Politics – Page 12

Hillary’s Logo And It’s Connection To Historical Symbols

Note Hillary’s logo.

Developed by a company called “Pentagram.” The two Vertical lines to the “H” look to be twin Pillars. If you remember Barack Obama made his acceptance speech for the Democratic Nomination in 2008 between fake twin Greek Pillars. Historically, in the Occult, the twin pillars are archetypal symbols representing an important gateway or passage towards the unknown. In Freemasonry, the pillars are named Jachin and Boaz and represent one of the Brotherhood’s most recognizable symbol, prominently featured in Masonic art, documents and buildings. It is interesting that a company named “Pentagram,” designed for Hillary a Logo with the Occult Twin Pillar Motif.

The horizontal “forward Arrow” in Hillary’s Logo is interesting also because the theme of “Forward” has been a Marxist theme since Lenin and company and was used as recently as a theme in the 2012 Obama campaign. Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

Obama And His Idiotic Prayer Breakfast Remarks

At the annual prayer breakfast Wednesday the guy who poses as our President channeled his College Sophomore speech writer saying,

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation….

1.) Obama here employs the classic “postmodern maneuver” by intimating that all religions are the same. It’s as if he says, “Sure, Muslims kill people but Christians have killed people also. This is just the nature of all religions.” Clearly Obama sees all Religions as morally equivalent. It’s just the nature of all religions to be violent at times. One wonders what religion it is that tells Obama that violence is wrong?

2.) The whole “high horse” reinforces #1. Obama’s clear intent there is to remind his audience that Christianity has no reason to think itself morally superior to any other religion. Fascinating that as Obama warns against “High Horse(ism)” he, at that very moment, mounts his high horse.

3.) Obama intones the Crusades as a comparison to Islamic barbarity. But the Crusades were consistent with Christian “Just War” teaching. The Crusades were a Christian counter maneuver to Islamic offensive Jihad that had been going on for centuries. To suggest that wars fought in self defense is morally comparable to putting someone in a cage and dousing them with lighter fluid and making someone a human torch is, at best, rhetorically reckless, and at worst morally reprehensible on Obama’s part.

4.) Obama intones the Inquisition as a comparison to ISIS bringing to us televised live be-headings of Christians. Frankly, I’m amazed Obama didn’t throw in the Salem Witch trials for good measure. Needless to say that if one had a resume that included being responsible for all the deaths of the Inquisition as well ass the Salem Witch trial deaths for bonus bodies one probably couldn’t get a job ISIS or Boko Haram due to inexperience.

5.) It’s interesting that Obama even goes so far as to invoke the name of Christ, and yet does not mention once the name of Muhammad in who’s name all these deaths are being pursued.

6.) Obama ties up slavery and Jim Crow with Christianity but fails to mention the huge slave trade that was pursued by Muslims for centuries in Africa long before the Christian white man came along. Neither does he bother to mention the Muslim blood tax in Christian Europe that found the followers of Muhammad sizing Christian children in order to turn them into special forces troops for Islam — often against their own people in Europe. Neither does Obama mention that it was Western Christian Civilization that ended Slavery. Something that neither Jewish nor Muslim culture has yet done.

Obama’s moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam is just brain dead and it’s a obvious demonstration of how much Obama and his administration hate both Christianity and white people.

7.) Is there any Cultural Marxist History that Obama doesn’t embrace? Gandhi was a monumental hypocrite and here is Obama invoking him. When in South Africa Gandhi had been totally unconcerned with the situation of South African blacks. In point of fact he hardly noticed they were there until they rebelled. Gandhi was as intolerant as Obama is ignorant.

Obama continues,

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends. And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

1.) Obama calls for basic humility as he proudly begins to lecture a room full of Ministers, Priests, and other “Holy men” on the what they need to learn about religion. The minute he calls for basic humility he demonstrates his own lack of the very thing for which he calls. Perhaps Obama should show his humility by suggesting that he has doubt about what he is about to say and about what he believes is needed?

2.) Obama calls for doubt as he, full of confidence and with no doubt whatsoever, gives a spiel that communicates that he alone has truth when it comes to this demand to realize that none of us have all the truth. Note again, that this section of the speech underscores again that Obama (and his College Sophomore speech writer) believes that all religions are equal. All religions speak truth. All religions hear from God, god, or some god concept. Of that we all must not doubt, of that we all must be certain, and with that we alone are in possession of truth.

3.) Again with the postmodern epistemology. Note, in the second paragraph above, where Obama speaks of “our notion of truth,” as if there is nothing but human “notions of truth.” Old Obama had a farm …. EIEO. And on that farm there were some notions of truth … EIEO. With a Islam notion here, and a Christian notion there, here a notion, there a notion, everywhere a truth notion … EIEIO.

