Thursday, May 20, 2021

The Palpable Insecurity of Leftism

 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing. You will recognize them by their fruits…” (Matt. 7:15-16)

 

               I do not deny that Leftists are currently achieving their goals.  Yet they are grounded NOT in competence; but are attained unfairly by the following illegitimate means.  I urge you to survey my postings over recent months, which both expand upon and document the following itemized factors in the Leftist agenda.  They can all be found on my blogsite, www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com.

1.      Leftists tend* to shield themselves from exposure to their self-contradictions by their records.

 

2.      Leftist distance themselves from videos that expose their culpability in societal catastrophes.

 

3.      In contradiction to their denial of the validity of moral standards, Leftists:

 

A.     impose instead societal demands of their own design (a ploy called “cancel-culture”).

 

B.     usurp the role of judge and, with their ever-shifting standards, condemn the “rebels.”

 

4.      In contradiction to their “Free Speech” movement in the 1960s, Leftists censor views which challenge their agenda, as opposed to promoting honest debate before open audiences.

 

5.      Leftist’ “Alphabet” news media (LAM) fail to confront the silence of their leaders when called upon to account for their controversial policies (massive illegal-border crossing, overthrowing current energy policy and, consequently, eliminating jobs, thereby damaging economies, under-mining traditional moral standards only to replace them with non-moral human demands, etc.).

 

6.      LAM outright censors the views of Conservatives both as individuals and as.  At the same time they suppress the airing of public events which expose their agenda (e.g. refusing to cover the nightly rioting over the Summer of 2020.

 

7.      Leftists chronically vacillate over the authority of scientific truth (e.g. in the “name of science   get rid of fossil fuels!” while allegedly by the same authority, judging it to be a racist ploy to insist that in school classrooms “Blacks must do their mathematics accurately” and declaring that if an anatomical male feels like a female, then such [a one] belongs in the girls showers!”).

 

8.      The Leftist’ chronic imposition of a double-standard with respect to social policy:

 

A.     Expectations that all U.S. citizens wear masks due to Covid19, while encouraging multiplied thousands of non-citizens to storm our national borders with no demand that they be guar-anteed Covid-free, as an assurance that our nation’s medical protections be secured.

 

B.     Prior to the latest Presidential Campaign, Democrats declared that protesting is a patriotic act, while following that campaign, they declare protesting against Biden to be treasonous. “

 

9.      Leftists ignore the failure of their colleagues, while holding Conservatives to the same standards.  For example, Barnard College instructor Ben Philippe, fantasized about killing White people by “gassing” and “detonating” them (https://jonathanturley.org/2021-04-28/ barnard-professor-triggers-free-speech-controversy-after-writing-about-detonating-and-gassing-white-people/).

 

* This verb applies to the noun, “Leftist” virtually every time I employ it in this article.

Monday, May 17, 2021

The Absolutely Urgent Necessity to Persuade, Part 1

 We cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against God and bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.     (2 Corinthians 10:5)

                It is an underlying, though implicit, assumption of our time that the foundations which ensured the multitudes of blessings our society has enjoyed up to now, will continue refreshing and refurbishing our civilization’s driving force into the future.  This expectation applies not only to our deliberations over earth-focused governance, but also to the state of our hearts and minds with respect to the Kingdom of God.  These challenges are interconnected.  This faulty view assumes that the successful principles from the past can spring from out of either anywhere or nowhere, when in fact they can only be expected to arise from that kind of source which has both the rational potential (wisdom) and energizing power (the Holy Spirit) to inspire within us the moral, rational, and spiritual principles that are necessary for living together in harmonious community.  The reason is that the human exchanges required to achieve this social goal are highly-complex. 

One of the firmest laws of science in the realm of physics is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which holds that all physical entities and the interactions between them are cooling off, wearing out, and/or becoming increasingly random when limited to their own resources.  Yet even so, this propen-sity also applies to civilizations, societies, and individuals.  Note the following social observations:

               We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our nation was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is totally inadequate to the governance of another.”[1]

               What reason do we have to suppose that our civilization, in contrast to civilizations which have preceded it, will endure?  The person who has not faced this question is hardly alive.  That many different ways of life have flourished and have then declined is beyond contradiction.  Consequently, there is no high probability that the fate of our civilization will be different—unless….  The precise character of this unless is of such importance as to attract and to hold our best thinking…It is our most urgent question.[2]

               Civilization is hideously fragile, you know that; and there’s not much between us and the horrors beneath, just about a coat of varnish, wouldn’t you say?”[3]

