Tag Archives: religion

A real hate group: Southern Poverty Law Center

Have you noticed how false teachers like radical pro-abortionist and false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie of the UCC (Unitarians Counterfeiting Christ) take breaks from taking little girls to gay pride parades to reflexively refer to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” list when they don’t have facts to demonize groups that actually believe the Bible?  Well, their deceptions can be very dangerous.  See this from a few years ago: VIDEO: Terrorist Floyd Corkins Tells FBI He Used SPLC ‘Hate’ List to Find Target.  The Family Research Council is the opposite of hateful, but people like Chuck and the SPLC try to shut down opposing views by labeling them as such.  It is a despicably cynical move on their part, but what should we expect from such wolves?

Now pass the popcorn: Apple-backed Southern Poverty Law Center wracked in turmoil, called a ‘con’ for ‘bilking gullible liberals’   What a surprise!  Racist and sexist Leftists get rich bilking gullible Leftists.  Sweet, sweet schadenfreude. Sadly, the media will gloss over their hypocrisy and how foolish their supporters were and they’ll continue to pretend that if the SPLC calls you a hater, then you must be a hater.

Much more here by a former SPLC employee.  Spoiler alert: The employees knew it was a con.

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.” The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie. When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself. On a hill in downtown Montgomery, down the street from both Jefferson Davis’s Confederate White House and the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where M.L.K. preached and organized, the center had recently built a massive modernist glass-and-steel structure that the social critic James Howard Kunstler would later liken to a “Darth Vader building” that made social justice “look despotic.” It was a cold place inside, too. The entrance was through an underground bunker, past multiple layers of human and electronic security. Cameras were everywhere in the open-plan office, which made me feel like a Pentagon staffer, both secure and insecure at once. But nothing was more uncomfortable than the racial dynamic that quickly became apparent: a fair number of what was then about a hundred employees were African-American, but almost all of them were administrative and support staff—“the help,” one of my black colleagues said pointedly. The “professional staff”—the lawyers, researchers, educators, public-relations officers, and fund-raisers—were almost exclusively white. Just two staffers, including me, were openly gay.

During my first few weeks, a friendly new co-worker couldn’t help laughing at my bewilderment. “Well, honey, welcome to the Poverty Palace,” she said. “I can guaran-damn-tee that you will never step foot in a more contradictory place as long as you live.”

“Everything feels so out of whack,” I said. “Where are the lawyers? Where’s the diversity? What in God’s name is going on here?”

“And you call yourself a journalist!” she said, laughing again. “Clearly you didn’t do your research.”

P.S. I quit following the Currie clown show a few years ago, but his blog shows the Molech-worshiping absurdity of the the “Christian” Left.   Wearing a collar at all times because no one would mistake him for being religious otherwise?  Check.  Worshiping MLK instead of Jesus?  Check.  Anti-gun but pro-abortion?  Check.  Pro-open borders and peddling silly lies conflating Jesus with illegal aliens?  Check.  Anti-ICE while not personally housing illegals?  Check.  Unequally yoked and Christ-mocking “interfaith” gibberish?  Check. What a self-parody.   Anyone following a phony like Chuck will get what he wants and deserves.

Advertisements

Exodus 21 and abortion

Pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists and other abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.  Don’t let them get away with such terrible and deadly reasoning.

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is, in rare circumstances, not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.”  They conclude that if it is “just” a miscarriage and the perpetrator only got a fine, then what’s the big deal about abortion?

It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  But the pro-aborts (rotten) cherry-pick a translation they can twist to justify murder to the child’s first breath.

But that is just one of many problems with their use of this passage.  Here is a full list:

1. They get the text wrong.  This is a pro-life passage, not a pro-legalized abortion passage.  If Moses wanted to say “miscarriage” he could have used a much more specific word for that.

2. They ignore or rationalize away other Biblical texts that they don’t like, such as Leviticus 18:22 (ESV – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.)  So why do they find Exodus 21 so authoritative?

They ignore passages like Romans 1 where Paul explicitly declares homosexual behavior to be sinful because they think Paul didn’t know enough about biology and psychology (and they unwittingly tip their hand that they don’t believe any scripture is truly inspired by God).  But if Paul is so ignorant and scripture is un-inspired, why trust Moses to know key scientific facts?  They should dismiss the “miscarriage” term even if it had been in the original text because he didn’t have access to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

3. They don’t even agree with the other teachings of Exodus 21, such as verses 23-25.

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

They are almost exclusively anti-capital punishment.  So why do they rationalize away the destruction of over a million innocent human beings per year in the U.S. based on a poor translation of a single word and then ignore the rest of the passage which is much more clear?

4. They ignore the endless pro-life passages in the Bible.

In summary, Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) who use Exodus 21 as support for abortion on demand fail on many levels.  If it weren’t for people like them Roe v Wade and the destruction that followed would not have happened.

More here:  The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper.

Pro-abort Rachel Held Evans uses (false) exceptions to make bad rules

As the saying goes, exceptions make bad rules.  But in the case of pro-abort “Christian” Racist Held Evans, she uses a false exception to make a horribly bad rule.

She plays  on the sympathies of those with children diagnosed in utero with health issues.  In her world, it is much better to kill the child right away because she might have serious health issues when born.  That ignores that doctors and diagnoses are sometimes wrong (I’ve personally met several people who are glad they didn’t heed the advice to kill their children). It also ignores that God doesn’t permit mercy killings (then again, since when did pro-LGBTQX Mrs. Evans care what Jesus said?).

But as bad as that is, faux-lifer Evans isn’t using that argument to make the case to ban all abortions except those in her example  She uses it to justify all abortions at any time, and to have taxpayers pay for abortions for those who can’t afford to kill their children.  She piles evil upon evil.  When pro-aborts make deceptive claims like that, ask them exactly which abortions they want to make illegal.  Answer: None.

