Propaganda … A College Course

Main Texts

1.) Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes — Jacques Ellul

http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-The-Formation-Mens-Attitudes/dp/0394718747/ref=pd_sim_14_32?ie=UTF8&dpID=417YlDRfqUL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR93%2C160_&refRID=14ZH0NAB2ZC7KY68Y96C

2.)  The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America — Daniel Boorstin

http://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/0679741801/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458140754&sr=8-1&keywords=Daniel+Boorstin+image

Required Texts

1.)  The Father of Spin – Larry Tye

Intent — Biography of one of the most influential Propagandist in the 20th century

http://www.amazon.com/Father-Spin-Edward-Bernays-Relations/dp/0805067892/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458143784&sr=1-1&keywords=Father+of+spin

2.) Propaganda — Edward Bernays

Intent — The technique and “how to” of how Bernays did Propaganda

http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays/dp/0970312598/ref=pd_sim_14_13?ie=UTF8&dpID=51P65kY5kAL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR102%2C160_&refRID=01DZMMG01QW2S39NM69T

3.) The Crowd — Gustav LaBon

Intent — How the public mind works in the context of large gatherings. How propaganda can manipulate the public mind in the context of large gatherings.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/0486419568/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z80KH2S9C3GBRACXJDX

4.) Rules For Radical — Saul Alinsky

Intent — Alinsky’s propaganda methodology in order to manipulate Organizations and Public Opinion of Organizations. Community Organization 101.

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458141021&sr=1-1&keywords=rules+for+radicals

5.) Confrontational Politics — H. L. Richardson

Intent — “How to” book on how to use propaganda in confrontational settings. Gives tips on how to organize with propaganda.

http://www.amazon.com/Confrontational-Politics-Senator-H-L-Richardson/dp/0915463768

6.) The News Twisters — Edith Efron

Intent — Demonstrates the subtle presence and success of Propaganda by the Mainstream media upon the American voting public. Dated book. Still highly relevant.

http://www.amazon.com/news-twisters-Edith-Efron/dp/0840212062/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458141353&sr=1-4&keywords=edith+efron

7.) Why Johnny Can’t Think — Robert Whitaker

Intent — Demonstrates the bias and propaganda in the University system. Insists that every message received must be received by examining the presuppositions of the person or vehicle sending the message. Begins to give a outline on how to be immune to Propaganda.

http://www.amazon.com/Johnny-Cant-Think-Robert-Whitaker/dp/0972929207/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458141805&sr=1-1&keywords=Why+Johnny+Can%27t+think

8.) Amusing Ourselves To Death

Intent — Reveals that Americans are a Propagandized people and explains how Television is a propaganda machine. Television makes people immune to Truth and creates a society that requires a constant diet of propaganda.

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458144103&sr=1-1&keywords=amusing+ourselves+to+death

9.) The Medium is the Massage — Marshal McLuhan

Intent — How the vehicle of the Message affects the Message sent. Propaganda, to be effective, has to be married to the right vehicle.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Medium-Massage-Marshall-McLuhan/dp/1584230703/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51y9DtmSKWL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR92%2C160_&refRID=048PEYTMZ68F9KGW16J1

Note — See the course curriculum offered on Worldview Thinking and Presuppositionalism to provide the answer how one immunizes themselves to propaganda. This course will make you aware of Propaganda but it will not by itself make you immune to Propaganda.

Required Video

1.) The Century of the Self

Intent — 4 hour video that demonstrates the vast and deep role of propaganda in the 20th century. Should be viewed at least twice.

 

Basic Weekly Assignments:

Unlike previous courses this course insists on the importance of each and every book and the video for a complete understanding of Propaganda. As such each and every book requires Chapter summaries.

A final 30 page paper is required that explains what Propaganda is, how it works, the relation it bears to truth, if any. The paper will also require a demonstration and brief explanation of the techniques of successful Propaganda.