4.) Do you suppose that Obama would confess that he is confused in what he is saying here? Notice that in Obama’s world “fierce certainty” is the sin we must fight against. Obama is fiercely certain that we must fight fierce certainty.

5.) Obama says that “No God condones terror.” But the Quran disagrees with him. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Here are just a couple,

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

6.) In terms of the last paragraph above just keep in mind how Christians businesses in this country are being persecuted and discriminated against for their faith. Obama and his administration has done more to squelch freedom of religion then any Presidential administration in the 20th century.

Probing Rawls

John Rawls is considered by most Academicians to be the greatest Political theorists of the 20th century. Naturally, I find that to be bollix. It is likely that Rawlsian theory somewhere along the line influenced R2K thinking because John Rawls political theory sounds like R2K minus the ham handed R2K interpreters of Rawlsian thought. You see, Rawls , in his “Political Liberalism,” proposed a solution to this dilemma of religion in the public square that has sparked a vigorous debate among political theorists. Rawls’s proposal is a conception of public reason that allows citizens to base their political views in their religious doctrines, but insists that religious reasons are not sufficient justification for those views under some circumstances. Thus, religion can be the basis of individual political conviction, but it is excluded from the public political forum.

Here is a bit of interaction with Rawlsian political theory

“Public reason, then, requires citizens (under certain conditions to be specified later on) to seek and offer properly public justifications for their political positions — a responsibility that emerges from their commitment to the liberal principle of legitimacy. For Rawls, this minimally entails a good-faith effort to employ only principles that we believe our fellow citizens can, at least in principle, accept. We should not appeal to our own religious, moral, or philosophical worldviews (“comprehensive doctrines” in Rawls’s terminology) since in a pluralistic democracy many of our reasonable fellow citizens will not share these views. Justification in terms of any particular comprehensive doctrine therefore shows deficient respect for fellow citizens and constitutes a violation of the duty of civility. In other words, public reason only allows justification based on what we all share as reasonable citizens.”

1.) According to Rawls what standard is used to determine what is a properly public justification for a political position?

2.) How could we ever know what principles our fellow citizens find acceptable and why should the principles of our fellow citizens be the guiding principle that controls our principles?

3.) Rawls invokes his own comprehensive doctrine to make sure that no one else invokes their own comprehensive doctrine.

4.) Why would any Christian think that our responsibility unto the Rawlsian duty of civility is higher than our responsibility unto God?

5.) By what standard is “reasonable” measured in the idea of “reasonable citizen?”

Sodomy is Sin Scripture (Text) References

The chief “sodomy is sin” verse references at hand, just to save folks the time in case they were wanting to look them up:

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17-18
Judges 19
I Kings 14:24 and 15:12
Romans 1:26
I Corinthians 6:9
I Timothy 1:8-11
Jude 1:7

Revelation 22:15 also applies, when interpreted in light of “dogs” in Deuteronomy 23:18 and their position in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Jude 1:7.

In Genesis 19, sodomy is called “wicked”, and the Lord destroys Sodom and
Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone upon them.

 In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, sodomy is declared an “abomination”, and the
prescribed penalty for committing this abomination is death. Contextual
associations are made with incest, adultery, bestiality, human sacrifice, and
consorting with mediums.

 In Deuteronomy 23:18, an offering from the wages of a male prostitute is declared
to be an “abomination” and sodomites are referred to as “dogs” (compare also with
Revelation 22:15).

 In Judges 19:23, sodomy is referred to as “wicked” and “folly”. In the conflict
resulting from the actions of the sodomites described therein, over 25,000
Benjaminites were slaughtered and the entire city of Gibeah put to the sword at the
express command of the Lord.

 In I Kings 14:24, sodomy is again named an “abomination”. A contextual association
is made with idolatry.

 In I Kings 15:12, King Asa, who “did what was right in the sight of the Lord”, expelled
all of the sodomite temple prostitutes from the land. Sodomy is again associated
with idolatry.

 Romans 1 contains an abundance of frank condemnations of sodomy. It’s “impure”,
“dishonorable”, “degrading”, “unnatural”, “indecent”, and “depraved”. It’s a
punishment from God when we repeatedly refuse to repent, and He plagues our
lands for our stubborn impudence by giving us over to our wicked passions for the
purpose of our own destruction. As with the I Kings references, sodomy is
contextually associated with idolatry.

 In I Corinthians 6:9, sodomites are declared “unrighteous” and it is plainly stated
that they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Contextual associations are made 7
with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and
swindlers.

 In I Timothy 1:10, sodomites are listed along with those who are lawless, rebellious,
ungodly, unholy, profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
kidnappers, liars, and perjurers.

 In Jude 1:7, sodomites are declared guilty of indulging in “gross immorality” for
pursuing “strange flesh”. In the punishment God bestowed upon them, the
residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were “exhibited as an example in undergoing the
punishment of eternal fire”.

