Tag Archives: tolerance

Roundup

Two excellent and free resources to download — a robust Gospel tract and a brief but thorough refutation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Click to download

Gospel tract: The Great Exchange

Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses: Who’s Really Knocking at Your Door?

—–

The White House leaks should be a huge issue in general, and especially for this campaign.  If these leaks were made out of stupidity it would have been bad enough.  But they were made for personal gain.  In a rare display of the Left crossing the aisle, even some Democrats have admitted the leaks are wrong.

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.

The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious — that for the first time ever — former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go ‘on the record’ in a special documentary titled “Dishonorable Disclosures.”

—–

A great summary of the “tolerance” movement:

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant. Then it tries to silence good.

That is exactly what has happened in this country.

—–

I was glad to see Kevin DuJan writing again at Hillbuzz.  Good tips about ways to stay up on pop culture references without wasting time and money on lousy movies:

I love the website TheMovieSpoiler.com because it offers “spoilers” of films currently in theaters.  A “spoiler” is a detailed synopsis of a movie that I can read very often the day a movie comes out and know everything that happens in it even if I never intend to see it.  I like doing this so that if a movie hits big in pop culture I can get any jokes derived from it even if I’ve never seen it myself.  When I was a kid growing up in Catholic School in Cleveland the nuns who taught us used to take a weird pride in not knowing anything at all about current movies, TV shows, music groups, etc.  ’Oh, I don’t know who that is,” they’d delight in saying, claiming to have never heard of Indiana Jones or Darth Vader or whomever.  I really don’t think they were kidding, either, or just trying to pretend that they didn’t know anything about current movies to make them seem more pious or whatever.  They really thought it was best to completely avoid pop culture and not “contaminate” themselves with it.

I think a lot of conservatives do this too, even in the year 2012, and I think it’s stupid.  You don’t need to sit through 2 hours of a bad movie just because it’s currently popular, but you should at least try to know what people are excited about in pop culture.  The Left beats conservatives in the ever raging culture wars because conservatives think “taking the high road” means avoiding knowledge of what’s currently hip and popular, but that’s just idiocy.  So many dumb things Republicans do are attributed to “taking the high road”.  Aren’t you tired of this, yet?

—–

Can a materialist question Darwinism without having his career ruined?  Short answer: No. It is an analysis of how even atheists get destroyed by the Darwin lobby for daring to point out its flaws.

Darwinism beyond the level of simple micro-evolution has never been observed or tested experimentally. And what’s more – the proponents of Darwinism do not want their theory to be subjected to criticism or testing. It fulfills a religious purpose, and therefore they are very concerned that it not be taken away from them. They are fighting against having to care what God things, and they will strangle any good experimental science that shows that their religion is wrong. You can see the same fundamentalism at work in the atheistic war against the experimental science that confirms the Big Bang theory, which describes the origin of the universe out of nothing.

—–

I’m glad to see some Darwinists admit that the movement really did think there was “junk DNA.”  Too bad so many of them are trying to re-write history and not admit the failure of their theory.

—–

12 QUICK REFUTATIONS OF JIM WALLIS’ LEFTIST, PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES — nicely done response to an article by Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis

Roundup

Comedian Jon Lovitz mugged by reality — twice! — First, he felt betrayed by Obama’s class warfare and lies.  Then he found out how “tolerant” his liberal fans were of opposing viewpoints.  Ouch.

—–

Great video on why Christianity is true and Islam is not.

—–

Obama’s creepy composite character, “Julia,” and her cradle-to-grave consumption of other people’s money should make even Liberals realize how ridiculous his government-will-solve-all-your-problems worldview is. But alas, discernment seems to be at an all-time low.

By her mid-twenties, Julia is a litigious member of the workforce suing for equal wages while hard working Americans subsidize her. She has her fatherless child and for twenty years drops off the map. That’s the most curious part — that and the fact that this paragon of Obama’s liberal America has no documented abortions and was not herself aborted.

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal points out “[t]hat period includes the typical peak earning years–the time at which, assuming Julia is gainfully employed, she will be paying the biggest price for “Obama’s” generosity.” We know nothing of her time during those key years. Perhaps they were of little consequence because her whole adult working life was spent paying for the benefits of those who came after her.

That is the key. There is no mention of cost, no mention of debt, and no mention of tax burden for Julia. She receives everything and gives nothing. What is Julia’s fair share? In retirement, Barack Obama claims social security helps her live comfortably. Really? It boggles the mind.

This is Barack Obama’s vision of America — a welfare state from cradle to grave where parents and spouses are not needed because you have a federal government there for you the whole way from the delivery room to the death panel.