 

Biologos On Combining the “Best of Science” with the Scripture

From a Biologos spin on combining Genesis 1 with science.

http://biologos.org/resources/the-big-story/

“Once upon a time in an act of extravagant expansive love overflowing from that divine community there appeared from nothing a pinpoint of probability smaller than a proton and this was the egg of the universe. In this egg God packed all the potential for the universe He planned, all matter, all energy, all life, all being, and the laws by which it would unfold. The egg exploded. Only God knows how. And the universe expanded a trillion trillion times and it gradually cooled into what we call matter.”

Let’s see if we can look at this up close.

1.) Once upon a time? The famous beginning of fairy tales.

2.) How does a pinpoint of probability appear from nothing? ex nihilo nihil fit

3.) Did the “pinpoint of probability” come from nothing or did it come from the an act of extravagant expansive love?

4.) How does a pinpoint of probability “appear”?

5.) God packed all the potential of the universe in a pinpoint of probability? What does that even mean?

6.) How does anybody know the size (smaller than a proton) of this pinpoint of probability? Would all this be undone if this pinpoint of probability was larger than a size of a proton?

7.) How does matter, energy, life, and being, as well as the laws of the universe get packed in a pinpoint of probability? Again, what does that even mean.

8.) The pinpoint of probability exploded? How does a non material, non energy, non life, non thing explode?

9.) Category error probability is not ontic nor a substance. As such it cannot be put into an egg, or explode.

This is supposed to have more clarity than Genesis 1?

This is irrationality on poetic stilts.

Overall this Biologos account of creation sounds not entirely dissimilar to an ancient Phoenician origins myth. If one reads the two back to back one can certainly her continuities between the two accounts.

In the beginning did Darkness, black as Erebus, inhabit an eternal, infinite void. In the growing confusion of colliding elements, an unconscious Desire emerged, which was the origin of all existence.

Though it knew not itself, Desire formed a union with Darkness and brought forth a great shiny cosmic egg, and when it was broken, it spewed forth a slimy, viscous Mot into the void, out of which came forth the stars and sun.

The air, now heated from the glow of land and sea, formed great lightning and winds, and a vast downpour of heavenly waters mixed with Mot, forming the first simple creatures, both visible and invisible, from which came more complex animals—first those without, and then those with sensation.

By the heat of the sun, things were made to split off and clash with one another, causing thunder and lightning, and thus awoke beings endowed with intelligence who began to stir on the earth and took fright on land and sea as males and females—who could now ponder the heavens: the sun, moon, stars, and planets.

Thus arose consciousness.

Sen. Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is No Conservative

Recently, Mr. Joel Crospey, encouraged me to provide evidence for the lack of bonafide conservatism in Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz and why a vote for Sen. Rafael Cruz would be inconsistent with either conservatism or Biblical Christianity. Mr Crospey also asked me to sustain the fact that Sen. R. Cruz’s eligibility to be President is at the very least questionable.

This is my good faith attempt at doing just that. Keep in mind that I am not voting for any of the current Republican candidates for President. I have no dog in this fight. My only desire is to just expose these candidates for who they are. In previous posts on Iron Ink I have provided the same kind of  evidence for the lack in Donald Trump as I am now going to demonstrate in Sen. Rafael Cruz. I do not believe that Biblical Christians should be voting for either Trump or Cruz.

First we will seek to demonstrate, how it is uncertain that Sen. Rafael Cruz is qualified as a natural born citizen. To demonstrate this we have to realize that there are several different opinions on how the Constitution should be interpreted. We will examine Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President of these united States based on his own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. Sen. Cruz holds to the view called “Originalism.” This theory of interpretation understands the Constitution as having a stable meaning according to the original meaning of the words and the understandings of those words as used by those who penned and ratified the Constitution. The Originalist then takes the text seriously as well as the intent of those who penned and ratified the Constitution as a document.

