financial crisis: Great advice from Randy Alcorn and others.

Weekly roundup

Fighting for the Faith has a good analysis of the false teachings of Chuck Currie.  The host plays the whole audio of Chuck’s “sermon” with comments interspersed, so you know you are getting the full context. 

Side note: Chuck still hasn’t backed up his accusations that I left comments on his blog that were “racist, sexist, homophobic” and included “offensive language and more.”  I was curious to see if he would ever provide evidence or apologize, but all he said on his blog was, “Neil, Thanks for all your e-mails on this. I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to write back each day in person but thanks for your feedback.”

False teacher.  False accusations.  Shocking.  Maybe this week’s sermon will be on honesty.  Or asking forgiveness when you lie about someone.  No, it will probably be about why Jesus is pro-legalized partial birth abortion, anti-parental notification, anti-informed consent, etc.  (Yes, Chuck, some religious groups do support the choice to destroy the unborn — false and apostate religious groups, including segments of the Methodist Church.)

Unions prepare for BIG payday with new Prez

And, in keeping with the Times’ journalistic malpractice, quite a few things are misrepresented in favor of the unions. Take “card check” for instance. Check out how the Times describes the fact that this horrible law will take away one of the oldest democratic rights there is.

“Labor’s No. 1 priority is a piece of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the card-check bill. The bill would give workers the right to join a union as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace signed cards saying they wanted one. Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers’ right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization.”

Once again, liberals think abortion is moral but displaying pictures of it is immoral.  I think that pictures of the Holocaust are unpleasant, but I am quite certain that the killings were immoral and showing the pictures is not immoral. 

Lots of racism from some GLBTQ folks – the violent and viscious reactions continue from their Proposition 8 loss.  I would expect black folks to be irritated that the gay lobby is trying to co-opt the Civil Rights agenda.  Do the GLBTQ folks think it is a winning strategy to alienate blacks and say how uneducated they are for voting Yes on 8? 

And even if pro-Prop 8 voters have less eduction than average, please remember that intelligence and wisdom are two different things.  You don’t need a PhD to know the definition of marriage.  I’m also reminded of this quote by J. Budziszewski:

Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that you must be highly intelligent and educated to commit.

P.S. to Arnold: Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

Crazy lefties attack old lady at No on 8 protest.  The only amusing thing in this horrible incident was when the hopelessly PC anchorman said, “a lot of hate evidently on both sides.”  Uh, sure, buddy.  The quiet old lady carrying the cross was really dishing out the hate to that mob.

Violence and disruption of a church service by a gay anarchist group in Michigan – It is hard to believe no one was arrested.  Ask yourself why you aren’t seeing this on the national news.

Hat tip to Kris for the cartoon below.  I had no idea that 1% in a margin of victory made such a big difference!  I do find the “we need to unite behind the President” theme a little ironic, because the reality is that we don’t need to do that any more than the Democrats did when Bush was President. 

This site is a little racy, but makes a great point about the messages from 52 to 48 blather going around.  This is the sanitized version: Starting prior to the 2001 inauguration, you and your bought and paid for media demonized President Bush and conservatives over anything and everything, and now you want to play nice and demand unity?  Give me a break.  We won’t be vile like the Left has been, but we will complain now and keep complaining all we like.  Will I pray for our leaders?  Yes, because I’m commanded to.  But my prayers will include requests that their dreams be haunted by visions of the slaughter of the unborn, the shattered lives of those who have abortions and the last breaths of those born alive but left to die.

P.S. Does this mean California is united against government recognition of oxymoronic same-sex marriage?  I recall that the margin was quite similar.bush_obama

Zo has my vote for head of the Republican National Committee

“After complaints of one-sided reporting, the Washington Post checked their own articles and agreed.”  Golly!

Planned Parenthood (not) in the news again

Planned Parenthood accepted donations from people who specifically wanted to eliminate black babies.  Of course, the media give them a pass, but you gotta appreciate the consistency of Planned Parenthood (their founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist – read the link for more). 

Ohio representative: Lisa Hutton, administrative assistant

Ohio donor: There’s definitely way too many Black people in Ohio, so I am just trying to do my part.

PP Rep: OK, whatever.

Ohio donor: Well, Blacks especially need abortions, so that’s what I’m trying to do.

PP Rep: For whatever reason, we’ll accept the money.

