Category: Culture

Kirsten Powers is a info-babe on FOX News. Her politics are left and her religion is allegedly Christian. She’s all the rage of much of the pop Christianity crowd. In a recent USA article she took up for sodomite marriage.

Below I fisk Kirsten’s article,

KP wrote,

What’s the matter with Kansas? A bill protecting the religious freedom of businesses and individuals to refuse services to same-sex couples passed the state House of Representatives last week. It was blessedly killed in the state Senate on Tuesday.

Similar bills have cropped up in a half-dozen states in an effort to protect anti-gay religious believers against lawsuits. A florist in Washington state, a Colorado baker and a New Mexico photographer have been sued for refusing to serve gay couples getting married. They say to do so would be to “celebrate” nuptials at odds with their Christian faith.

Bret responds,

Now note here that suits are being brought against private businesses because they refused to sell their services / products to people. Is Powers really suggesting that private businesses ought to be forced, against their will, to engage in commerce with people whose money they do not want? Is Powers advancing the idea that the State can again deny citizens their freedom of association?

Isn’t Powers and people like her tolerant enough to allow people the liberty to make their own decisions? Should all florists, bakers, and photographers be forced into business contract or is it not enough to allow the free market to provide florists, bakers, and photographers who want the money of perverts?

What is the matter with Powers that she would ask what is the matter with Kansas? What is the matter with Powers that she finds it so difficult to understand that some Christians take their faith seriously enough that they don’t want to be associated with absurdity and perversity?

KP wrote,

It’s probably news to most married people that their florist and caterer were celebrating their wedding union. Most people think they just hired a vendor to provide a service. It’s not clear why some Christian vendors are so confused about their role here.

Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.

Bret responds,

1.) It’s probably news to most info-babe desk jockeys that some businesses have standards beyond making a buck. It is probably news to most info-babes who read monitors for a living that there exist businessmen in this country who realize that their tacit acceptance of sodomy in the social order — as seen in their providing a service — is not something they want to countenance even if they wouldn’t be directly celebrating a wedding union. (Oh, and by the way, we do not concede that it is even possible for two people of the same sex to get married.)

2.) But Christianity does prohibit sodomy in the strongest of terms and despite Powers inability to connect the dots some people can connect the dots enough to see that providing business goods to sodomites is one way that a Christian can indirectly support what Scripture prohibits. One wonders if Powers would be OK with a businessman selling cutlery to Jack the Ripper? After all, Scripture does not prohibit selling cutlery to those who use knives to rip open women.

3.) Jesus does call to be a servant of all within the context of Biblical law. To suggest that we, by our goods and services, must indirectly facilitate and sanction criminal behavior because we are to be “servants of all” is to ridiculous to contemplate.

4.) Creating a social order context where criminal behavior is approved of and celebrated is indeed an affirmation, Powers protestation to the contrary notwithstanding.

KP wrote,

Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest church in Kansas, pointed out to me what all Christians should know: “Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.” This put Jesus at odds with religious leaders, who believed they were sullied by associating with the “wrong” people.

Hamilton suggested that “if this legislation were to pass … those who wish to refuse service to gay and lesbian people (should be required) to publicly post (their policy). This would allow gay and lesbian people and all other patrons to know before entering a business.”

He’s right. Christians backing this bill are essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws.

Bret responds,

1.) Jesus did eat with the outcasts but the difference between who Jesus ate with in 1st century Palestine and providing a service today that helps create a social order that embraces sodomy is that those that Jesus ate with understood themselves to be outcasts and sinners. This is largely not true today. Instead the contemporary perverted are proud of their perversion and deny the sinfulness and criminality of their behavior. Would Jesus have dined with those who would have told him to go penetrate Himself because of his insistence that sodomy is sin? To ask the question is to answer it.

2.) Throughout the Scriptures when Jesus speaks, heals, and consorts with sinners he is constantly calling them to repentance or they show up in the context of their repenting. Contemporary sodomites are not a particularly repenting lot.

