Will the real bigot please standup!

The Oxford International Dictionary defines a bigot:

“as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”

That being the case, why should Christians and other otherwise law abiding citizens take the rap for bigotry when the liberals are actually more intolerant than those who hold conflicting political and/or moral views than they do?

For instance, when’s the last time you saw those opposed to same-sex marriages, or trans-gender bath rooms shut down a college campus or sit down in the middle of a busy interstate highway to show their opposition? Or, entire companies refusing to do business with those that are not “politically correct”? Also, is it not bigotry to fine a Catholic fined $13,000 for refusing to host same-sex ‘wedding’ at their farm. If that is not bigotry, pray tell me what is. What about the Little Sisters of the Poor who are currently fighting an adjunction under the Obamacare to provide insurance to cover abortion? Is this not an outrage? Bigotry at its worst. Further, we cannot overlook the fact that many of our larger cities have mandated neutral gender bathrooms to accommodate transgender individuals over which we as the average citizen have no choice since it is their “Constitutional right!” Really? I would rather think of it as political correct tyranny at its worst. Also, what about the removal of historic monuments just for the sake of trying to erase the past to pacify ethnic and/or political minorities? Is this not historical revisionism and bigotry at its worst?  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Further, do I like the Confederate flag? No, absolutely not. But I have friends who do and who incidentally as far as I can see are not bigots. They are just proud of being Southerners. On the other hand if someone wants to sing “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy” that’s fine with me, too

Well, while I am at it. I must say that black lives matter. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. But in the protest let’s include those dress in blue. As a matter of fact, let’s include all the senseless killings that are going on in America, and do something about it, rather than just talk. Certainly Second Amendment rights are part of our Constitution; however, to politicize those rights and allow suspected jihadists who are on the no-fly list who can still walk into a gun show and purchase an Uzi is total insanity. Yet, The Left who are otherwise in opposition to our Second Amendment rights will champion those rights to protect these potential murders because it is the political correct thing to do. We must not called them Muslim extremists or curb their "rights," either. It smacks too much of profiling, they argue. Really? You could use the same argument to release Charles Manson from prison since he never personally killed anyone. He didn't have to since he had others to do it for him; however, who would dare hand him an Uzi because it is his Constitutional right and we mustn't profile him? So, in my opinion, if and when a jihadist is caught redhanded advocating murder and mayhem, not only should he or she be placed on the no-fly list—better yet, they should be placed in a cell right next to Manson himself.

I am not prepared to say which way the scales will tip in the current polarization; however,  my bet is the economics will win over human freedom and that political correctness is only a convenient vehicle for the greedy and powerful to stay in office. Amazing isn’t it that PayPal has scrapped its North Carolina expansion plan over the state's new LGBT law depriving at least 400 new employees a job just to please the LGBT lobby; or that a host of other companies have taken similar positions? Sadly, this is all done under the disguise of patriotism—that is to say, it is the American way. Let freedom ring. Even if it does mean forcing your daughter or wife to share a bathroom with a sexual pervert.

C.S. Lewis usually didn’t have much to say about politics Yet in The Four Loves—his book on the variety of human loves—Lewis talked at length about the horrible damage that can be done by patriotism, or love of country. Citing examples of damage done in the name of patriotism, Lewis mentions the trampling of the rights of Native American tribes, the gas chambers of Nazi Germany, the sins of apartheid.

Lewis is right, An enforced misplaced patriotism that is driven to the far edge of idolatry, has always led to the enforcement of a fear-based ideology, and often to death. I might say in reflecting on this that a few years past one would have never imagined that our political system could or perhaps would lead us in this direction. All we must do, however, is to replace the words"gas chambers" with the words "abortionist's rooms;" or the words "native American" with words "conservative Christians" to sense the real possibility— you get the point. We may not be there yet, but all the signs are pointing in that scary direction.

Friends, we need to pray and work harder than ever before.

I am yours in the bonds of Calvary,

JimR_/

 

Staying relevant does not necessarily mean that you are contemporary.

