Hypocrites of aTheocratic Dictatorship
Pat Boone asks us to...
After a brief picture of Iran, Ahmadinejad, and it's obvious dictatorship - despite "democratic" elections, Mr. Boone requests that we...
What the ACLU either doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that atheism is a religion to those who espouse its beliefs. A religion that the ACLU routines tries to supplant in place of another. If Christianity is unconstitutional, Atheism also is unconstitutional. In America we elect representative and senators by a majority vote of the people, not by the whims of a single plaintiff and his lawyers.
The ACLU - despite their principles - are most unprincipled in that they are bright enough to pass the Bar, but not bright enough to read and understand the First Amendment, which despite its archaic language form, is plainly understood. The ACLU is become the Liberal strong-arm, advancing a progressive social experiment which has done this nation far more harm than good. To what are they progressing us toward if not a theocratic dictatorship?
Though they think they do us great service, I am reminded nonetheless of the boasting of Cade, and the astute solution of Dick - Summarily rejected, of course, for what power have lawyers that society does not permit?
If we sit back and do nothing, say nothing, we deserve every ill the ACLU specifically, and the American Left in general, foist upon this nation. At the rate they are going, America will fail. We are even now headed in that very direction.
Compare the concept of democracy - where individuals may speak and act and express their faith according to their own understandings - with theocracy, where an elite few dictate what all individuals can and cannot say, do or express concerning their beliefs.
After a brief picture of Iran, Ahmadinejad, and it's obvious dictatorship - despite "democratic" elections, Mr. Boone requests that we...
Now think ACLU.
Think an elitist coterie who twist and redefine the expressed intentions of the Constitution in order to defend anarchists, pedophiles, sworn enemies of our nation, aberrant sexual practices, blasphemies of all kinds and attacks on our hallowed institutions - and who at the same time proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion, always misappropriating a phrase not even in our Constitution, "separation of church and state."
Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench - and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do! Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general, unarguably principles on which our society was founded. Think a group determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching - even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue - from American life!
Think theocratic dictatorship.
What the ACLU either doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that atheism is a religion to those who espouse its beliefs. A religion that the ACLU routines tries to supplant in place of another. If Christianity is unconstitutional, Atheism also is unconstitutional. In America we elect representative and senators by a majority vote of the people, not by the whims of a single plaintiff and his lawyers.
The ACLU - despite their principles - are most unprincipled in that they are bright enough to pass the Bar, but not bright enough to read and understand the First Amendment, which despite its archaic language form, is plainly understood. The ACLU is become the Liberal strong-arm, advancing a progressive social experiment which has done this nation far more harm than good. To what are they progressing us toward if not a theocratic dictatorship?
Though they think they do us great service, I am reminded nonetheless of the boasting of Cade, and the astute solution of Dick - Summarily rejected, of course, for what power have lawyers that society does not permit?
CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain
is brave, and vows reformation.
There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny:
the three-hooped pot; shall have
ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm
shall be in common; and in Cheapside
shall my palfrey go to grass: and
when I am king, as king I will be,--
ALL
God save your majesty!
CADE
I thank you, good people: there
shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers
and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill
all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not
this a lamentable thing, that of
the skin of an innocent lamb
should be made parchment? that
parchment, being scribbled o'er,
should undo a man? Some say the bee
stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's
wax; for I did but seal once to a
thing, and I was never mine own man
since.
If we sit back and do nothing, say nothing, we deserve every ill the ACLU specifically, and the American Left in general, foist upon this nation. At the rate they are going, America will fail. We are even now headed in that very direction.
from the mind of... Eric | 12:46 AM
27 Comments:
"Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say"
Not unlike some church-goers.
Boone is really stretching here.
No, Dan...
YOU'RE the one who is stretching.
Church-going people are not trying to control or dictate your behavior in any way, and I am tired of listening to people like you who oppose every good thing in the name of Jesus make that assertion unchallenged.
Everyone you disagree with is "stretching", and yet you seem incapable of seeing your own exegetical pit. 'Not unlike some church-goers'? That's it? That's your argument?
For a 'Christian' you seem strangely comfortable with the ACLU and the Newdows of the world's blatant and active attempts to wipe Christianity off the public face of this nation.
Isn't this great?
We must LOVE the Terrorists who have stated repeatedly that they want to kill us or force us to convert to their twisted religion and ideology...