And to make it worse, she virtue signals in her pro-abort Tweet.  You see, she is more righteous and caring than you because she would consider killing her child while you wouldn’t.

Source: Pro-LGBT Activist Who Thinks She’s A Christian Defends Abortion – Reformation Charlotte:

In an ultimate display of selfishness, Held Evans, a professing Christian (of course she isn’t a real Christian, but she has many Christian followers), asserts that she isn’t sure what she would do if she were told by a doctor that her unborn child may have a birth defect affecting the “quality” of the child’s life.

The problem here isn’t that Held Evans is concerned with the quality of the child’s life. Held Evans is concerned about the quality of her own life. She — and other abortion supporters just like her — see children not as a gift from God made in the image of God, but as a burden. Further, a child that may need special care and extra attention would, in Held Evans’ eyes, decrease her own “quality of life.”This is the sickness of the pro-choice movement. You can’t call yourself a Christian while holding to anti-Christ beliefs. The gospel calls us to lay our own lives down, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. Held Evans and the many pro-choice (or undecided) people out there have failed to see the goodness of God and the gift of salvation in Christ. They are, regardless of their claims, unregenerate and need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ found only through repentance and faith.

I saw the Gosnell movie. You should too.

I hadn’t been to a movie in at least a year.  I can’t even remember what the last one was. But I saw Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer tonight.  I hope you do as well.

You know how it ends, so I can’t spoil that. But these comments might tell you more than you want to know ahead of time, so you’ve been warned.

The acting and production values were good, and much better than expected. The guy who played Gosnell was amazing.

They obviously used some poetic license to move the plot along, but to their credit they didn’t appear to exaggerate any of the key facts.  The guy was so over-the-top it seemed like overkill just to describe it.

There were a couple unnecessary things that detracted in a minor way (I’m pretty sure that real coroners don’t hand scalpels to District Attorneys and let them cut up cadavers at all, let alone without gloves and masks).  But you get those in any movie.

While the trial and key players kept making the point that Gosnell was on trial for murder, not abortion, they did make a lot of good pro-life statements.  The “good” abortionist, there to make Gosnell look like a “bad” one,  described a 2nd term abortion in detail, including injecting a needle in the child’s heart to kill her, evacuating the “gray matter” (i.e., brains) to make her skull collapse, etc.  That’s more than most voters have probably ever heard.

Never forget that according to the Left — including the “Christian” Left — Gosnell’s only problem was killing the children a little too late.  They support unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath and want more of them with taxpayer funding.  And despite their “safe, legal and rare” lies, the government really did prevent inspections from being done at Gosnell’s clinic.

Kudos to everyone involved with the production.  Hope you go see it!

Are you going to see the Gosnell movie? Please spread the word!

I’m so glad to see they made this.  The trailer looks great.  I haven’t been to a movie in over a year, but I may make an exception for this one.

Initially, the government deliberately ignored the greatest serial killer in American history.  Fortunately, someone finally took him on.  But unfortunately, the media did a choreographed embargo on the trial.  I remember searching MSNBC and the LA Times, among other Leftist sites, and getting zero hits for his name.  Zero.  That is active suppression.

When I would teach pro-life reasoning training to new Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers I’d ask if they had heard of Kermit Gosnell.  Usually only about 25% had — and this was from a group of very committed pro-lifers!  The media was very effective at hiding it.

Not surprisingly, Facebook is choking ads for the film.  You can only imagine what other suppression Twitter and the rest of Big Tech are engaged in.

Make no mistake: Those Molech-worshiping ghouls love abortion.

Please share the word on this movie!  Even if it just gets people to search on the topic it will be worth it.

Are you ready to respond to pro-abortion arguments?

With the impending confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here.  Are you you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments?

The arguments are varied, but the most common ones are easy to refute.  For example, they love to play on people’s  emotions and pretend that we are hostile to rape victims if we don’t let them kill their children.  But just turn it around on them and ask, “So are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape?”  I guarantee you that the response will be “no.”  Then you simply say, “Then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions, and why do you support the Democrats’ policies of increasing abortions with taxpayer funding?”  it is just that easy.  Bonus points for reminding them how Planned Parenthood and other abortionists protect rapists and sex traffickers.

And when you get the inevitable “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born argument,” share these points.

This is a video where I teach about pro-life reasoning.  I used to give this content to Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers.

The “Christian” Left can’t make it past the first chapter of the New Testament without rejecting essential doctrines

I say that without exaggeration.  If you were reading a book that claimed to be the word of God and the explanation for this life and for eternity and for how to be on right terms with God, yet you completely rejected two of the religion’s foundational premises in the very first chapter, wouldn’t you just give it up and find another religion?  Not the “Christian” Left.  Consider these simple passages, clearly not written as illustrations but as specific truth claims (they immediately follow the genealogy of Jesus so it would be a non sequitur to shift genres).

Matthew 1 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

So we have two claims that the father is not human but that the conception was from the Holy Spirit.  The Left’s opposition to the virgin birth isn’t some side issue, because it goes to Jesus’ claims of deity that they typically deny.  Wolves like Mark Sandlin explicitly deny his divinity.

Then there is Jesus’ purpose for entering his creation.

21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

So Jesus’ purpose was explicitly stated: To save his people from their sins.  Yes, He came for other reasons, but the opening of this Gospel focused on the main reason.  Also note the additional claim to the virgin birth.

Of course, the more you read the Bible, the worse it gets.  The “Christian” Left thinks they like the Sermon on the Mount, but they’d hate it if they understood it.  They only agree with a few parts of it because they get them wrong.

Run, don’t walk, from the “Christian” Left.  Their beliefs are indistinguishable from the world’s.