Staying relevant does not necessarily mean that you are contemporary. Let me explain. There are those who argue that Christianity is flexible, it changes with the times. Naturally, they cite the plight of the slaves, and not only do they want to see this horrible practice condemned to fit in with modern contemporary, but they wish to eradicate the memory thereof by historical revisionism. Anything to do with the Confederacy is out and basically despised by the politically correct elite. Almost anything goes. Deface historical monuments, change the appearance of our currency, write off the entire South as just a bunch of Bubbas. Anything goes.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Harriet Tubman was a great lady and deserves her place in history, perhaps something similar to the Stone Mountain Park Monument in Georgia, or the Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota, along with other great black and minority leaders. Honor is not what this is all about. Cultural revisionism is, however.

There are other examples, too. President Obama apologizing about American’s arrogance and upper handedness in the past as many of the leftwing liberals are advocating —and if my hunch is right, he will come as close to apologize to Japan for America’s use of the Atomic bomb to end World War II as politically correct for him to do. As if I or anyone else could apologize for what my granddaddy did. Now, not only do these politically correct storm troopers want to rewrite past history, they also have the audacity to pre-write future history, also. If not, then pray tell me how anyone in their right mind can hand out a Nobel Peace Prize to someone on the basis of what they might do? Which, incidentally, gives us a hint on how far reaching this cultural revisionism is. In a nut shell, its sole purpose appears to be to eradicate Western civilization as we know it and replace with contemporary values.

It is a subtle moral revisionism, also. Anything is fair game. Piggy back the gay rights movement on the back of the Black Civil rights movement, that’s fine as long as it gets the job done. Give the ESPN Arthur Ashe Award for Courage to a transgender—more properly a transvestite—like Caitlyn Jenner is simply just another example in a long list of misguided value judgments that these purveyors of moral contemporaneity who will go to any lengths to muddy the waters of spiritual sanity.

Yes, America made mistakes in the past. Big mistakes. These we cannot ignore. However, to write off the use of nuclear weaponry to end Second World War as great moral blunder is simply not true. For sure it was the lesser of two evils but a choice had to be made, and it was. Only at the judgement seat of Christ will the truth be known, however.

 Take care!

Job satisfaction

 "The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it.” Mother Teresa 

A friend of mine, a psychologists, observed in his practice that fervent Christians seemed to have as much despondency as the average person; whereas, he had always assumed just the opposite. So, to settle the issue in his mind, he conducted a research project and lo and behold his assumptions were shattered except for one small segment in the Church. Those Christians that engaged in daily devotional practices of prayer and Bible reading were the one exception. 

Personally, I wish he had conducted a more in-depth study and tested those who had private devotions because they felt they should against those that did it out of sheer love of God and His word. If you are one of those that feel guilty when you miss devotions, I would check my reasons for having devotions in the first place. 

Now, I must confess, it there is one area of my Christian walk that I wish I had been more faith in, it is that I didn’t just simply put away all of my theological books and read the Bible just for the sheer joy of know what God has said. There is something refreshing about meeting God in a non-intrusive way.

 

Let me explain by example. 

Recently, I was refreshing my memory on the subtleties of the Trinity, and, of course, that included reviewing the Creeds which deal with the subject. After assuring myself that I was orthodox I was strangely struck with the notion that all of this made sense on paper but making sense on paper is not experiencing His ineffable presence on a personal level. 

Crossing every ‘t’ and dotting each ‘i’ may satisfy the intellect, but it certainly does little for the heart. It is true that we cannot base or theology on feelings alone, but it is also equally true that spiritual truth that does not do something to the heart is not just impractical but it is also impossible. Moses experienced that while standing before the burning bush. Peter, James, and John experience it also at the Transfiguration. John, The Revelator on the Isle of Patmos, when first glimpsed the risen Christ said, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead.” 

Words were not necessary to convey the presence of God in any of these cases. As a matter of fact, words without presence is meaningless. Presence always precedes words. Personally, I am lead to believe that one of the problems with the Church today is that we have words without presence. Good words perhaps, but just words nonetheless. What good is it to hear that God is good and yet not sense it? What good is it to preach on the communion and fellowship of the Holy Spirit and not experience it? Love, we all know, is something to be felt rather than described. Write about love all day long or reference it in a thousand dictionaries and what do you have? To put it in simple terms, all you have is words. It is no difference with God. We know Him best when He resides in our hearts. “Oh, taste and see,” said the Psalmist, “that the Lord is good!” 