When we come to the issue of who qualifies and doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen,” the course of the Originalist is to look at the meaning of “natural born citizen” as that was used when the Constitution was penned and ratified. When we do just that we discover that when the Constitution was penned and ratified there were two methods by which it was determined whether or not someone was a natural born citizen. The first of these two was that a newborn belonged to the Sovereign or nation who ruled the territory upon which said child was birthed.  This was part of English common law, which the fledgling unites States adopted as their own. The second method shifted from looking to soil as being determinative of natural born status to looking to blood as being determinative of natural born status.  According to this methodology in determining natural born status one was natural born in keeping with the loyalty of the patriarch who sired the newborn, regardless of what or whose soil the child was birthed upon. By this “law of blood,” children born to those serving as diplomats in foreign lands would still be considered natural born of the country from which their diplomat Father haled.

By an Originalist understanding of the US Constitution, Sen. Ted Cruz is not natural born to these united States and so is not qualified to be the US President.  Sen. Cruz was neither born in these united States, nor was Cruz’s Father’s loyalty, being Cuban born and living in Canada, a loyalty vouchsafed to these united States.  Sen. Cruz, by his own Originalist understanding of the Constitution, thus is not a natural born citizen, and so is not qualified to be President of these united States.

Now, I am well aware that other arguments have been made to support Cruz’s natural born eligibility but my only task here is to support the idea that Cruz’s natural born eligibility is a open legal question not yet legally determined by the SCOTUS. For anyone to insist that it is undoubted that Sen. Cruz is qualified as natural born to be President is a insistence born of wishing and not the facts.

If any questions remains this lecture from a Constitutional Scholar reinforces my points.

Having dealt with the questionable status of Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President I now turn to a more explicit treatment of why a vote for Sen. Cruz would be inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. This is a cumulative argument and I will move from the more serious reasons to reasons that might be deemed less serious.

1.) The greatest reason that a well informed Biblical Christianity would forswear voting for Sen. Cruz for President is his effusive praise for the Marxist murderer Nelson Mandela upon Mandela’s death.

“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free.

We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”

By Sen. Cruz’s words here we see Proverbs 10:11 incarnated.

“The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.”

This praise of Mandela by Sen. Cruz is instructive as to the Senator’s worldview. If Cruz counts the tyrant Mandela as a “inspiration for defenders of liberty” what must liberty mean to Cruz? The whole language of “equal liberties,” is seen as a lie when one considers the abuse of the Boers in South Africa. Could not Cruz see this by the time of Mandela’s death? The idea that South Africa is “free” would be news to the Boer population.

Does Cruz know of Mandela’s involvement, via his terrorist organization, of the bombing for which Mandela is responsible? This includes the bombing of public places, wherein a killing of piles of more judicially innocent civilian bystanders (women and children inclusive) than the killing of Mandela’s enemies.  Does Cruz know that Mandela stayed in prison, despite the offer of release that only stipulated that Mandela quit killing people? Mandela died with the blood of tens of thousands of people, both black and white, on his hands. Whether Sen. Cruz actually does believe what he said about Mandela, or whether it is the case that Sen. Cruz demonstrated a gross display of ignorance and lack of discernment, this praise of Mandela by Cruz means that Biblical Christians should not be voting for Sen. Cruz.

2.)  Sen. Cruz refused to support the bill Dr. Ron Paul tried for years to get passed to audit the Federal Reserve. The problem with fiat money as printed by the FED, may only have competition with the issue of illegal immigration as the number one threat to US nationhood, and yet Sen. Cruz refused to support a bill that would have moved forward setting boundaries for the Federal Reserve. Now, when you combine this lack of support with Heidi Cruz’s (Raphael’s wife) connection to Goldman Sachs, which works hand in glove with the FED, one wonders about Cruz’s lack of willingness to support Congressman Paul’s vote.

Biblical Christians support responsibility in fiscal matters. Cruz’s lack of support for Congressman Paul’s legislation, when combined with all these other concerns, should cause Biblical Christians to understand that a vote for Cruz is not consistent Christianity.

