June 1st 2013
Posted under Christianity & Religion
An interesting pic that someone just emailed:
Traditional Christianity: God, Race & Family
Archive for the 'Christianity' Category
April 19th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Culture & Uncategorized
There has been some discussion on the idea of conservative support for homosexual marriage. The reason I believe such sentiment, although certainly not widespread, exists is the notion being “conservative” means living an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. (And its not just Huntsman who thinks this way, so does leftist Ted Rall and libertarian Justin Raimondo do too.)
Certainly “mainstreaming” homosexuality away from the gay pride parade image in has been a goal of said activists for many years whether through institutions like marriage (or the military for that matter). While that might be fine for them, it doesn’t do institution much good. Yes, many heterosexuals haven’t done the institution much good either but that’s besides the point.The question isn’t about lifestyles it’s about meaning. And if marriage is not about one thing, it becomes about everything and then it means nothing. A man marries his horse, marries his favorite ball team or marries his dead mother? Yes, very extreme examples but with western civilization coming to the conclusion than persons can marry regardless of biology because marriage is all about love, then the possibilities are out there for the crazy or the attention seeker to indulge in.
But what’s not crazy and what’s very real is marriage of men to multiple wives, men married to child brides or marriages prearraigned or the very old marrying the very young. These are common practices all throughout the world, primarily in non-Western cultures. When marriages can’t be a fixed thing and anything goes, then there’s nothing legally the state can do to prevent it, especially when latter cultures immigrate to the former. That should be the conservative view of marriage, not shoehorning couples into a televised fantasy of wedded bliss and family life.
April 12th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Culture War & Homosexuality & Political Correctness
In the TAC post below, a few people wanted to blame Ron Unz for the direction of TAC on the gay “marriage” issue. As I said in the comments of that post, it might be fair to blame Unz for some change in the direction of TAC on immigration, but otherwise Unz seems to me fairly ecclectic and focused on his own pet issues. I think the more unified message of moderation coming from TAC recently is likely Wick Allison’s influence (and/or his daughter Maisie).
This post helps solidify my suspicions. Unz comes down against gay marriage. He links to an old column he wrote back in 1999 that he says he still sticks by. Below is from the ’99 column.
This diverse tradition provides a historical context for the forthcoming ballot initiative. One fact immediately stands out: views of homosexuality have varied, views of marriage have varied, but there has never been a human society, past or present, which authorized homosexual marriages. For the United States to legalize gay marriages would be an act unprecedented in all recorded history.
The reason is simple.
Marriage has generally served the role of providing a stable home environment for the young biological children of the married couple, and this implies a man and a woman.
On gay marriage, Unz is not the problem.
April 6th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Conservatism & Culture War & Homosexuality & Political Correctness
Tom Piatak has called out TAC for their generally less than conservative coverage of the gay “marriage” debate.
There is, of course, nothing conservative about support for gay marriage. Gay marriage is an utter novelty, with no historical precedent. Gay marriage seeks to enshrine homosexual acts, but those acts have always been condemned as immoral by Christianity, a condemnation echoed by most other religions and reflected in American law until only recently. Gay marriage also completely severs marriage from procreation, even though marriage and the families it naturally creates have been the means by which human culture is formed and transmitted.
Gay marriage is not only antithetical to Christianity. It is antithetical to the natural law, to tradition, even to Darwin. Those arguing for it should at least have the decency to drop the pretense that they are conservatives.
I have made the same observation that Tom has. Most of the articles at TAC have been tut-tutting social conservatives for botching the debate rather than calling the gay “marriage” supporters out for being advocates of Godlessness. I have a comment pending on this post stating as much. We’ll see if it makes the cut.
Update: My comment did make the cut. Here it is: “I’ve got an idea. How ’bout someone at a magazine that calls itself conservative actually bemoan the fact that America is becoming a secular Godless wasteland and call for national repentance and revival instead of tut-tutting social conservatives. Whatever faults the socons have, and they have many, they are not the problem here. The problem is our culture that is more and more rejecting God’s Word.”
In February they ran this article by Jon Huntsman arguing that gay “marriage” is conservative. Whatever gay “marriage” may be, conservative is not one of them. This was my comment on that thread:
If you had a room full of very bright conservatives and you told them to brainstorm and come up with the most radical idea possible, it would be difficult to come up with an idea more radical than gay “marriage.” That gay marriage is somehow conservative is so preposterous it is difficult to hold back a snicker.