Here’s a good spoof (hat tip: Matthew from Facebook)

Plus this from Roxanne:

This blogger will note a few other telling problems with Julia’s life: no where does it mention where this money is coming from.  It assumes that social security will be available into the indefinite future, which is plainly erroneous. It also assumes that income-based repayment for college will exist throughout Julia’s life, which is also erroneous (explanation to follow shortly).  Julia has a sexy job as a web designer, but it never mentions that any old college major won’t qualify her for that job, nor does it say that she eschewed the liberal arts in favour of computer science.   Julia has a baby at age 31 but still needs more government help than my parents did when they were in their very early 20s. No where does Julia turn to charity, participate in charity or her community (except for a community garden, which is helpful only to those in her nice, middle-class area), go to church, or do many other things that normal Americans do.  It never said, “Julia’s Catholic Church shut itself down rather than pay for abortion drugs, so she was left to say her rosary at home.”  No mention is made of how Julia’s one child, and, by extension, everyone’s precious one baby, can pay for Social Security for their parents.

—–

More reality from Roxanne as she nails the upside-down nature of Obamacare:

The only way that ObamaCare can control costs (and not reduce them, see above), is to ration care.  We’ll eventually all have “free” doctor’s visits but be denied life-saving treatment, which is the exact opposite result that you want for insurance, which is supposed to cover the really expensive things you can’t pay for yourself.  It would be like homeowner’s insurance that covers a leaky faucet for free but doesn’t give you a cent if your house burns down.

—–

Some good pro-life news: Georgia becomes 6th state to protect pain-capable preborn children.  That’s progress, but even if someone doesn’t feel pain it is still immoral to kill her because she’s unwanted.  Pain-free killing is still killing.  If we really love our neighbors we’ll fight abortion.

—–

The Left Got it Right: Let’s Drop the “I-Word”

So today, let’s acknowledge that words are indeed important. Let’s follow the lead of our friends on the progressive left. Let’s agree that “illegal alien” is inaccurate, insufficient, and possibly charged with interplanetary racism.

Today, let’s begin using the far more accurate and race-neutral term of criminal entrant.

—–

Black Teen Run Off the Liberal Plantation — fascinating story about a teenager who dared to write about the similarities of slave-owner mentality and those who rule her schools.  Monopolists don’t like to give up their power!  Oddly, she hasn’t received a call from the President.

And see Rewriting History, where Stan exposes the many myths about which political party has really helped black people.

—–

California apparently solved all their financial problems, so they are branching out.  Now the anti-choice zealots want to take away the rights of people who want to leave the LGBTQX lifestyles.  Stan has a good analysis.  Apparently all the stories of change from places like this must be lies, because the State of California said they couldn’t be true.

—–

The non-virgin Virgin Mary of Mormonism — very thorough analysis of one of the many foundational errors of Mormonism.  Chock full of facts and quotes you won’t be hearing from the young men knocking on your door.

—–

California bill targets consensual therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction — Just part of the activists’ ongoing SodoMonopoly plan, where religion, education, entertainment, government, media, medicine, counseling, foreign aid, etc. must be 100.0000% pro-LGBTQX or else .

—–

General Electric: $14,000,000,000 in profits, 57,000 page tax return, zero taxes paid.

The sole purpose of corporate taxation is that it allows for Big Government “picking winners and losers,” as Paul Ryan puts it. Not even corporations that lack GE’s cozy relationship with the Obama Regime pay the taxes themselves; all costs are passed along to customers. In any case, the government’s main source of income is Ben Bernanke’s metaphorical printing press. The tax that actually produces the most revenue is inflation, a means of taxing every penny in your pocket.

The point of our tax code is to allow bureaucrats to “reward our friends and punish our enemies,” to use Obama’s phrase. Otherwise, corporations would devote their resources to hiring, cutting costs, and producing better products rather than to bribing the leeches in Washington.

—–

“Attacked by tolerance.”  Not coming soon to the mainstream media near you.  These would be front-page “hate crimes” if done in the other direction.  I expect this hypocrisy from the pro-LGBTQX groups, but not from those claiming the name of Christ who aid, abet and encourage them.  I pray that they all repent and believe.

—–

This is a great video by those upset that Obama is taking all the credit for killing Bin Laden.

Tolerance demands disagreement

I figure there are two common reactions to the title of this post.

1. Duh.

2. Huh?

I’m assuming (hoping!) you loyal readers had the first option.