3.) It terms of Powers “Jim Crow Laws” quip, it should be asked if she is suggesting that any kind of discrimination is automatically out of bounds for businesses? Should businesses be forced to sell Kiddie Cheerleader Outfits to Pedophiles who want to dress up 8 year old little boys or girls in order to live out their sexual fantasy? Would it be a bad thing to embrace Pedophile Jim Crow laws? If it is not a bad thing to embrace Pedophile Jim Crow laws then what is the problem with embracing sodomy Jim Crow laws? You see, Powers whole question presupposes the normalcy of this behavior but sodomy is every bit as criminal as Pedophilia even if people like Powers have become so acclimated to it that they can no longer see its criminality.

KP wrote,

Evangelical pastor Andy Stanley leads North Point Ministries, the second largest church in the U.S. He told me he finds it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He said, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.”

Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?

1.) Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity? I thought the essence of Christianity was the finished work of Jesus Christ for sinners like me?

2.) If serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity was Jesus being un-Christian when He drove the Bankers out of the Temple with a whip?

3.) Stanley wants to leave Jesus in it when he suggests that Businesses should sell their services to sodomites but he wants to leave Jesus out of it when businesses don’t want to provide services for sodomite marriages. Curious reasoning that.

4.) I would be glad to serve in a prison ministry to unrepentant sodomites who are incarcerated for their crimes.

5.) Christians serve unrepentant murderers though prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for Necrophiliacs and people into Bestiality? Stupid Christians.

You see the problem throughut Powers’ article is she assumes that this is something that our social order should be fine with. As such, since we should be fine with it we should be tolerant enough to get with the program. Christians, on the other hand, are not fine with the normalizing of sodomy for our social order that Powers desires to embrace. As long as she, and others like her, are going to assume that this is normal, we will never be able to agree.

KP wrote,

Some claim it’s because marriage is so sacred. But double standards abound. Christian bakers don’t interrogate wedding clients to make sure their behavior comports with the Bible. If they did, they’d be out of business. Stanley said, “Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it’s adultery. So if (Christians) don’t have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.”

Maybe they should just ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” I think he’d bake the cake.

Here Powers notes inconsistency and then argues that all because people are inconsistent by serving some people that they may well should not serve therefore they should serve others that they should not serve. The problem in this scenario is not in Christian businesses not serving sodomite marriage. The problem is that they do serve lecherous marriages.

Of course it is far more obvious when two men show up at your bakery giggling about marriage to know what the score is then to know what the score is when a man and woman walk in who have committed adultery and are now going to be married, having left their former spouse. It is a bit much to expect a business to interview its clientele about their morality but one doesn’t have to interrogate about morality when two men show up talking about how they are going to tie the knot. As such Powers last point is merely special pleading.

I listened to a lecture a couple days ago and a wonderful observation about walled cities was made. The lecturer’s point was that Walled cities kept like-minded people segregated and safe from those who were different mind and that with the removal of walled cities what increasingly happened is that individuals have built their own psyscho-emotional walls that works to keep the stranger and the alien out. So, walls are an inescapable category and it is never a matter of walls or no walls unto the end of segregation but it is only a matter of how walls are built. They can be built in a community context where like-minded people can gather or they can be built psycho-emotively by each and every individual against every other individual in communities that are characterized by manufactured and unnatural diversity. I was reminded of Robert Putnam’s work “Bowling Alone” where similar observations are made.

Sociologist Robert Putnam brought out in his book “Bowling Alone” that radically diverse societies, such as America is becoming, lose their sense of Weltanschauung and communitarian continuity. Putnam insisted that the more diverse communities become the more individuals in those societies become islands unto themselves. Massive communal heterogeneity is not conducive to the creation of healthy individuals. This societal manufacturing of the socio / psycho path personalty is accelerated even more with the grinding breakdown of the family as a cohesive cultural sub-unit. With the breakdown of the family and within this macro atomized, disintegrated milieu, sociopaths and psychopaths — individuals who have no sense of belonging or responsibility to others — are created and thrive. They thrive not only because of the interpersonal isolation that is created by heterogeneous social orders, but also by the lack of communitarian brakes on the behavior of the socio-path / psycho-paths. Oddly enough, a point is arrived at where scoio-pathic behavior is rewarded and valued in the hyper heterogeneous social order. Such order normalizes the socio-path and begins to view the person who has larger family and community ties as the “other,” and the “strange.”