We can do nothing to protect ourselves, or our way of life, or to intervene on the behalf of an oppressed People in another soveriegn Nation...
We must condemn any response to violence anywhere it occurs, anywhere in the World...
We must sit by and do nothing while groups like the ACLU systematically strip us of our Right to Religious Freedom and Free Speech and install Atheism as the National Religion of the United States...
But CHURCH GOING PEOPLE...
THEY'RE the REAL problem...
Yes. Their's is an odd pretzel-logic... but not as tasty.
I don't think even a nice brown mustard would help that one go down.
You will never, ever meet a 'mainstream' Christian who will order your conversion at gunpoint, or blow themselves up in a Sabbaro's full of civilians eating lunch.
You WILL see a mainstream Muslim doing those things.
"Church-going people are not trying to control or dictate your behavior in any way"
Gay marriage ban, anyone? War on drugs?
I'm just saying that the aclu is NOT advocating a theocracy. It's a poor analogy.
And for the record, I'm at church every week, teach Sunday School, serve as a deacon. I'm not totally dissing churches nor totally defending the ACLU.
I'm saying that too often the demonization of groups like ACLU is a bearing of false witness, it is demonization of a group that, in fact, defends christians, in addition to defending those who'd push religion in the civic arena in ways that conflict with our laws.
Are there times when I disagree with cases that the ACLU takes? Sure. Nonetheless, they are not the anti-Christ, and the demonization of them is un-christlike.
And, as support for my case, I'd point to the statement:
"Think of a group determined to erase any and every reference to God...even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue..."
When this is not the case. The ACLU has, in fact, defended the right of people to pray - it IS free speech. They support folk's right to free speech, including prayer. They DON'T support forcing someone else to listen to other's prayers, especially in situations like schools.
Pat Boone is misrepresenting the ACLU and that is wrong. And you misrepresenting my position is wrong, as well. You know that and I'd thank you to stop.
Dan, how dare you stand up for yourself, and point out something that I have done which YOU percieve as Sin!
By your own assertions, that is not the Christian thing to do.
You are supposed to love me, and turn the other cheek, and whatnot.
I have misrepresented nothing, and I will say whatever I want.
Self Righteous Liberals are SOOOO CUTE!!
Religion in the public arena does NOT conflict with our laws. DOES NOT. In point of fact, the first amendment embraces religion in the public arena. What it prohibits is a state sponsored religion to the exclusion of all others, as perfectly illustrated by the Church of England at the time of our Constitutions creation. Allowing a Creche on city property is hardly an endorsement of Christianity. An endorsement would be for the mayor and city council to demand every citizens presence at the civic center at least once a week for daily city-sponsored prayer meetings and bible instruction, with penalties levied upon all who refuse.
And yet the ACLU, The Left, Atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, and every other God-hating sect is hell-bent on removing only Christianity. Their insanity is only further highlighted by their bizarre dislike for the colors red and green at 'Christmas' and the eviction of Santa, no less, who isn't even a religious symbol! Next thing you know, these freaks will want to ban the Easter Bunny! And St. Patricks Day!
I for one am sick and tired of it. Defend the illegal, the immoral, the abhorrent all you want, I won't join you. I will stand against the evils of this day, and anyone who defends them.
The ACLU, for all they support an occasional claimant whose religious freedoms are abridged, is still anti-religion. The occasional good case does not cleanse the slate of their multitude of evils they so zealously perpetrate on religious freedom in this country.
And for the record, perfect attendance in church, teaching Sunday School, and serving as a deacon doesn't buy you any favors with God. This is your reasonable service, but they don't buy righteousness. Only the blood of Christ will do that... And THAT is what the ACLU, The Left, Atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, and every other God-hating sect finds most abhorrent: That Jesus is the only way to God. "Oh, No! God filled the world with diversity, therefore it stands to reason that many paths should lead to God." But this is a lie. And if you can't see this....
Well, maybe you don't know God at all.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that short comments are not my forte.
1. Pat Boone asserted that the ACLU "proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion"
This is factually incorrect.
Boone also said:
"Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular"
This, too, is factually incorrect.
Boone misrepresented the ACLU. Some here have further asserted that:
"people like you who oppose every good thing in the name of Jesus"
And even questioned my Christianity:
"For a 'Christian' you seem strangely comfortable with the ACLU"
And:
"maybe you don't know God at all."
