Category: Culture

And Now a Word From Rachel McAtee Contra The Doug Wilson Vaccine Nonsense

If Doug Wilson would like to have a civil discussion on vaccines, he would be wise not to start off by portraying anti-vaxxers as cute but ignorant hippies (Seriously? Multi-colored wind chimes?)

Wilson’s whole article presupposes that vaccines work and are effective. He says that we are able to debate about vaccines because they have been “so successful”. He pooh pooh’s the claim that vaccines have a correlation with autism. Instead of discussing the vaccine itself (because that’s where he knows he could get in trouble), he wants to speak abstractly about whether people should have personal choice when it comes to vaccines. But let us suppose for a moment that the anti-vaxxers are right and that vaccines are ineffective and harmful. Suppose they are right that vaccines are the main cause of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). If so, why are we talking about whether the government should be able to force death down our throats? Shouldn’t we be discussing whether anyone should be getting a vaccine in the first place? Shouldn’t we be doing tests to see what the long term effects are of numerous shots full of mercury, formaldehyde, genetically modified human protein, and aborted fetal cells? If vaccines really do cause death, would Doug Wilson still be arguing that the government has the “right” to force their “convictions” on us? I hope not. If he can first prove that vaccines do indeed work, are effective, and do not cause death, then we can talk about whether the government has the right to forcefully vaccinate all members of society.

Doug Wilson cites Leviticus 13:1-4 to make his point that because a person’s personal choice on vaccination affects all of society, the “society” (by which he really means the federal government) should be able to not only have a different conviction, but be able to dictate their conviction to the individual person. Now first of all, there are plenty of individual decisions a person makes every day which affect all of society. Let us look at homeschooling for example. The homeschooling movement has doubled between 1999 and 2012, from 1.7% to 3.4%. (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013028/tables/table_07.asp) Homeschooling is definitely a decision that affects society, especially as it continues to grow at its current rate of 8% per year. (http://www.nche.com/stats) If the government decides for whatever reason that homeschooling is harmful to a society, should they be allowed to force children into the government schools? Doug Wilson wants to subscribe to the Hillary Clinton’s theory that “it takes a village to raise a child”, as though individuals and parents are hippie loonies who don’t know or care what is best for “society”. We see more and more attempts to take away personal and parental rights out of concern for the “society”. However, individual and parental rights are fundamental to the freedom of a society. As individual and parental rights continue to get taken away, our society becomes more and more enslaved to our own government. As Ronald Reagan said in 1961, “Drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”—and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”—are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion…Is the Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? … Isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. There’s a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America’s goodness and greatness.”

Let us allow Doug Wilson, for now, that a government should be able to override individual and parental rights for the good of a society. Wilson is then stuck in no-man’s land as even the choice TO vaccinate affects all of society. Wilson is obviously ignorant of the fact that many vaccines can shed the live virus they contain for weeks or even months. The measles vaccine, TB vaccine, yellow fever vaccine, oral polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, and nasal flu vaccine are just some of the vaccines that contain live viruses and have been proven to spread the virus to anyone who is unvaccinated, which can be serious trouble for those who cannot receive vaccines such as the elderly, infants, or the immune compromised. (http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding) One study done by scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which looked at the 2011 measles outbreak in New York City concluded “This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.” (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/9/1205.long) In other words, someone who has been vaccinated twice could transmit measles to four other individuals, even individuals who themselves had been vaccinated against measles. Who wants to get vaccinated against measles with those kind of statistics? Certainly the choice to get vaccinated against measles is one that will affect all of society. If Doug Wilson really wants the good of the society, perhaps he should be arguing against vaccines.

Touching Vaccines, Prudence and Multi-colored Windchimes

The Master of Moscow writes,

Someone with a loathing of guns can certainly refuse to have one in his home. And if he lives in a part of town that is otherwise heavily armed, his home can enjoy the same kind of safety from burglars as do the armed ones. Such is the nature of the world.

One of the reasons why we are even able to have a debate about vaccines is that vaccines have been so successful. The gunless fellow is certainly free to claim that his house is left alone because of the good vibes put out by his multi-colored wind chimes. We all think that’s cute, and are glad we live in a free country where there are guys like that.