Such an inverted view where the familial and community connected are seen as the “odd” is what is to be expected where “good” has become “evil” and “light” has become “darkness.” In an upside down inside out world only the right-side up in-side in are considered upside down and inside out.

We should add here that the creation of such hyper diverse cultures where the socio / psycho path is created is in the interest of those who desire centralized Government. Once a social order can be atomized enough the only thing that can hold the unrelated parts together is force and force is what Government is. As such, heterogeneity and balkanization is desired by Centralized states because such atomization is job security for the tyrant class. The Criminal Government has a interest in creating a criminal people.

Friedrich Hayek in his book, “Road To Serfdom” has a chapter that interfaces with all this. Hayek has a chapter on how sociopaths are drawn like moths to a light to Tyrannical Governments. Hayek contends that in Tyrannical Governments you’ll always find some of the most egregious socio-paths. When you combine our hyper heterogeneous social order with the insights of Putnam and Hayek the prospects for our culture are not particularly promising.

Returning to the lecture referenced at the beginning the lecturer said that this removal of walled cities has been translated anew into gated communities where segregation can work again in a pseudo walled context and where community can at least potentially be rediscovered. At some level, man desires to live among those who are like him — who share a common Worldview, heritage, and culture. Community that refuses to be homogeneous is the community of the sociopath.

Hat Tip —

Sociopathy Is Increasing In America

I’ve consistently told the people I serve that when the culture lets the Sodomites out of the closet, the corresponding inevitability is that Christians will take their (the sodomites) former place in the closet. It is the Christian and their love for the Lord Christ that will be shunned in and by the public square. It was said of sodomy, once upon a time, that it was “the love that dare not speak its name.” Now, it is the love that won’t shut the hell up and the Biblical Christian’s love for the Lord Christ is the love that dare not speak its name.

When Robertson’s GQ statements hit the press yesterday I had a friend contact me saying that this might reverse the sodomite tide. I told him, “Robertson will be fired within days.” I should have said “hours.” My friend dissented, insisting that A & E would never fire because of much money they would lose. I just said, “wait and see.” I’m not a prophet. I don’t see into the future. It is merely a matter of knowing which way the cultural winds are blowing. When a social order embraces a worldview, money alone, will not be able to halt the progress of that (in this case — Sodomite) worldview.

A & E is only and their corporate base is only confirming that two antithetical worldviews can not co-exist unless one of them is willing to live as considered Taboo in the Public Square. So, now we are at the decided point where to speak publicly of our great Liege Lord, Christ, and His standard is now considered worthy of being publicly sanctioned. The sodomites now hold the whip hand and they are determined that they are not going back into the closet and that Christians will stay in the closet.

Unless Islam comes to play as a worldview social order contestant, the decided opposition of the social order will be for either Sodomites or for Christians. Never for both. The worldview war in favor of sodomy is a war against Biblical Christianity.

This reminds us that the whole “tolerance” thing that has been screamed for decades now was just a ruse. It is always so when worldview transitions among a people are taking place. Those who initially scream for tolerance and understanding (in this case the sodomites) don’t really wan’t tolerance long term. They merely plead for tolerance in order to give them time to marshal and build their momentum to the day when they can practice intolerance against their enemies. The plea for tolerance is the ploy of the minority who intends to one day become a majority which will shut down any opposition against them.

Do you and your children a favor. Put the sodomites back in the closet.

And I do agree with Phil Robertson. There is something seriously demented and twisted about a man who thinks that another man’s orifice — an orifice that produces excrement — is more alluring than a woman’s orifice that issues life.

Postscript – Keep in mind that R2K tells you that the Church must not speak on sodomy in the public square because that is not the Church’s job. If Phil Robertson were to attend a R2K church he would find no support from the R2K Ministers and Elders because there could be people in the congregation who opposed Phil Robertson and who do, themselves, see it as reasonable that in terms of public square legislation men might prefer other men’s anuses over women’s vaginas. R2K is all for pluralism. And of course R2K Churches would never want to weigh in on something so controversial as whether the public square should support anuses and vaginas each in their proper place.