This, instead of responding to my argument that Boone has misrepresented the ACLU.
I pointed out that I am a Christian (and have been for 33 years now, since I accepted Jesus into my heart as a young man) because some seemed to think I'm hostile towards the church, so it seemed relevant - so you would know that I'm NOT hostile towards the church who are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I, in fact, love the church.
But, as one who loves the church, I do not think it wise or loving to allow misrepresentations be cast towards a group, because such actions hurt the church much more than anything the ACLU does.
But, by all means, feel free to attack me instead of discussing the topic you raised. Sticks and stones and all...
Really, Dan! You're repeated empty accusations of bearing false witness are of little effect when you continuously bear false witness....against Christian brethren.
Please spare us any further hypocritical analysis.
You might want to re-think your own position--you know, the one that INVITES brutal theocratic rule.
Daddio, this game of you making accusations towards me, followed by my asking you to show me where so that I might apologize, followed by your saying, "I don't have to show you where, just believe it!" is a bit of a bore.
I understand that it is a bit more fun to just brainlessly attack those you disagree with than to have an actual discussion, but after a while, it's just boring.
I will play along enough to say that you are misrepresenting my position when you say that I'm inviting theocratic rule. I've never said such a thing and I'm advocating actions against such a thing.
Now, unless you want to speak like an adult, go play with someone else.
"I have misrepresented nothing, and I will say whatever I want."
You will, indeed. "Saying whatever they want" is the habit of many folk, whether they have anything to say or not.
But just to demonstrate the false witness (in case I didn't make it clear earlier), tug said:
"We can do nothing to protect ourselves, or our way of life, or to intervene on the behalf of an oppressed People in another soveriegn Nation"
When he can point to no place where I've advocated "doing nothing" as I disagree with "doing nothing," and would never advocate such.
In fact, this is part of the problem with war-as-solution being your main tool - we can't possibly use war-as-solution to deal with all the world's difficulties, genocides and oppressions.
So, by emphasizing war-as-solution, you are also indirectly saying "I'm advocating doing nothing in most cases because we can only bomb so many places at a given time." I'm opposed to that sort of defeatism and inaction. It is what has given us Rwanda, Congo, Iraq, Germany, and on and on and on...
So, Tug (and anyone else) you are of course free to say whatever you want. But short of some evidence, how will anyone know what else to think but that you're deliberately misrepresenting my position?
Those little quote marks that EL and others put around "Christian" when they want to sneeringly suggest that the object obviously is *not* a Christian because he or she disagrees on a political point -- they're not boring.
Pathetic. Sad. Judgmental. Prideful. Wrong. Sinful, actually.
But not boring.
I see y'all had "fun" over the weekend.
Pretty ballsy for anyone to slap around a deacon, in my view.
Dan, come to my place and tell me about your church ... I think the "Fundamentalist American president" post is as good a place as any.
Never mind, Dan. I found your link to Jeff Street.
ER thinks being a deacon somehow provides exegetical immunity... Theological immunity... Doctrinal immunity... POLITICAL immunity... but my bible says,
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Even if Dan were the preacher himself, that doesn't buy him unquestioned belief. My bible says,
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Did you catch that? "Study to shew thyself approved..." Not the preacher. This is how heresy creeps in. Who will challenge the preacher and his teaching if there's no one in the pews who can discern truth from heresy?
Why am I having to explain this to you guys?!? Who has been teaching YOU?
The Holy Spirit. Jesus. The Word.
My little ol' 5th Grade Sunday School teacher, Miss Marie. My mother. My father. My pastors of 40 years. Leonard Ravenhill. Larry Norman. Billy Graham. CS Lewis. A.W. Tozer. Keith Green.
My current pastor (who's the best in the world). Jonathan Edwards. Wendell Berry. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. My children. My wife of 21 years.
Shall I continue?
"Did you catch that? "Study to shew thyself approved...""
By ALL means, challenge me. I'm not opposed to that at all. That's what I'm doing with you, after all.
Challenging me is not what concerns me. Misrepresenting me (and the ACLU) is what concerns me.
If you think I've advocated "doing nothing" in the face of murder, then point to where I said that and call me on it BY ALL MEANS. I expect you to do no less.
BUT if I haven't advocated doing nothing, then you should quit libeling this Christian brother of yours and apologize for misrepresenting my position. You can tell me it was a misunderstanding - I'm an understanding sort of fella and you've been mostly respectful towards me - I won't hold it against you or nothin'.
