Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 72

Supreme Court Definition of Marriage … An Examination

Yesterday on FOX roundtable format the questions discussed was perverted coupling.

Tony Perkins (taking the side of “no” to perverted coupling) questions Ted Olson

“What is the purpose of marriage?

Ted Olson (taking the side of “yes” to perverted coupling) responds,

“The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times. It is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition two twin brothers could marry each other. Indeed, by Olson’s definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover. Indeed, by Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

We would also ask Olson, “By what standard or authority does Olson dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does Olson dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty? Olson must answer the basis of authority by which he limits marriage the way that he does.

Upon Olson’s and SCOTUS’s definition what prohibits necrophilia or bestiality? After all, animals are persons too by the lights of many egalitarian Unitarians.

I hope that people, who still have a smidgen of rationality left, can see that Olson’s putative reasoning is stemming from a Worldview that denies the reality of distinctions. This “reasoning,” is John Lennon’s “Imagine” incarnated

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..”

How different is that sentiment then,

“Imagine there’s no distinctions
It isn’t hard to do
No sex organs to worry about
And no gender too
Imagine all the people
Living Transgendered lives”

2.) Notice that Olson invokes three of the three French Revolution slogan markers. The French Revolution geared up madame guillotine to support “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” Olson likewise invokes each one of these as the standard by which marriage must be allowed. The sodomite agenda is just the next extension of the French Revolution.

3.) Olson insists that perverted coupling is a “fundamental right.” Where does that right come from? Who has given that right? By what objective standard does one appeal to in order to find this right?

Judicial Sodomy

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pp. 140, 141
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

The ongoing imposition of the Sodomite agenda upon the American “nation” has been a top down political power grab that defies the whole concept of “we the people.” The laws that had prohibited same-sex marriage had all been enacted, in a way consistent with Republican forms of Government, either by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

What we have witnessed on this issue is nothing but Judicial Tyranny and Gubernatorial and Congressional Cowardice. The US Congress could have passed DOMA with a Constitutional provision that their ruling was outside the purview of the Courts but chose to decline.

You see, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts]…out of the game.” This could have been done with the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) legislation but was not.

The Gubernatorial cowardice is seen in Governor’s refusing to declare SCOTUS decisions as void and without standing in their States. This is the old State’s rights argument.

Inasmuch as neither the US Congress nor State Governors refuse to stand up to Federal Judicial Tyranny, in that much they are just as responsible for the Sodomization of America as is the Federal Courts.

Since sodomy is intimately connected with a faith system that is pagan, what is happening now is the Judicially forced implementation of the yoke of a pagan religion upon the American people. Americans, may, because of their Christian faith, find the support of all things sodomite against their Christian ethical code but they are, by the working of Judicial fiat, being forced to embrace a new pagan ethic. That America is being forced to embrace a new ethic and so a new religion can be seen by a flurry of cases that the courts have ruled upon,

1.) Courts forcing Printer to make and sell sodomite T-shirts

Judge Wants To Force A Printer To Make Pro-Gay T-Shirts

2.) Courts forcing Owner of Venue to rent their barn for Lesbian pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:899DX0w0AyEJ:www.truthandaction.org/farmers-fined-13000-refusing-host-lesbian-wedding/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

3.) Courts forcing Bakers to make cakes to serve sodomite pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

Judge Orders Colorado Cake Maker To Serve Gay Couples

4.) Courts forcing photographers to serve at pseudo wedding.

NM Court Says Christian Photographers Must Compromise Beliefs

5.) Courts forcing florist to serve pseudo wedding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

This action constitutes tyrannical action against the American people inasmuch as such judicial tyranny is aimed at something much larger than mainstreaming sodomy. What this action is aimed at is imposing a belief system and a religion upon the American people by the State. The American people are being told that their Christian religion is only valid insofar as it does not violate the public square religion of the State.

In brief, the US Courts are sodomizing the American people.

Lenin & his Pupils on the Assimilation of the Nations

“All advocacy of the segregation of workers of one nation from another, all attacks on Marxist assimilation … is bourgeois nationalism, against which it is essential to wage a ruthless struggle.

The theory and program of ‘cultural-national autonomy [is] petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc.