               Where did the doing without God end but in the undoing of man through the anger of God?”[4]

Our nation in recent decades has been divided politically almost exactly 50/50 percent.  Yet in our day, the means of publicly seeking desired outcomes in social governance is rapidly shifting away from changing people’s minds to fixating on strategic manipulation.  With the exception of just a few commentators on radio and television, I fear that many conservative spokespersons either cannot or will not articulate the intellectual foundations which undergird conservativism.  Others weaken the same message by distancing themselves from any necessary connection to our Maker and Redeemer.[5] 

You may have access to my entire document at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com/ articles


[1] President John Adams, to the Massachusetts Militia on October 11, 1798, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

[2] Elton Trueblood. The Company of the Committed. (Harper and Brothers, 1961), p. 2

[3] C.P. Snow. A Coat of Varnish. (Scribner’s, 1979).

[4] Augustine, The City of God. (Image, 1958), p. 543.

[5] Russel Kirk. The Roots of American Order. (Regnery Gateway, 1991), pp. 462,3. Referring to Orestes Brownson, Kirk wrote, “Justice requires…the authority of religious truth…Without authority vested somewhere, without moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere. Yet modern liberalism and democracy are contemptuous of the whole concept of moral authority.

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

How Two Parties Witnessing the Exact Same Phenomenon Can draw Opposite Conclusions

 For this judgment I came into the world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Jesus—John 9:39).

 

               It is not expected in a court of law that separate witnesses who are under official examination will agree exactly as to what they saw or heard.[1]  The reasons for the diversity of perceptions are often entirely innocent due to such factors as imperfect memories, perspectival differences hindering their capacity to witness the event under consideration thoroughly, the level of distraction experienced by the viewer due to competing sensations, and so forth and so on.  Experts in the legal field are trained to evaluate the discrepancies so that they can fruitfully discern the truth of the occasion being examined. 

               What this essay addresses instead are the circumstances specifically described in the title above.  The body of disputes which are paralyzing our society/nation today include such concerns as: 

(1) Did Donald Trump instigate the protest at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2010?

(2) Did the nightly protests of the Summer of 2000 include a significant amount of heavily destructive rioting? 

(3) Can the efficacy of these protests be connected with the will of certain party officials?

(4) Was Donald Trump’s policy over the Mexican border effective and also received positively by our southern neighbors during his administration?

(5) Was Donald ineffective, or effective, in facing the Covid19 onslaught?

(6) Is the United States in a position to sever our present energy source and policy and instead set in place the “Green New Deal in the immediate future?”

(7) Do current public social mandates grounded on questions of gender identity fulfill Biden’s stated mandate to “Follow the Science”?

(8) Does the present philosophy and policies of the Biden Administration as a whole further the Constitutional principles of the United States of America?  Or do they abort that vision?  

(9) Were the grounds for Donald Trump’s political foes’ alienation against him during the recent election cycle due to his alleged moral “transgressions?, or instead for his determination to “clear the swamp” of anti-American policies practices being exercised by corporate economic giants against the economic interests of the USA? (Fox News, Tucker Carlson, 04-16-2021). 

(10) Since, as I recently concluded from a statement by Chuck Schumer, dictates by the Demo-crat party indicate the pseudo-moral imperative of our day (Fox News, 04-22-2021), which vision can be predicted to create a free and just society where every people group shares in its benefits? 

There are bodies of evidence relevant to each and every one of the above questions or concerns that have the capacity to decisively adjudicate them all.[2]  For this reason, the answer to the question is starkly simple.  It is a matter of facing facts that can be known coupled with the commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leaves.  Insofar as anyone refuses to either come to terms with the facts or allow them to alter our lives, they have excluded themselves from the possibility of obeying the truth.



[1] Simon Greenleaf (1782-1852), Dean Professor of Law at Harvard University Law school. The Testimony of the Evangelists. http://www. newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Simon-Greenleaf-Testimony-of-the-Evangelists.pdf, (public domain), p. 10.

[2] See my articles, “Humanistic ‘Morality’ Never Has Created a Free and Just Society,” “The Self-Contradictory Core of the Cancel-Culture Agenda,” “Fox News Alone Visually Connects the 2020 Summer Rioting to the Guilty Party,” and “The Choice: Flawed Liberators? Or Clueless Thugs?,” and “The Truth About Donald Trump and White Supremacy, ”all of which are found at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com  ** The video and transcript of Donald Trump’s January 6 speech can be accessed at  https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6.