By definition, you can only tolerate that with which you disagree.  Example: I like the Pittsburgh Steelers.  But if you like another team I tolerate your views.  If you are one of those kind and wonderful people who like the Steelers, then I don’t tolerate you.  Why?  Because there is nothing to tolerate.  We agree on the awesomeness of the Steelers!

Sadly, our culture has perverted the word tolerance to mean acceptance and affirmation.  But that is the opposite of the real meaning of the word.  And ironically, the same people who have changed the meaning of the word by 180 degrees are intolerant of others in the classic sense of the word.  If you disagree with them they will be very quick not to tolerate you.

(Unhinged) Birds of a feather

Many advocates for legalized abortion, oxymoronic “same sex marriage,” New Atheism / macro-evolution, global warming  and any non-Liberal speech in general (i.e., the war on Fox) have something in common: They fear open debate and want to shut up their opponents.  They will tell you with a straight face that freedom of speech only applies to certain views.  They will do almost anything to avoid serious discussions on the facts and logic of opposing views.

They hypocritically make up a new definition for tolerance then ignore that version as well.  Real tolerance is respect for people but not necessarily ideas.  The postmodern folks sort of switched that to not necessarily respecting people but pretending all ideas should be respected.  As the video below shows, these people don’t believe in respect for people or other ideas.

Today we focus on the pro-legalized abortionists.  Pro-life students at McGill University in Canada overcame great odds and an attempted ban just to get a speaker approved.  But that wasn’t the end of it.  As noted at Thoughts Out Loud:

After jumping through all obstacles with Canadian McGill University officials and the campus Student Union, event organisers were able to schedule, advertise to students and hold on campus a presentation addressing the issue of abortion. However, the event shortly went pear-shaped when, no sooner had the host introduced the guest speaker, and barely had the speaker an opportunity to complete his opening sentence, that a group of rowdy pro-abort protesters disrupted the presentation.

Go to the one minute mark of this video to see the face of the new “tolerance.”  Watch as much as you can stomach of college students who think that the pro-life position is so awful that it can’t even be presented in public.   They are so pathetic that I was embarrassed for them — and they are my ideological enemies!

Unbelievable.  Screaming, shouting, singing children’s songs and more all because they couldn’t stand that others might hear the pro-life view.  Remember, no one was forcing these “adults” to listen to anything.  How open minded of them.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.  If these folks think it is morally neutral or a moral good to be able to crush and dismember that life before birth, I wouldn’t try to prevent them from defending that view in the public square.  Why are they so afraid of pro-lifers sharing our reasoning?  Why do they think that presenting our views to a willing audience is worse than this?

This won’t be getting better anytime soon.  These extremists want people with conservative values to fear them and to just shut up.  Not here.

New contender in the most abused Bible passage of the decade

Until recently the clear leader in this unfortunate contest was Matthew 7:1 –  Judge not, that you be not judged.  That verse was always handy for those who wanted to judge others for judging others (you read that right), because so few caught the hypocrisy and fewer still knew to read just a few more verses to realize that, ironically enough, Jesus was only teaching not to judge hypocritically.  He didn’t teach that we are never to judge.

But another verse has come into contention.  It is often quoted in support of why we must pass the ObamaCare bill. 

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

For purposes of this post, I’ll ignore four additional problems with those using this passage:

  1. They are usually quick to play the “separation of church and state” card if you bring Jesus into issues where they disagree with you.
  2. It is a false dichotomy to imply that you either support this bill or you don’t care about “the least of these.”  It is entirely possible to care for the least of these and have a host of ideas which you can defend as being superior solutions.
  3. They are typically pro-legalized abortion, and the irony of them self-identifying as being the sole group caring for the least of these is almost too much to take.
  4. They use this verse so authoritatively yet are usually the ones denying other concepts that it contains, such as Jesus being the judge of all humanity and of the eternal punishment so clearly taught at the end of the passage (Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.).

Instead, I’ll  just show how they misinterpret the text.  It isn’t hard to do as long as you follow rule #1 in studying the Bible: Always read in context!

Here’s a more extensive look at the passage [Emphasis in the original.  Just kidding!  Emphasis added, of course.  Matthew just used bold, not bold italics.]

Matthew 25:31-40 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

If you read the whole passage I think it becomes quite clear:  Jesus is praising the individuals who did those things themselves.  He didn’t praise them for taxing others to help him, or forcing others to visit someone in prison, and so on. 

So should we help the least of these?  Absolutely!  Get our your wallets, people.  Anyone reading this is virtually certain to be in the top 2% of the richest people who ever lived.  Christians who know how this whole thing plays out, big picture-wise, should really be giving generously.  But there are many ways to do that without passing this travesty of a bill that will raise costs, reduce care and give even more power to a government that doesn’t deserve it and will almost certainly abuse it.