Marxism cannot be reconciled with Nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations into a higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes…

The proletariat … welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege.

The proletariat cannot support any consecration of nationalism: on the contrary, it supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove national barriers; it supports everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations.”

Vladimir Lenin
Critical Remarks on the National Question

And here we find Obama channeling Marx.

“That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic can not stand.” “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand.” “The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These hallowed walls we must tear down.”

Barack Obama – Berlin, July, 2008

And here we find Bojidar Marinov, (he who has been embraced by institutional Reconstructionism).

Marinov.

” The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand.” “The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These hallowed walls we must tear down.”

Darrell Dow On The Good Samaritan And Illegal Immigration

I am blessed to have extraordinarily thoughtful friends. Here Darrell Dow, a recovering Baptist and good friend from Kentucky gives a memorable, succinct, pithy response to a Christian who is convinced that Christians are obligated, because of Jesus Good Samaritan parable, to support illegal immigration. This piece is marked by lucid brevity and would be good to have in your pocket the next time the Zombies come at you on Immigration.

Darrell is responding to this piece by the well intended but confused Southern Baptist executive Dr. Russell Moore.

The Road to Jericho and the Border Crisis

Let’s start with the parable of the Good Samaritan since that is where misguided Christians make appeal to in regards to supporting illegal immigration. Was its inclusion in the Gospels designed to instruct the state as regards immigration policy? Here Moore engages in logically fallacious thinking by universalizing a particular obligation and in so doing creating the conditions for ethical mischief that ultimately empowers the state at the expense of civil society. Moore is propounding a universal ethic that is more a residue of Enlightenment liberalism than Christianity and leads to statism. The ethical instruction may be appropriate for individuals and even churches but Moore is laying this at the feet of the magistrate who is to be an avenger of God’s wrath and minister of justice.

This thinking leads us to conclude that we have 6.3 billion “neighbors.” But in scripture, compassion is balanced with justice, and with a preference given to kin, and by extension to nation. I Timothy 5:8 teaches, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I am operating under an assumption–that God organizes society around groups of people: families, clans, communities, tribes, nations. Open immigration and the creation of lawless boundaries destroys such a social order and a prudential civil government has an affirmative duty to protect the interests of its people first and foremost. My brother, for example is a house painter. Is he harmed or helped in his calling and ability to care for wife and children by an influx of cheap labor? Who is my neighbor in this scenario?

How do we think about refugees and immigrants? In his book “The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible”, Dr. James Hoffmeier provides a definition of an alien in Israelite culture and law. The Hebrew word ger is translated variously as “stranger” (KJV, NASB), “sojourner” (RSV, ESV), and “alien” (NIV) in contemporary English translations. A ger was a foreigner living in a land outside his homeland who had received permission from the proper authority. For example, when Jacob’s family wanted to flee famine they traveled to Egypt and asked Pharaoh for permission to enter, “We have come to sojourn in the land … please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen” (Gen. 47:4). With the appropriate permission secured, Jacob’s family, which grew into the people of Israel, became legal aliens in Egypt. In short, they were allowed into the country by the host. This scenario finds its modern equivalent in the immigrant who has legally entered a foreign land with permission and secured proper documentation to that effect.

With this background we better understand the various biblical laws protecting “aliens” from oppression. It is wrong to allow people into your land and subsequently subjugate them. God gave many laws to protect aliens in Israel. Aliens were not to be oppressed (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34). They were integrated into Israelite society, entitled to equal justice (Num. 15:15-16) and equal pay (Deut. 24:14-15), and could celebrate Passover (Ex. 12:48). They had legal standing and near equality of status in the community.

Two other Hebrew words, nekhar and zar, refer to those foreigners passing through or sojourning in Israel—this would be more in line with the “refugees” along the border. They were not given the same benefits and protections as the ger (Ex. 12:43; Deut. 15:3; 17:15). The “foreigner” and the “alien” did not have the same social and legal status. Some English versions of the Bible, including the TNIV and TLV, translate ger as “foreigner,” allowing the reader to think that these categories of people were the same. They were not.