3.) Sen. Cruz has indicated support for a Constitutional Convention. This support underscores, again, a lack of discernment on the part of Sen. Cruz. A Constitutional Convention would be sure to open a Pandora’s box for revising the Constitution in a Marxist – Progressive direction. Support for a Constitutional Convention would be to take us from the frying pan to the fire.

Biblical Christians understand that any action that is going to open a door for the advance of Marxism is contrary to Biblical Christianity and so would not vote for those who are in support for such an open door.

4.) Heidi Cruz, has worked for the Council of Foreign Relations which is a globalist organization. Are we to believe that Sen. Cruz is not compromised by his wife’s association with one of the premier organization’s dedication to a New World Order that envisions the end of Nation State sovereignty?

Biblical Christianity is opposed to all attempts to build a Babel New World order.

5.) Sen. Cruz seems to have a inordinate passion for Israel’s interests. Will that passion for Israel’s interests be prioritized over his work to advance the interests of the nation state that he is not a natural born citizen of?

Of course any conservative worth his salt wants a chief executive that is not beholden to foreign interest.

6.) Sen. Cruz’s record on immigration is cloudy.  Was he trying to add a poison bill to the “gang of 8” immigration legislation? Was he trying to massively expand the Hb1-B visa program to ridiculous levels? Is he serious about the one issue that is the number one threat to the continuance of America as a definable nation state? My estimation is that Sen. Cruz is a typical grifter politician who is not to be trusted in the least in terms of being able to believe what he says about anything.

Immigration is the issue in 2016. Sen. Cruz’s cloudy doublespeak is a positioning that no conservative can support.

7.)   Cruz’s complete inexperience as a young Senator weighs in here. The country just elected, in 2008, a young inexperienced Senator like Cruz. I shouldn’t think we’d not want to make this mistake again.

8.) Sen. Cruz support for Legislation  S.306. If Cruz were truly conservative, he would know that in the history of homeschooling, once a state has called homeschools “private schools” just so that homeschoolers could have access to sports, band, tax rebates, etc…. That’s when they expanded it to be a requirement, and after that came mandatory standardized annual testing, and after that came cover schools who must meet with you to check your progress several times throughout the year. Aka, what homeschoolers in California have to do every single year.

9.) If Cruz were truly a conservative, he would know that the government has no business in education. A truly conservative presidential candidate would abolish the dept of education, so that instead of being “allowed” to call ourselves a private school (and thus be kept in a database) so that we are “allowed” to keep some of our own money tax free, we would simply eliminate the tax entirely because we’d do away with the $77 billion dollar education budget!  Cruz’s support for the abolishing of the Department of Education is inconsistent with his support for S.306.

In conclusion, it is clearly seen that Sen. Cruz’s is not a natural born citizen, per his own Constitutional theory and that Sen. Rafael Cruz is not a bonafide conservative, nor is he championing Christian positions.

________________________
Hat Tip to Mrs. Mickey Henry on points 9 & 10 above

 

 

Women In Combat … A Natural Law Negative Answer

Someone asked me how I would answer the question that was asked at the Republican debate tonight about whether or not I would support women being registered for the draft. My answer would be quite different from Sen. Rubio, Gov. Bush, and Gov. Christie who all answered that they thought women should be required to register for the draft. The person who asked me to answer this insisted that I not appeal to Scripture for my answer and so I have given an answer that might be considered a “Natural Law” argument.

Candidate McAtee turns to the debate moderator,

Gladys, I’m glad you asked that question.

I esteem the place of women so highly in this culture that I would be opposed to women registering for the draft. Regardless of what our Politically Correct thought masters want to tell us, women, on average, just are not as capable as men are for the rigors of war. This is proven by the simple observation that in the Olympics, for example, women do not compete with men. Everyone knows why. They don’t compete with men in sprints, or pole vault or shot put, or high jump, or distance races because they can not, on average, successfully preform these physical activities to the same level as men. Similarly, you find no women as Linebackers or defensive ends in the NFL. Now, transfer this to our military. When we are in a position where we have to kill the enemy and destroy the infrastructure of a enemy Nation we want those people fighting who are best conditioned and best able to do just that. Statistics, as well as the Olympics as analogy, tell us that those people are men.