March 31st 2013
Posted under Christianity & Site Issues
Happy Easter from Conservative Heritage Times.
Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o’er His foes,
He arose a Victor from the dark domain,
And He lives forever, with His saints to reign.
He arose! He arose!
Hallelujah! Christ arose! ~ Robert Lowry 1874
March 25th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Chuck Baldwin & Constitution Party & Interventionism
Chuck Baldwin is moving away from Pre-millenialism, and has endorsed Pan-millenialism, a humorous term meaning that someone doesn’t embrace a particular end-times system, but simply believes it will all “pan out in the end.” This may seem like theological inside baseball to many, but I think this is a pretty significant development. Chuck Baldwin posted the following post on his Facebook fan page. I’ll explain why I think it is significant below:
Another note about prophecy: regardless of one’s personal interpretation of Bible prophecy, this much seems clear to me: prophecy is mostly used by preachers to build crowds and make money. Before Christians become prophecy “junkies,” they need to get grounded in the “weightier matters of the law.” When asked about the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, Jesus said bluntly, “It is not for you to… know…” (Acts 1:6,7) Let’s quit pretending that we completely know everything about the Lord’s return. We don’t. Our interpretations of Bible prophecy are educated guesses at best. Next: prophecy seems to be a tool of many Christians to promote war and military aggression overseas. This is not only unscriptural, it is VERY DANGEROUS. Jesus plainly told us that we are supposed to “occupy” (literally: “take care of business”) until He comes–whenever that is. If pastors and Christians would get as excited about taking care of business in the here and now as they are about something that God Himself is going to take care of in the future (and over which we have absolutely no control) our country would not be teetering on the edge of tyranny and oppression. Let God take care of His business, and we start taking care of our business!
He followed it up with this post which is even more on the point:
People keep trying to pigeon-hole me into one prophetic camp or another. Just FYI: I was raised and schooled in the Pre-millennial, Pre-tribulational Rapture position. As I’ve grown older and studied more on the subject, I confess that I have become much more neutral. For one thing, I am totally disgusted with the way my Pre-millennial friends use the doctrine of the Rapture to excuse their laziness and cowardice. In the name of “Jesus is coming soon,” they sit on their blessed assurance and do absolutely nothing while our beloved country is being turned into a giant police state. They also use their understanding of prophecy to justify all kinds of undeclared, unconstitutional, and immoral foreign wars. If the tree is known by its fruit, the fruit of Pre-millennialism (at least nowadays) is pretty rotten. My bottom line is I truly don’t believe that we Christians are supposed to know the exact details of Christ’s return. My study of scripture convinces me that God purposely intended that we NOT know these things, that they are confined to the Province of God. I have further come to believe that it truly doesn’t matter much what one’s personal view of prophecy is. We have a duty to do; we need to do it! “Occupy” until He comes (whenever that is). I guess one could say I am a Pan-millennialist. I believe it’s all going to Pan Out according to God’s Sovereign plan. In the meantime, I want to be faithful to do my duty. And part of that duty is resisting these infernal attempts by big-government elitists to surrender America’s independence and liberties to a bunch of New World Order globalists. Regardless of your view of prophecy, will you join me?
Chuck Baldwin is an Iindependent Baptist pastor. It is generally safe to assume that such people are Dispensational Pre-millennialists. When I was touting Baldwin’s Constitution Party campaign for President in 2008, I ran into several people for whom this was a concern, since most of the people I thought might be interested in Baldwin were non-interventionists who had been Ron Paul supporters. They assumed that since he was a dispy pre-mil that he would be supportive of military intervention on behalf of Israel, even though Baldwin was on the record as a non-interventionist.
One of the things that struck me about his second post above is how similar it is to what I have written in the past. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not accusing Chuck Baldwin of plagiarizing me. I was just amazed at how we had arrived at the same conclusion for the same reasons. In order to find somewhere I had written similar before, I entered “Red Phillips” and “Pan-millenialism” into Yahoo and this is what popped up. It is a discussion thread on the blog Sharper Iron. I have a few replies in the thread but note this one:
A pan-millennialist. I guess that is what I am. In my opinion the Bible is not clear on the exact end-times scenario. If it was, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it. I tend to believe this lack of clarity is intentional. (Other than the clear teaching that Jesus is coming again.) It is potentially dangerous to know the future, because it could affect how you behave in the present. It is particularly dangerous to think you know the future and be wrong about it. The post-mils and pre-mils are both correct when they condemn each other based on the consequences of their beliefs. Ideas (theology) do indeed have consequences. One should be hesitant about embracing a certain set of consequences when the theology it is based on does not warrant the level of certainty that many give it.