Ohio donor: OK. Great, thank you. Idaho representative: Autumn Kersey, director of development Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically fror a black baby, that would be the purpose?PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely. Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better. PP Rep: Understandable, understandable. Idaho donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.

PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

To listen to the whole transcript, visit www.LAadvocate.com/pp

You might think they’d at least work on their phone skills after being exposed for hiding statutory rapes (all caught on audio). 

Hate speech / hate crimes

hate.jpg“Truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.”

Some guy I heard on the radio.

Hate thought crimes legislation is moving through the House of Representatives.  This is an awful idea on many levels. 

I’m a Christian, so of course I’m against hate.  I am commanded to love (that is, to have everyone’s long-term best interests at heart).  I just don’t see how you can legislate against hate or why my religious beliefs should be forced upon someone else.

Please note that I am anti-bullying in all venues, especially in schools.  I think all kids should be protected from verbal and physical bullying of any kind, on or off school grounds.  This isn’t a hate speech / hate crime issue, though.  It is the right of people not to be harassed or threatened for any reason.  If a kid is brutalized for being fat/thin/black/white/smart/not so smart/gay/straight/etc. it is all bad.  

Why would a crime against a straight, white male have a lesser charge than the same crime against someone from a protected group? 

Ironically, the pro-hate crimes legislation folks are typically anti-death penalty, so in many cases I am in favor of a stronger penalty for “hate crimes” than they are.  The evil men who lynched James Byrd back when George W. Bush was Governor of Texas rightly received the death penalty (in my view).  Yet those advocating hate crime penalties want “stronger” punishments but are against the death penalty.  Huh?! 

The same thing goes if someone murdered someone who is gay (regardless of the motive).  Conservatives would typically be for the death penalty in most cases, while most Liberals would not.  If they have reasons to be against the death penalty, that is a separate debate.  Maybe they are right.  But I hardly see how anyone could be accused of being a “hater” when he would be in favor of a stronger punishment for the murderer than the pro-hate speech legislation groups.

If certain crimes are more heinous because of their historical significance (e.g., cross-burning), then I have no problem with those having stiffer penalties than average vandalism. 

Making moral criticisms of a person or group is not hateful in and of itself.  If it was, then those who accuse of others of hate speech would be guilty of hate themselves.  Many liberal blogs would have to be shut down tomorrow for the venom they spew.  And groups like Alcoholics Anonymous would be guilty of hate speech against alcoholics. 

“Hate crimes” are really two things – one is a crime against a person, for which there are laws in place (e.g., assault) and one is a belief against a class of people. 

Then there is the selective enforcement.  I haven’t done a complete tally, but I have heard literal hate speech (“We hate Bush”) much more from Democrats than Republicans.  Google it and see for yourself.  I don’t see any concern in the House about this kind of hate speech.

Make no mistake: This hate speech debate is about politics, and specifically about silencing opposing views.   It is rampant on college campuses and coming soon to the public arena near you. 

That otherwise-Liberal proponents of hate speech legislation would so trample the First Amendment is beyond parody. 

Also see Hating the (alleged) haters

Pro-choice and pro-slavery reasoning

pro-choice-baby.jpgA couple readers were offended by one of the points in the Nancy Pelosi and bad pro-abortion reasoning post, so I thought I would clarify and expand on those thoughts.  Here is the offending section:

Ms. Pelosi also uses this poor reasoning to defend abortion:

“If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities,” Pelosi adds.

Slave-owners used the same argument: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.”  But of course both arguments make a major, unproven assumption, namely that another human being isn’t involved in the equation.   

The most important thing to note is that I never said pro-choicers were pro-slavery.  I merely pointed out that slave-owners used bad pro-slavery reasoning that ignored the humanity of the slaves, and pro-choicers who use similar reasoning are ignoring the humanity of the unborn.   If people understand what I am saying there and are still offended, then I’m prepared to live with that.

It is a well documented fact that both pro-legalized abortion and pro-slavery people have used this type of reasoning on an extensive basis:

  • “It is acceptable, because they aren’t fully human.”
  • “If you don’t want one, don’t have one.  Don’t impose your moral values on me.”
  • “They are better off this way, otherwise they may be unwanted, poor or disabled.”

Slavery and abortion both deny the humanity and dignity of living human beings who have beating hearts and can feel pain. 

Slavery was once legal in the United States, but it was always immoral.  Abortion is currently legal, but it has always been immoral. 

When one human being gets to decide whether an innocent human being has enough worth to live freely – or to live at all – profoundly bad things happen.