But the analogy breaks down with something like whooping cough. That’s not so cute.

Bret Responds,

All of what Doug says here and says throughout this piece is premised on the idea of “herd immunity.” This is a concept that is not scientifically indisputable.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/media/Obamsawin_Vaccination_Tables.pdf

Now what is statistically indisputable is if one lives in a neighborhood where people point guns at bad-guys while pulling triggers you will be safer in that neighborhood even if you dislike discharging weapons. But as we see in the above link (lots of good science there for those who practice scientism) it is the case that when comparing guns in neighborhoods with  vaccines and herd immunity one of these things is not like the other.

So Doug, right out of the gate, indulges in the false analogy fallacy. (Don’t tell anyone or his Canon press logic course sales might dip.) This, boys and girls, is what I like to call the kumquat – Rutabaga fallacy.  I suspect Doug only used this fallacy because

1.) He is ignorant regarding the facts on herd immunity theory
2.) He was just seeing if anyone was paying attention

The Credibility of the CREC continues,

Now I do have views on the efficacy of vaccines, but I want to address another element of this — the idea that even if they were effective, a requirement that everyone get vaccinated is necessarily statist and tyrannical. Why isn’t this a matter of personal choice and conviction? The answer is that it is not a matter of personal choice because everyone else is involved.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days” (Lev. 13:1–4).

Bret responds,

1.) Doug assumes a great deal here and we are being asked to do a large amount of reading between the lines to gain his meaning.

In a pretend world where it is everywhere known and proven that vaccines are effective does it remain true that the State would have role and responsibility to force vaccines on the population?

What if the vaccines were effective but with dire possible consequences Doug? What if the vaccines were cultured on aborted babies and what if vaccines were full of heavy metal (no, not “Metallica” Doug) like mercury? Would it be wrong for a Christian to object to State mandated vaccines — even if they were effective — if it meant that one was taking a bath in mercury and formaldehyde? Would it be un-Christian — even if vaccines were effective — to resist the State’s requirement for vaccines if it were known that the side-effects could be worse then the disease contracted?  Would it be un-Biblical for a Christian to protect his children from vaccines — even if they were effective — if the Christian didn’t want to tacitly support the abortion industry?

Really though, in the end vaccines are just so much junk science and the fact of the matter is, is it is far from conclusively proven that vaccines are effective but even if they were and are effective it would not be a slam dunk that they could be forced on us by the State.

2.) The Scripture verse is nice Doug. When we get God speaking with the kind of authority on vaccines such as He has on leprosy we will be sure to tune in and adjust our beliefs and practices accordingly.

The fomenter of Federal Vision finishes,

So take this as a very limited claim. This is not a claim that vaccines are always perfect, or that the side-effects are not a problem, or that frauds can never interfere with the science (as happened with the Lancet article which claimed a correlation with autism), and so on. This is a fallen world, and no problem of this nature can ever be addressed risk-free. The claim I am making here is very limited. If a person has decided personal convictions about the contagious disease he is carrying, the society in which he lives has an equal right to have decided and contrary convictions about that same contagious disease he has. And if there is an outbreak of such a disease, and the government quarantines everyone who is not vaccinated, requiring them to stay at home, the name for this is prudence, not tyranny.

Bret responds,

Doug is assuming here that those vaccinated are not the carrier of the disease. However,

a.) with live virus vaccines, in the period after people are vaccinated, those vaccinated can still be the ones carrying and transmitting the disease

b.) vaccinations is not equal to immunization. Those who are vaccinated are not immune to the disease. Nobody knows how long these vaccines last. Nobody knows just how often booster shots are needed. Further, the vaccinations have created mutant forms of the diseases that they are now trying to eradicate and so the vaccinated are not necessarily protected from the new form of the disease. Plus, a quarantine of those non-vaccinated is not going to do any good since the vaccinated can carry the disease as well as the non-vaccinated.  The only good quarantine is the quarantine of those who actually have the illness or who have been exposed.

Maybe Doug meant all this. Maybe we were supposed to read this into everything he said. I suspect it is more the case that Doug shouldn’t have even written the article because he seems to know more about multi-colored wind chimes then he does about vaccines.