Gladys, read about the battle of Stalingrad. Read about the hardships in the Trenches of WW I … or the Battle of Somme. Read about the brutalities of war on the Pacific Islands. Read about all that our POW went through in Vietnam. Talk to a the few remaining veterans who were at Chosin in Korea. Read about all that and then ask yourself again….”Do we really want our daughters, Mothers, wives, and sisters trying to survive those kinds of perils?”

Next, consider what women in combat will do to morale on the battlefield. What will the sight of women soldiers bloodied, raped, and disfigured do to the psyche of our men in combat?  And what of a man’s natural instinct to protect women? Will it not be the case that our male soldiers will begin prioritizing protecting their female comrades above the accomplishing whatever mission they are assigned to accomplish? Do we want our male soldiers to suppress that instinct?

Next, we must consider combat readiness. The Marine Corps, just last September reported on a test comparing the performance of an all-male combat unit with that of a combat unit which included women. The results of the test are unsurprising to sane people whose brains have not been rotted by political correctness. The results demonstrated that all male combat units outperformed the integrated units in more than two-thirds of the areas evaluated, including speed, lethality, and strength, and with 26 percent fewer injuries. Of course, what this means, concretely speaking, is that when we put women in combat units the result is that we make every man and woman in that unit more likely to get their heads blown off their shoulders.

To be honest, Gladys, I don’t want to be the Chief Executive of a Nation that sends it’s Mothers, Wives, Daughters, and Sisters to combat. The immorality of such social policy screams for judgment from the God we politicians are forever invoking to “Bless America.” Let the non-Civilized nations make an offering of their women to the Volcano God of war.

The Feminists who are pushing this agenda just need to be told, “no, we are not going to allow your insane fantasies about equality get sane men and women killed in combat.”

I might lose this election on this issue. I know that the Politically Correct thought control does not allow this to be thought or said. However, in the end, I’d rather lose this election protecting the noble women of this great nation than win by sending them to war to protect men who should be the ones doing the fighting.

The Blood of Christ and Its Work of Erasing Creaturely Distinctions

“You are to be defined as a spiritual family from the world and not by the world — by the World’s distinction. The distinctions the world would put upon us. It is not our definitions. We are not to be known as Male Christians or female Christians… single Christians, Asian Christians, black, white, wealthy or poor. These are worldly distinctions. They don’t belong in the Church. When we consider one another and how we value and how we care for and how we treat one another we are not to see these worldly or these societal distinctions among us. We are to see the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ that has been shed for you, just as shed for you and for you and for you. All without any difference — all of us together. We are to see the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore equally bound together and equally called the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ…. So great care must be taken to prevent that virus of favoritism from finding its way into the body and coursing itself through us.”

As From a Reformed Pulpit during a AM Sermon
Somewhere in these united States

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one.
But yes, I’m still running.

Bono — U2

I often will listen to random sermons from Reformed Churches that style themselves Conservative (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, RPCUS, ARP, RPCGA, UCR, CanRef, OCRC etc.). The purpose is just to keep a finger on the pulse of what is going on in the larger Reformed world.

There are several prisms one can view this quote through. One could view it through the prism of  Dr. Peter Jones’ work at “Truth Exchange.”  Jones has written several books on what he calls “Oneism.” Oneism is the attempt to level all reality to a place where all differences are seen as “maya” (illusion).  One of Jones’ staff saw this quote on social media and commented, “Oneism.”