It is significant that someone so thoroughly schooled in the Pre-Milliennial perspective such as Chuck Baldwin has reconsidered, and it is noteworthy that the excesses of the pro-war on behalf of Israel crowd is one of the main things that prompted this introspection and re-examination. Is Baldwin representative of an emerging trend? My suspicion based mainly on the vibe I get from the political and Christian blogosphere is that he is.
March 16th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Culture War & Homosexuality & Political Correctness
Rob Portman is often mentioned as a potential VP candidate. Some had him as the favorite to be Romney’s pick. He is sometimes mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate. Well I guess he doesn’t want to be either. He has come out in support of gay “marriage.” Gay “marriage” has been gaining acceptance in our increasingly degenerate and Godless culture, but this will still cost him a Republican VP or Presidential nomination.
At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.
Please spare me the amateur theologizing. This is so easily dismantled it’s sad he would write such drivel. The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. This is not debatable. Those who argue otherwise are either fools or sophists. Obviously, it is understood that “married” gay couples will not be celibate. Therefore gay “marriage” is what our Catholic friends would call “an occasion to sin,” beyond the fact that it is a semantic impossibility. (Gay “marriage” is like dry water or a sober drunk. The meaning of the one precludes the other. Hence my use of quotes around marriage.) So supporting gay “marriage” is supporting an occasion to sin. If we grant that some people are born with a disposition towards homosexuality, something I don’t deny, then Biblically they have two options. Attempt to make a go of it as a heterosexual within the confines of a traditional marriage or remain celibate. If you don’t like this don’t get mad at me. Take it up with God. I didn’t make the rules. He did. The idea that we can paper over the fact that God condemns sin by simply invoking God’s love is sophistry, and Portman knows it. Can we likewise paper over thievery? False witness? Adultery?
“a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love”
I assume by ” happy” and “meaningful” he means married with the implied sexual activity that comes with that. So this Christian father is clearly hoping his son continues to engage in sin. A proper Christian father ought to be hoping and praying that his son turns from his wicked ways and repents lest he imperil his immortal soul. What kind of fool Christian father wants his son to continue in sin?
If you support gay “marriage” because you have swallowed the liberal premise of equality as the highest good, then too bad but so be it. But please spare me the armchair theologizing that attempts to give Christian cover to an apology for sin.
February 28th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Religion
Yesterday was Pope Benedict XVI last official day as pontiff. The resignation of the Pope, the first in some 600 years may very well change the nature of the office and how people view it. The feeling before was that popes pretty much die in office as patriarchs die at the head of their families. Now, new popes not up the job, as sadly Benedict XVI all but admitted by resigning, may very well do the same. Especially if they are in old age or declining health.
But maybe that’s not a bad thing. To often in recent times we’ve seen what happens when old men who were unwilling to give up the reigns have on institutions, whether its Penn State football or the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II’s sickness and decline may well have been personally moving but it was disastrous for the church as problems built up which simply were not addressed and proved too much for Benedict (who really didn’t want to be Pope and was looking forward to retirement at age 75 when he was chosen in 2005) to handle.
To his credit, Bear Bryant, even at youngish (for seniors anyway) 69, retired because he realized he just wasn’t at the top of his game anymore and it was hurting program on the field and in recruiting. Of course the person following Bryant, in this case Ray Perkins, had to bear the brunt of the problems left behind in the wake of Bryant’s decline and so did Benedict XVI after John Paul II and so will whoever the next pope will be. But Benedict’s sacrifice at least allows that successor time enough to tackle the church’s problem rather than waiting around until his death when the situation will only get worse.
I have no idea who the next pontiff will be. I have ideas who it should be but that’s besides the point. Whoever it is inherits an awesome task, perhaps even too much for one man to handle. John Paul II changed the papcy considerably in his time, something Benedict, at his advanced age, really wasn’t in a position to deal with. His resignation, as I said, will bring forth another change which hopefully the conclave will realize through God’s grace in picking the right person.
January 23rd 2013
Posted under Christianity & Europe & Foreign affairs & Religion
“It’s dirty job but someone has to do it” as the old saying goes describes exactly why France finds itself in position its does having to intervene military in Mali. France’s actions hopefully put an end to the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” stupidity that exists on the American Right. I don’t see a lot U.S. troops on the ground in Mali nor will we. Drones have pretty much replaced actual soldiers at this point in the GWOT. At least France has real soldiers on the ground ready to fight.