Now to wrap this all up. Let’s keep in mind that the FEDS never do anything they do without citing prudence as the reason. When they were seizing guns in the aftermath of Katrina that was done for prudence’s sake. When the FEDS were entering into private homes after the Boston bomb without search warrants or reasonable cause that was done in the name of prudence. The FEDS never do anything illegal except in the name of prudence. For Doug to suggest that the FEDS could act with prudence in this kind of matter is to just invite the FEDS to create a false flag in order to do just that.

Mrs. Marinov … Please Notify your Husband that there is Linkage between Genetics and Culture

 

In the graphic below our old friend, Bojidar Marinov, suggest that proof is found that genetics and culture have nothing to do with each other.  He offers this pearl of wisdom, in his trenchant commentary on the graphic,

<i>”The awkward moment when you think that genetics determines culture, and then geneticists tell you that Spain is more “Celtic” than Scotland, and Austria is about as “Germanic” as Ireland.”</i>

Now the point we will be making below the graphic is not that culture is a reflection of only genetics. That position would force one into the unbiblical position of materialism. No Christian can claim to be consistently Christian and believe that culture is alone dictated by genetics.

However, contrary to Mr. Marinov’s views, neither is it, in the least, consistently Christian to deny that genetics has anything to do with culture. Such a position gives us Gnosticism, the very opposite of materialism. Mr. Marinov’s views that whom God has created us to be in our humanity, has nothing to do with culture is the stuff of which Gnosticism is made.

The best approach to culture is that it is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. Note that in this definition we have the inclusion of both what a people think and the fact that it is very real corporeal people, with all their DNA (genetics) who are thinking.

The point that we will be making below the graphic is that Mr. Marinov observation, given above, is just nonsense.

 

View post on imgur.com

1.) We might start by asking Mr. Marinov how it is exactly that Europeans, being closely related to other Europeans, is some kind of “awkward moment.” After all,  Europeans are closely related to each other. That’s not a revelation. And it seems to imply the exact opposite point as Mr. Marinov imagines — that there really is a European / White identity.

2.)  Secondly, we need to note that all because there are different ethnic markers in different places doesn’t mean that  English, Irish, Scots, etc are Swedes, Germans, Danes, etc. Also, we must take into consideration that the West is a lot more mobile now. International corporations have greatly contributed to that mobility (along with the ebb and flow of conquering armies). Corporations have undermined the state and regional loyalties here in the US. So it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a mixture of European ethnicities.

3.) Touching Mr. Marinov’s observations regarding Spain being more Celtic than Scotland. This really isn’t that difficult and if Mr. Marinov knew his history better he wouldn’t be getting out on this limb that is currently being sawed off from beneath him. You see, Galicia (a part of Spain) is borderline one of the Celtic nations. The Gaels who settled Ireland came from Galicia, then went to over to mess with the Picts in Scotland. Also, Celts covered the continent at one point until empires were established over them. Obviously, given this reality one would expect to find just what the graphic reveals. Mr. Marinov’s post demonstrates his ignorance of tribal migration. One hopes this isn’t intentional on Mr. Marinov’s part. Regardless, whether it is ignorance or subterfuge the truth of the matter is that Mr. Marinov is quite inaccurate on this point.

4.) The fact that Europe’s culture is being re-made by the arrival of  non-European people groups ought to be evidence enough that there is a relation between genetics and culture. If one ventures into different parts of “Londonistan” or “Parisistan” one finds a very different genetic pattern accompanied by a very different culture then one finds in French Paris or English London.

5.)  Mr. Marinov says that genetics has no impact on culture. Well, as genetics is determinative of gender (as well as ethnicity) does he really want to advance the idea that there are no genetic differences between male and female such that those differences impact cultures that men and women create?

Are the differences between men and women (not physiological but cultural) only to be accounted for by how men and women think? This is what Mr. Marinov would have us believe if “genetics have absolutely nothing to do with culture.”

Mr. Marinov should visit an all girls school and a all boys school and take tours to demonstrate that genetics effect culture.

More might be said but this is enough to, once again, dismiss the Gnostic impulse of Mr. Marinov.