Hat Tip — Mickey Henry

McAtee Contra Tchividjian On His Political Views

Florida megachurch pastor Tullian Tchividjian has said that the increasing association between evangelical Christianity and the religious right has had a negative effect.

In an interview published Friday, Tchividjian warned against bonding political views with religion.

“I think the impression that most non-evangelicals have is that [evangelicalism is] a political movement — it’s a culturally warring movement,” he told The Blaze.

“Closely associating the core message of the Christian faith with a political ideology has always been a huge mistake.”

McAtee responds,

1.) This is merely an appeal from the political left, of which Tullian is a member, to disassociate Christianity from its moral base. The truth of the matter is that the Christian right has merely stood for issues like “babies being born,” “men not marrying men,” “Christians not sending their children to government schools,” and “The State not stealing from the public via Marxists religion.” Is Tullian really suggesting that it is wrong to advocate for God’s mind when the political realm starts leaking into the Church. You see the problem with Tullian’s thinking here is that it is not the case that the Church is butting into the political realm but rather it is the case that the political realm is butting into the bailiwick of the Church as it pertains to Christian morality.

2.) Of course, with this misguided statement, Tullian has indicted Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scotland, and Kuyper’s Holland. Tullian has also suggested that the work of Thomas Chalmers was a huge mistake, the work of William Wilberforce was a huge mistake, and the work of John Witherspoon as a huge mistake. The fact of the matter is, is that it is Tullian and his non Biblical opinion on this matter which is the huge mistake.

3.) If it is true that culture is but religion externalized then it is obvious that Biblical Christianity should war against the culture where the culture is an expression of a pagan externalized religion. Of course the foundation of such warfare is the finished work of Jesus Christ. Because of the finished work of Jesus Christ, and His following Resurrection and Ascension the Lord Christ has every intent to make war on those cultures that are organized in defiance of Him.

The Christianity today article offered,

Tchividjian, who is the grandson of famed evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, said that the use of Christianity in politics has damaged the religion.

“My take on it having grown up in the evangelical world … the sort of rise of the religious right and its close association between the church and politics has done big-time damage to the brand of Christianity in the public sphere,” he stated.

Ask someone what it means to be an evangelical, he said, and their answer would likely contain views on political issues.

1.) First, can we just observe that it was Tullian Grandfather who was forever being seen with Political figures. If Tullian is going to disavow the nexus between politics and religion let him disavow his Grandfather who was seen with every President from Truman to Bush II. Second, let us not forget how political his Grandfather’s decision was to go to the former Soviet Union when so many people begged him not to because of the political message it was sending.

2.) Of course we must lead with Christ crucified but to suggest that there is no relation to Christ crucified and Christ risen, Ascended, and ruling is to abstract the Gospel to make it a antinomian Gospel. What shall we say? Shall we go on preaching Christ crucified without preaching Christ Resurrected, Ascended, and Ruling?

3.) Of course pagans are going to charge Christians with the most unsavory untruths. Why should we think that they would ever do otherwise? Does Tullian think that when we ask a pagan what it means to be an Evangelical, they are going to say, “Oh, Evangelicals, why they want me to understand that Christ died for me. I don’t like the Evangelicals who expect repentance but I sure like Tullian because he never says anything about the necessity to repent.”

Christianity Today as channeling Tullian continues,

“As important as those things might be to discuss, that’s not the central message of what it means to be an evangelical,” Tchividjian said.

“Historically speaking, evangelicals were good news specialists and because we’ve become so closely aligned with political ideologies and culture warring issues, what’s been lost is the core Good News message of the Christian faith.”

The Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church also urged pastors not to discuss politics in their churches.

“I have lots of opinions … on just about anything,” he said. “I basically almost refuse to make any kind of public commentary on anything other than the gospel [from the pulpit].”

He concluded, “For the last 40 years we’ve talked more about what’s going on in our culture … than we have preaching Christ and him crucified.”

Bret responds,

1.) The Good News is that “there is no other name under heaven by which ye must be saved.” I agree. We must herald that.

But saved from what? How can we talk about salvation without talking about sin? And how can we talk about sin without talking about God? We command all men everywhere to repent and be Baptized. But repent from what? From sodomy? From a lack of compassion? From preforming and submitting to abortions? From Statist Marxist theft as against the 8th commandment? How can we apply Christ Crucified unless we talk about these sins which the political realm has forced upon the Church by its seeking to try and reshape our message?

It looks to me that Tullian wants all the image with none of the substance. He wants a Crucified Christ to preach without the ethical substance that a Crucified Christ looks to forgive.

2.) Even with Tullian’s comment that we should not comment on politics from the pulpit he has made a political statement. He is telling us we should not raise our voice against those sins for which Christ was crucified. Tullian is being extraordinarily political in desiring a closed lip policy against the States interference with Christian morality.