I actually took time to pour over all the email notifications I've received from Dan Trabue telling me a new comment was left at Pocket Full of Mumbles... I actually began to compile a list of memorable quotes, until I realized I'd be at it for an hour or more-- especially more if I chose to respond to each one in turn, which I know I did at the time.
The problem here is not that I owe Dan an apology so much as Dan fails to see the pattern I saw almost immediately.
Consistently:
When evil is mentioned of Barack Obama, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other entity I have chosen to speak out against, Dan will defend my targets by pointing out Bush's illegalities, scriptural faux pas, and war crimes; Israel's indefensible crimes against humanity against innocent children in Lebanon, or Hamas' overwhelming sense of desperation at Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Yet Dan only pays lip service to the 'crimes' of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the scriptural faux pas of Obama-- with Obama, Dan's "still waiting to see..."-July 21, 2006. With Bush, the jury's in, and the verdict is guilty.
Granted Dan doesn't defend these 'evil' entities because he supports them, but rather, in fairness he only wishes to point out that the other side isn't any more righteous-- As if we needed Dan to point this out. Instead, Dan conveniently excuses those with whom he has a closer ideological affinity. He defends Hezbollah by coyly suggesting that Israel's actions are illegal because too many children are being killed, all the while neglecting to acknowledge that Hezbollah hides behind women and children. What Dan really advocates here is Israel hog-tied; unable to do anything in relatiation or defense because the evil muslims hide among children, and were Israel to defend herself, children would certainly die. THAT is a defense of evil.
Iraq is not a front in the War on Terror-- a lie currently pushed by Liberals and Democrats.
Bush Lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction-- another lie currently pushed by Liberals and Democrats.
Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and Terrorists-- yet another lie currently pushed by Liberals and Democrats
Bush is a war criminal-- a delusion brought on by wishful thinking, especially since still another Liberal and Democratic lie conveniently forgets about the crimes of Saddam, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah....
The impeachment of President Clinton was nothing more than partisan politics-- Because in the Liberal and Democratic mind, lying under oath to a federal grand jury about BJ's is 'understandable'. Of course it is! But that doesn't make it okay. It's still lying under oath.
Bush's Domestic Spying Program-- No... Bush's FOREIGN surveillance program. A program that 90% of Democrats (in office) insist is a vital tool in the War on Terror.
The Bush Administration's crime of outing an undercover CIA operative-- Again, no. Richard Armitage: no friend of the Bush Administration, and a name known to the New York Times WHILE they slandered the President of the United States and his staff.
And let's not forget the ACLU. Dan defends the ACLU. Dan, a Christian who obviously believes there is a constitutional wall of separation between religion and state, despite the fact it's nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Just because the ACLU saw profit in defending a few token cases of religious freedom, Dan is willing to forgive or conveniently overlook the hundreds of cases where the ACLU has doggedly striven to ban religious expression from public life.
Proof. Dan want's proof. Anyone with time enough can read through the various post here, and Daddio's, and Marks place, and ER's place and find all the confirmation they need to what I'm saying here.
But let me just spell it out in plain english. As to whether or not Dan's salvation is genuine, I'm "still waiting to see..." Let's just say, I want to believe he is and therefore I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I think that's only fair.
What honestly concerns me is Dan's incessant defense of entities that, to my mind, are completely indefensible.
But this much is true. The Spirit of God gives each man gifts. And each man's gifts are unique to that man. Each of us have been given gifts best suited to the specific purpose God has placed in each and every one of us. Everyone has a 'distinct and unique' (that's called a Tautology, by the way) purpose. Dan's gifts are quite obviously vastly different from my own. Perhaps Dan was created specifically to urge peace. And for the record, Eric sees absolutely nothing wrong with that. But Eric's gifts lean toward struggle... I am here to fight error and defend the faith everywhere I find it, or sense the need for it. This has become increasingly clear to me over the last few years. EVERYTHING my life has been up to this point has been in preparation for what I am today. Am I always in the will of God? Show me a man who is!
And it's by THAT standard that I call some of Dan's motives and actions into question. I feel it in the deepest parts of my being that defending the faith is of paramount importance. Dan's priorities are obviously different, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong... As I said, I'm "still waiting to see..."
I think Dan is wrong here. Very wrong. Some of this thinking is obviously ideologically driven, but most of it most definitely is not.