Surely Paul must have sense the essence of what I am talking about as he wrote: Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift. (2 Corinthians 9:15) 

We should never shy away for our feelings. Certainly, Peter like Paul didn’t and thus he was able to write with confidence to those under his charge: You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him now, you trust him; and you rejoice with a glorious, inexpressible joy. I Peter 1:6-9

Yours in the Bonds of Calvary,

 

 

JimR_/

 

 

 

Why all the hype about the Syrian refugees?

"But is he Syrian?"

---

". . . speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ." Ephesians 4:15

---

Dear friends, prayer and financial partners,

 

The truth is not always popular. Yet, as Christians we must be truthful. We know, however, that that is not always the case. Particularly is this the case during the heat of a political campaign. So, what I am about to say may not set right with some, but it is the truth as far as I can tell.

What I have in mind is the fuss over the Syrian refugee problem. Shall we let Syrian refugees in, or shall we not? Let me begin by saying that this is not the first time refugees have been a topic of heated discussion. Some of the more popular refugees in the Bible are Joseph, Moses, and Esther. However, there were many many more. For example, Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26) were forced to migrate because of famine. Jacob (Genesis 27, 31, and 47) was forced to flee because of a threat on his life, financial exploitation and famine. Esau (Genesis 36) is another refugee mentioned in Scripture. Joseph (Genesis 37) was a victim of international human trafficking. Then, of course, there is the tender story of Naomi and Ruth who were forced to migrate because of famine. Oh, my, the list could go on forever, it seems. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the prophet Elijah are a few more.

In face of this redemptive history, however, the Jews still harbored an inbreed prejudice against the foreigners in their midst. 

Is it any wonder then that the Jews were reminded to be kind to refugees? As far back as Leviticus God said:

"The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 19:34 NIV)

Further, we read in Jeremiah:

"Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place." (Jeremiah 22:3 NIV)

Even Jesus, identified himself with the stranger, and the needy:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me." (Matthew 25:35 NIV)

So, friends the bottom-line is that we have no choice. We must open ourselves up to once again be a sanctuary for the disenfranchised, downtrodden, and, yes, the refugee.

That is not to say, however, that we should be naïve or foolish and allow this international crisis to become a Trojan horse that secretly hides the enemy inside. Vetting is absolutely necessary. But it may surprise some that this is already being done. Not just any Ahmad, Mohammad, or Ali can qualify. As a matter of fact under current police none of the thousands of refugees flooding Europe now qualify. And, it may interest you to know that less than .01 % of the current refugees currently residing in the Middle East right now are accepted to go immigrate anywhere.

As I said, we must be honest, and we must have the facts.

Rumor and scare tactics are rampant, however. For example, it is reported that over 2,000 Syrian refugees are currently being processed through our immigration facilities in Louisiana, and the impression is left that these are hot off the boats that fled from Syrian to Europe. Not true. These are men, women, and children that have been languishing in refugee camps in the Middle East for years. Now, granted there are a few exceptions, primarily those who qualify as political refugees and the seriously ill. In a word, these poor indigents deserve our prayers, not out wrath.

Now, I realize that information like this doesn’t win elections, but we must accept the facts; and tell the truth while we are at it. And, not I am not a Clinton-ite, or a Trump-ite, or anything in-between; nor am I suggesting that we throw caution to the wind. However, to suggest that these refugee camps are invested with a bunch of jihadists just waiting (on average 5 years) just to enter our country so that they can blow it up is simply not the truth.

Last evening Bonnie and I returned from Minneapolis after spending Thanksgiving with family there, and at the airport we got on the wrong shuttle to take us to our car; however, the driver very enthusiastically said I will take you to the nearest pickup point to catch the right shuttle. When we got off the shuttle to get on the right one, I thanked him in Arabic. His eyes lit up and then he expressed his delight that someone spoke Arabic to him, and in the process said he was from Egypt and was extremely thankful to be in America. Another Egyptian overheard the conversation and immediately joined in thankful to be in America, too. So, my question is shall we refuse these persecuted Christians simply because they happen to be brown and speak Arabic? I think not. I know, I know, we have had problems with the Somalians in Minneapolis that had radicalized and joined the jihadists; however. it should be noted that they were never really vetted. They were simple rescued from a war zone and plunked down in America.