Another prism to see this through is to see this as an example of Anabaptist leveling. Leveling is just the egalitarian idea that social distinctions should be erased. Historically, Anabaptist theology has been one where social distinctions are far less recognized. It was the Anabaptists who gave us the Levelers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, etc. — all Levelers. It was the Anabaptists who leveled the distinction between minister and laymen in their circles. It was the Anabaptist who called one another “Brother,” so as to flatten any hierarchical distinctions. Anabaptists were strong on erasing the prohibition on Women preachers and this because of their leveling instinct. It is interesting that Satan was the first Leveler, informing Eve, “you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”

Yet another prism to see this through is the “secular” equivalent of Anabaptism and that is Communism. Communism, like the Anabaptists before them has always had the leveling impulse. In the French Revolution everyone was “Citoyen.” In the Communist Revolution in Russia everyone was “Comrade.”

Still, yet another prism could be the influence of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, historically held that the corporeal aspect of man (his materiality) was not really important or was even evil. It was the spiritual realities which were the be all end all of reality. So, in the quote above, it is not who God who has made us as creatures (Husbands, Married, Single, Asian, Black, etc.) which is important. What is important is the spiritual “blood of Christ,” which erases all other creaturely distinctions with which God us been pleased to embody us.

Finally, it just may be the case of a young minister saying things in-artfully.

Very very in-artfully.

The problem here of course is the following,

1.) The young minister might be confusing the fact,  that when it comes to belonging to Christ there are no hierarchical barriers, with the heretical idea that therefore there are no longer proper creaturely distinctions that exist in our embodied existence. It is true that Jesus accepts all those who are weary and heavy laden who come to Him, regardless of lack of status, rank, or position. Spiritually speaking, we are all one in Christ. As it is said, the ground at the Cross is level. Christ does not accept the Black men above the Asian, simply because of race. Christ does not accept the Female over the Male simply because of gender. However, that spiritual truth does not erase our respective ethnicity or our maleness, or femaleness. Being Justified in and united with Christ does not make us interchangeable cogs in a leveled social hierarchy … not even in the context of the Church. The fact that St. Paul repeatedly gave instructions to “slaves,” “masters,” “husbands,” “wives,” “children,” “men,” “women,” “widows,” “families,” proves beyond a scintilla of doubt that social leveling is not a Biblical or Christian idea. Because of that we would have to say that there is more of Robespierre than of Jesus Christ in this quote.

2.) The minister seems to think that hierarchies are something from which we are saved. Hierarchies are “worldly,” and “societal,” and in the Church we are not “worldly,” and “societal” therefore in the Church we don’t do hierarchy. The thought seems present that once one comes into the Church at that point the blood of Christ washes us from our embodied creatureliness so that we are now egalitarian spiritual beings. Hello, “Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité.”

3.) The minister is exegeting from James 2 where favoritism to the wealthy is forsworn. However, teaching that there should not be a unbiblical favoritism does not mean that there is not a biblical favoritism. St. Paul himself advocates for this proper Biblical favoritism when he writes,

“But if any man does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).

Notice that Paul is teaching here a proper Biblical favoritism.  God writes this need for a proper Biblical favoritism again in Galatians 6:10,

As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Note that we are to favor those who of are the household of faith.

4.) Honestly, if we are to abide by this kind of logic then we would should just take down our terribly non-Christian signs that hang over our Church Restrooms. If we are not to be known as Male Christians or Female Christians let’s get serious about implementing this idea and cease with the hateful signage over our bathroom facilities. Also, if we are to take up this idea we Conservative Christians should cease with insisting that boys marry girls. After all, we are not to be known as Male Christians or Female Christians. Our marriage services should end with,

“‘I now pronounce you Christian and Christian. You may kiss the Christian.”

Now, I don’t think this conservative Reformed minister really believes any of the implications of what he said, however, all of this is indeed the implications of what he has said and it is all damn confusing when coming from a pulpit unto a people who are just saturated in this kind of egalitarian nonsense.

Personally, I’m willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Goodness knows, having been in the Pulpit now for over 25 years myself, I have said things that came out different than how I intended. However, for the sake of the laity these in-artful expressions need to be pointed out.