If Dan is truly my Brother, I'll ask him to allow these hands to do their job. In return, perhaps I can learn to allow those feet to do theirs --1 Corinthians 12.
You accomplish nothing, Dan, by claiming our arguments are flawed because Bush is just as bad-- I get it that you don't like Bush; everyone who reads here does. And trust me, no one here thinks the man walks on water.
War, as horrible as it is, is nonetheless necessary at times. War was condoned in David's time-- God hates sin, and sometimes sin is too far gone for the sinner to be redeemed; that the only remedy therefore is to cut it off... Like a cancerous growth. God's not will that any perish, but He knows many will. He would rather us not fight, hence the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy, but war will not end until Jesus commands the world to begin beating swords into plowshares. War is never a first choice solution. But that doesn't invalidate it as a last resort. And when the time comes- as it always... inevitably does --to pick up the sword, it must be done, as any other job we do, as though it were done for the Lord.
Lastly, Ms. Green offers some insight into the differences between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam. And as I've recently stated here, on this blog, it's no contest.
Wow, that was at least thought about and you put some time in to it. For thinking deeply about it, I thank you.
You still misrepresent my position, but I honestly think it's because you just don't get it and not because you're doing it deliberately. And I don't know what to do about that but acknowledge it is what it is.
"I feel it in the deepest parts of my being that defending the faith is of paramount importance."
I agree entirely. It is why I engage you and others in conversation. It is, to a large extent, why I blog.
"What honestly concerns me is Dan's incessant defense of entities that, to my mind, are completely indefensible."
This IS one area where we're butting heads. As to the ACLU, I stated clearly that they have positions with which I sometimes disagree.
But, as a Christian, I find it loathesome when other Christians use smear tactics and mischaracterizations - demonization - of entities when they disagree with them.
I'm suggesting that Boone would have been better off had he said, "The ACLU has taken X case to defend X position. This is troubling because..."
But instead, Boone spoke a mistruth when he said that the ACLU was "openly hostile" to "not only Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general." He also suggested that the ACLU is "determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching - even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue - from American life."
These are lies, or if you'd like me to be nicer, mischaracterizations. As a Christian, I will defend an entity (I'd even defend Bush - and have!) when another "Christian" speaks untruths about them.
That's because lying is wrong. I'm defending the faith, just as you say you wish to do.
And you've done that here again with me. Again, I'm thinking that you're just not seeing how you're misrepresenting me - I'm not accusing you of outright lying. But in truth, you misrepresent my positions. I won't bother rehashing them unless you're wanting me to provide examples (which I've already done at least once and which you ignored).
I'll say it again, by all means you should correct me if I'm wrong. I'm suggesting the way that you do this, though, is by saying, "Dan, you said "X" when in fact, "Y" is the truth."
THAT is how Christians correct one another in love, NOT by saying "What Dan really advocates here is Israel hog-tied; unable to do anything in relatiation or defense because the evil muslims hide among children, and were Israel to defend herself, children would certainly die. THAT is a defense of evil."
Don't tell me what I think (You want to defend evil) and tell me that THAT strawman is wrong. Tell me what I've said that is offensive and we'll talk about what I really believe, not your often incorrect summation of what I believe.
I'd suggest that, if we both truly want to defend the faith, a little honesty is a good place to begin.
I think the extremes within the Christian faith are like the extremes in politics in that each extreme finds it difficult to even conceive the validity of the other, hence is suspicious of the other.
Here's a suggestion: We regard one another as loyal Americans until our actions show otherwise. And, We regard one another as Christians until our actions -- not words -- indicate otherwise!
This "if so-and-so is a true believer" stuff is absolutely wrong. It puts the doubter in the place of God himself. Stop it.
Y'all come over to my place and let a quiz explain your theological worldview. :-) Seven percent Fundamentalist here! Surprise!
Ya know, if one of us was in church and a bunch of foreign Christians, with customs, and nonessential interpretations different from our own, was vistitng, chances are none would doubt the salvation of the foreign brethren! We should try that here. Because brother EL, your ways are as foreign to me, and clearly to Dan, as a dadgum Cameroonian Episcopal would be to me! Likewise, I'm sure. :-)
"We regard one another as Christians until our actions -- not words -- indicate otherwise!"
And certainly not words that the person never even said, but that another assumed they meant...
Post a Comment
<< Home