Now, you ask, what about those homegrown terrorists that appear to be totally integrated into American society but are later radicalized and turn on us, as we have just witness in the incident in San Bernardino? Unfortunately, the spouse (wife) in this case had not been properly vetted. Obviously, tightening up the vetting process is an absolute necessity; however, we must find a way to allow Christian love and compassion reign. As much as I hate to say it, however, we must begin to profile these individuals and place them under closer scrutiny. Whether or not this will take an act of Congress I do not know. All I know is that something must be done to stop gun violence. Suspending the Second Amendment is not the answer, but background checks are an absolute necessity. England has very strict gun laws and freedom to go along with that. So, a democracy can fully operate with such laws and not be a totalitarian state. Surely there is a happy medium here somewhere!

So, the point is, we as Christians are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves and in the process always err on the side of love.

 

As ever, I am thankfully yours,

 

JimR__/

 

P.S. Make sure you double click onto the cartoon to reach the video link to get the real facts.

Are all Muslims evil people?

Question: Professor Roane, is Islam a rotten religious system. Are all Muslims evil?

Answer: Let me begin by saying that no, not all Muslims are evil. As a matter of fact the evil jihadists are in a minority but nonetheless a very strong minority. The moderate silent majority in Islam, just like in Christianity, however, does the advancement of freedom and truth no service by keeping their opinions to themselves—or at best sharing them with just a few friends or acquaintances. 

Unlike, however, Christian that abhors violence as a method for conversion, the Muslims have a long history of coercion, and intolerance. This, of course, began with the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith (historical tradition) is resplendent with violent acts and militaristic motifs. In all fairness, however, Judaism is also guilty of the same. Christianity, however, took centuries to even come up with a justifiable war of self-defense—that being St. Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430) in North Africa. 

The Great Philosopher’s website[i] from Oregon State University is a fairly neutral assessment of St. Augustine’s theory on a just war which is identified two aspects of war that required moral justification and guidelines:

             —The right to go to war (Jus Ad Bellum)

             —The right sorts of conduct in war (Jus In Bello)

The right to go to war concerns the justification that a nation must give in order for it to have a moral right to wage war on another.  Augustine laid the basis for four main criteria:

    1. Just Authority - is the decision to go to war based on a legitimate political and legal process?

    2. Just Cause - has a wrong been committed to which war is the appropriate response?

    3. Right Intention - is the response proportional to the cause? i.e. is the war action limited to righting the wrong, and no further. When people speak of "mission creep," this condition is the relevant concern.

    4. Last Resort - has every other means of righting the wrong been attempted sincerely so that no other option but war remains?

The conduct of war is clearly a matter of moral concern.  Therefore, there are moral limits on what a nation may do in prosecuting the war.  Those limits include,

1.   The proportionality of force must be limited to a justifiable goal (no mission creep allowed!);

2.   Discrimination between combatants and noncombatants must be strictly followed. So, unlike the jihadists Innocent, nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.

3.   Responsibility - A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as the following three conditions are met:

a.  The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.

b.  The bad effects were not intended.

c.  The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.

Later, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century expanded the theory, but Augustine’s treatment of the subject remains the classic work.

Muslims, too, claim that war is justifiable but on far more inclusive grounds; that being, primarily, in establishing a theocracy base on Sharia Law (culled as it were from the Koran, and as interpreted by the mullahs—including the more recent notorious ayatollahs, such as the Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini (1900–1989) who labeled America the “Great Satan,” and re- incited a Holy War against Israel and the infidels. 

So, when the strict Quranist speak of peace, such peace is a controlled and submissive peace stringently along the lines of Sharia Law.

Having said, all of that, however, most of the silent majority in Islam passively acquiesce to the rhetoric of radical Islamist. 

So, to answer the question, No, the majority of Muslims, particularly those in the west are not of evil intent; however, there does seem to be enough fodder in radical Islamism to fuel the flames of jihadism even among the most moderate. The one exception may be Sufi Muslims which unfortunately are a small sect in Islam.

Trust this answers your questions,

JimR__/

 

---

[i] http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine_justwar.html