Biblical supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform” and a “path to legalization”, which Moore endorses, often refer to Leviticus 19:33-34, which says: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Citing C. D. Ginsburg, R.J. Rushdoony says that this “‘stranger’ is one who has become circumcised, fasted on the Day of Atonement, obeyed the laws of sacrifice, and has practiced the laws of chastity, as well as obeyed other moral laws.” In short, once a foreigner had become part of the community, his nationality was not to be used against him. Such passages address treatment of aliens ONCE they are part of the community. But it tells us nothing of who should be allowed to be part of that community.

Finally, I don’t think that we can call these folks at the border “refugees.” They are not enduring political or other persecution, but are coming for economic reasons and because they know that Americans are disarmed. This ethical disarmament is what is endangering these people and encouraging them to make a dangerous journey. And to the extent that they are “refugees”, even the article that Moore cites leads one to conclude that the reason for their travails is the ongoing drug war. Will Dr. Moore try to convince Southern Baptists of the wisdom of drug legalization? With a bowl of popcorn in hand, I shall await his attempt.

I would only add that even the “ger” would forever in his generations be seen as a “stranger” since he could never inherit land as land was always to return to the Tribes and Clans.

Fortune 500 Company Affinity Group Add

Bottom-up Pride Month Special Edition

Diversity is about how we are different. Inclusion is about how our opinions are considered and valued among the people we work and live with. The only way to achieve peak performance is to be exactly who we are, contributing with our uncensored ideas, backgrounds and differences. Bottom-up is an affinity network intended to support Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Ally employees, fostering a safe, respectful culture. Help us nurture this intent following these simple steps.

1.) Bring your whole self to work

Your personal productivity will raise if you do not expend your energies hiding a significant part of yourself. It is important to have your entire energies focused on a single activity, instead of having a burden to your performance.

2.) Understand Differences

Keep in mind that we are all different, try and include these differences in your vocabulary. Avoiding exclusion through open questions can help you improve your relationships with others and foster peak performance in others. It is better to ask for a significant other than for a husband/wife, this behavior is called heterosexism.

3.) Join Bottom up.

The Bottom up affinity network is intended to include both heterosexual and homosexual employees. Join the distribution list and learn more about this important business strategy.

This email was sent out to employees of a fortune 500 company. It was passed on to me. The name “Bottom up” is a pseudonym for the real group’s name. This reveals that even fortune 500 companies are pushing this Transformation of American agenda.

The grammar and punctuation mistakes are part of the e-mail. I left them as I received them.

I wanted to spend some time exposing the fallacies.

(1.) No, diversity is about the demand that the pervert and the oddball being accepted as normative. Diversity is about insisting that traditional understandings of normal must be destroyed.

(2.) Inclusion is only important when it means including anything but that which says that including the abnormal is not healthy. Inclusion is not intended for those who have standards that demand that perversity be excluded.

(3.) Are we really to believe that the “Bottom-up” affinity group would want Biblical Christians to be exactly who they are so that they might work at the level of peak performance? Are they going to support the uncensored ideas of those who take the Scripture seriously? Will the worldview differences that exist as between a “Bottom-up” activist employee and a Biblical Christian activist employee really make for a atmosphere where peak performance is achieved?

(4.) #1 in the circulated e-mail is a recruitment tool to lure people out of the closet.

(5.) #1 in the circulated e-mail allows Biblical Christians to talk about the Lord Christ in the work place? After all, Christian employees hiding a part of themselves would be a burden to their performance.

(6.) #2 in the circulated e-mail excludes those who believe that significant others is sin. Why would you want to exclude them. It also excludes those who prefer insignificant others. After all, there doubtless are people in the company who just involve themselves in serial hook-ups with people they don’t know. Why should you ask about a significant other when that could offend the Gay Bathroom stall employees who value insignificant others?

(7.) The example used in #2 in the circulated e-mail is an example of Xenosexism (fear of the “Insignifant Other.”)

(8.) Do you suppose this Fortune 500 company would allow an e-mail to circulate amongst its employees whereby an affinity group was being started that made the point that diversity has always been a weakness? Do you suppose that they would allow an affinity group that excluded all who didn’t agree with perversity just as this groups excludes all who don’t agree with normalcy?