As I’ve said before, if you think you have a plan that optimizes the common welfare by modifying insurance legislation, then put it up for honest debate. Just please don’t call it charity or invoke the name of Jesus in doing so, and don’t make it a false dichotomy of supporting Obama vs. being a greedy racist bastard.  Oh, and please don’t quote Matthew 25:40 unless you plan to use it properly.

Oh the humanity! UPDATED

Update: Be sure to read Playing the Race Card on Gay Marriage.  Carlotta highlights some of the absurdities of the pro-LGBTQ movement.  They have a lot of nerve trying to co-opt the Civil Rights movement.  From the article she analyzed:

Well, let’s see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Then there’s this from Verum Serum:

Oddly enough, I haven’t been able to find one gay activist/gay rights spokesperson who has been able to articulate HOW these two are the same.

Let me give it a shot…

The history of blacks in the United States begins with slavery and continues on to various forms of societal discrimination that has included:  denial of voting rights, denial of property ownership rights, denial of equity in education, denial of access to public facilities, denial of access to businesses, denial of equal access to public transportation, etc.

Homosexuals in the United States have had to endure…society’s refusal to allow them to change the definition of marriage.

You know what?  The homosexuals are RIGHT.  They are EXACTLY the same as blacks!  Viva la Revolucion!

At times I’m tempted to say, go ahead and give them “gay marriage.” The sooner they get all they think they want the sooner they’ll realize that they are still miserable and separated from God.

The problem is that one of the things on their laundry list is to silence the church, because the Bible will always be a constant reminder that they aren’t fooling God.  And I’m not keen on giving up the church just yet.

hindenbergA post titled When MY Generation Speaks by a 30-ish liberal friend railed against people in favor of Proposition 8 in California. 

This entry is not to argue the inherent rights of gays to marry – not because there aren’t plenty of people who would love to debate this but because the debate would change nothing. Exit polling clearly indicates people make this decision based on dogma, not on logic – and if I have learned one thing in life, it is that reasoning with dogma is like talking to a wall. 

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, with dogma such as, “Haters!  Irrational!  Uneducated!  You want to send gays to internment camps!  You’re forcing your religion on us!  Of course we wouldn’t teach kindergarteners about this!  Etc.!”

Here is some logic for those who are interested:

  • Same sex unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child, so the State has no interest in promoting or regulating them.
  • Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
  • Gay couples already get benefits from the State of California.  This was all about affirmation.
  • The judges ignored the will of the people, so the amendment made perfect sense.
  • Sexual preferences are not Civil Rights.  Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not. 
  • Oxymoronic “same sex marriage” doesn’t mean that marriage is redefined as man/woman, woman/woman or man/man, it redefines it to say that it is not just between a man and a woman — it is whatever anyone wants to define it to be.  The same “anti-discrimination” rationale is immediately available for polygamists, incestuous couples, etc.

Note that I didn’t even refer to the Bible.  If people want to know what God has to say — and they should, since He created the universe and us — here’s a summary:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
  • In short, to advance “same sex marriage” is to be perpetually shaking your fist at God in rebellion.

Here’s more from the other blogger:

That the proposition passed is an injustice and is unjustifiable – but look to the horizon. People, especially the dogmatized, fear that which is different – that which they do not understand. Just as the elderly and the dogmatized were the most fervent opponents of desegregation and of women’s suffrage, they are holding back progress on this issue – the civil rights issue of my generation. But my generation will have the last word, and years from now, when gay rights are considered as inalienable as the rights of blacks and women, we will look back with shame and confusion at those who stood against the tide of equality.

Actually, we do understand it.  We don’t fear what is different, we fear what it will do to innocent people and the structure of the foundation of society.

And as usual this guy and his bigoted, shameful generation pull up the drawbridge on people with different sexual preferences.  They pat themselves on the back for supporting gay rights but ignore preferences of others.

What about the “Civil Rights” of  those who want polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and who knows what else?  If marriage is not just for a man and a woman, then who says it has to be just for humans, or just for two people,  or just for non-siblings, or just for living people, etc.?  The reasoning for same sex unions would apply to them as well.  And don’t tell me that judges wouldn’t rationalize those.  Any group that can see unlimited abortion rights in the Constitution has a remarkable — albeit perverted — creative streak.

I realize how tempting it is for people to insist that those who disagree with them are irrational bigots, but the facts do not support their arguments.

I am glad that his generation has the right to speak and I concede that they may get their way at the ballot box someday.  I just hope that more of his generation exercise their right to think critically as well.