This rebuttal was a corporate effort by the members of one America’s more illustrious Reformed Think Tanks of which I am a member.

Tearing Apart a Public Service Announcement Against Guns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFOhBAH3zPA#t=110

1.) Notice the boy is white. (This will come into play later.)

2.) Notice that there is no Father in the household.

3.) Notice how this opens with the kid sneaking around on his Mother.

4.) The boy sneaks into his parents bedroom and steals from his mother. The video communicates that this is noble behavior.

5.) Every single one of his classmates are minorities.  This subliminally communicates that it is only evil white people who keep guns.

6.) The female teacher freaks out at the sight of the weapon. Gun make everyone scared.

7.) As the boy turns in the weapon he stole from his parents he says, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.” Note that for liberals feeling is always substituted for thinking.

This video is like an instruction manual on how kids can most quickly ruin their own lives and the lives of their entire families. What the video doesn’t show is the aftermath of the boy getting kicked out of school, the parents being arrested, and the boy and all his siblings being taken by Child protective services because the parents were so unsafe.

 

 

 

Celibate “Gay” Christians

Link,

Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows

The LGBT community has arrived at a trick that they’ve used to advance their agenda. It is a old trick by now but still one that is used with great effectiveness. This trick is to create a distinction between sodomite practice and sodomite inclination. The LGBT crowd will argue, for example, that that homosexual activity is sinful but the orientation is not. Typically celibate sodomites will then insist that they remain “gay Christians,” but are celibate gay Christians. For an example of this kind of reasoning, a recent Denominational annual meeting found one such person standing up and speaking to his denominational ruling structure saying, “I stand before you as a 40-year-old, single, celibate and chaste yet openly gay man … no longer willing to be silent.”

Now where the trick comes in is that it will be advanced by someone in a discussion that sodomites should be allowed to be members of the Church. Typically someone will protest the idea pointing out the appropriate scriptures. Much heat will arise and then suddenly the original agitator will trot out that when they said that “gays should be allowed to be members” they really meant that celibate sodomites who still self identify as “gay” should allowed to be members.

My conviction on this is that this taking in of celibate sodomites, as members in a Christian church, who still self identify as being “gay,” is just one more way in which the sodomite agenda is advanced. The fact that people, though celibate, still refer to themselves as “gay” is, in my estimation, an attempt to maintain the myth that people are born gay just like they are born left handed or are born black or white. There is not one whit of empirical evidence of this that is not produced by people with an agenda. If the LGBT crowd can linguistically manipulate Christians into accepting the idea that other Christians should be thought of as “gay but celibate” it will be easier to move to the next stage of having those same Christians accept the idea of “gay and not celibate.”

Secondly, ideally, the Biblical Christian abhors his sins, cares not to identify with his sins, and wants nothing to do with his sins any longer. He would never label himself a pervert (“gay Christian”) unless he was trying to preserve this sin in his heart. Yet, the Christian faith is supposed to be the new birth where old things are passed away, and where all things have become new. When the celibate “gay Christian” self identifies as “gay” they are retaining an identity that is counted dead. Ask yourself how much sense it would make if someone saved out of bestiality still self identified as a “cow loving Christian.” Would it make sense for a someone saved out of Necrophilia to still self identify as a “dead person loving Christian.” Even if someone is saved out of kleptomania you never hear them self identifying as a “Thief Christian.” And yet, the Church is told today, by many, that it is perfectly acceptable for people to continue to identify with either a former sin or a current temptation.

Please don’t misunderstand. I celebrate and applaud the grace of God that has saved His people out of perversion and cheer that they are celibate. I only discountenance the idea that they should keep self identifying with their sin. St. Paul could write with sodomites and other repentant sinners in mind,

11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

I understand that progressive sanctification is incremental and so issues of who we are in Christ Jesus take time to comprehend but at the very least we ought to tell those who have been Redeemed out of sodomy that their identification is no longer in their “gayness.” They are most certainly not “gay Christians.” They are Christians, who, like all Christians, struggle with temptations and even besetting sins. Once this is understood we can pray that from that point their sanctification might well bring them to the point of putting off the old man of perverted desires for the same gender and putting on the new man with its normal desire of heterosexuality.