Of course, the first important reason for France’s intervention in Mali is cleaning up the mess it help to create when it insisted they other NATO nations intervene in the Libyan Revolution. Having been defeated, Col. Kadahfy’s Tuareg mercenaries simply grabbed what heavy weapons they could from the Libyan army arsenal and went back to Mali and Niger and Algeria and the other countries these nomads roam through and starting causing trouble. The revolt by Tuaregs to carve off northern Mali into an automous state of Azawad and the political upheaval it caused in Mali was the first blowback caused by the Libyan intervention. The second was Islamic terrorists groups using the chaos as it’s angle to take control of northern Mali and push aside the Tuaregs, who only wanted self-government not seeing their women flogged in public for wearing the wrong clothes.
The second important reason has to do with collective security in response to aggression. It’s no secret France moved as quickly and surprisingly as it did because a red line was crossed in their minds which left them no choice. When the Salafist forces moved with 250 miles of the Malian capital of Bamako, then French knew they had to get involved. Had they not done so, it is conceivable the terrorists could have drive their pick-up trucks all the way Bamako and taken over. There would have been nothing to stop them considering the putrid state of Mali’s military, which is nothing more than a police army which is better at abusing its own citizens than fighting the enemy. And if the such armed Salfists groups took over, it would be the first time that such a trans-national terrorist group had seized control of another country right from the native people’s grasp (the Taliban were Pashtun tribalists allied with Al Qaeda).
Mali may well be a nowheresville to rest of the world but in this case it happens to be a central nowhere which touches everywhere. A Salafist takeover of Mali would have put them right in direct contact with the vicious killers of the Boko Haram terrorist group in Nigeria and providing an even more direct threat to that nation,which is the most important in all of West Africa, and to Christian populations the further south you go in Nigeria and states like Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Chad, Benin, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cameroon, Gabon, Togo and the Central African Republic. It would destabilize the entire region which is filled with artificial states left over from colonial times whose in some cases governments hang by a thread. If Mali fell to such well-armed terrorists, then the same could happen to these states as well. Continue Reading »
January 16th 2013
Posted under Christianity & Conservatism & Culture War & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy
I have never been hostile to Wendell Berry, but I have never quite understood the veneration some crunchy con/Front Porch Republic types seem to have for the guy. Well now he has come out rather obnoxiously for gay marriage and some conservatives are disappointed to say the least.
“If I were one of a homosexual couple — the same as I am one of a heterosexual couple — I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgment of Christians,” Berry said.
Um Wendell, the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as a sin. The Church has recognized this from the beginning as did Jews before them. Under Jewish law, a law Christians believe was written by God Himself, homosexual acts were a capital offense. That’s pretty serious business.
Of course all Christians place their “faith and hope in the mercy of Christ,” but they don’t get to rewrite the rule book based on modern PC sensibilities. How silly does Berry’s quote sound when we replace homosexuality with some other sins that haven’t yet gotten the PC reprieve.
If I were an adulterer I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgment of Christians.
If I were a thief I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgement of Christians.
This is true, adulterers and thieves should place their faith and hope in the mercy of Christ. It is the only hope they have. But they don’t get to write thievery and adultery out of the list of things condemned by the Bible and go on about their adultering and thieving ways.
December 28th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Culture & Culture War & Political Correctness & Religion
You can’t make this stuff up. At some point I registered at Daily Kos so I could make a comment, probably on some Ron Paul post, so I periodically get e-mails from them. I haven’t unsubscribed because I like seeing what the other side is up to. Today I got an e-mail blaring this in the subject line: “Pope gives special holiday hate speech against gays because it’s Christmas.”
I have a news flash for the author, Kaili Joy Gray: the Pope is a Christian, and Christians have always condemned homosexual behavior because the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and Christians believe the Bible is a Holy Book, God’s Word. Is that really so hard to understand? The liberal “tolerance” Gestapo won’t be happy until ever Christian denounces their belief. Notice the disrespectful and “hateful” tone of her rant. (It would be paying it more respect than it deserves to call it an article.) And note that Daily Kos chose this nugget to highlight with their e-mail. How small-minded is the new PC left?
December 25th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Site Issues
Go, tell it on the mountain
Over the hills and everywhere
Go, tell it on the mountain
That Jesus Christ is born
While shepherds kept their watching
Over silent flocks by night
Behold throughout the heavens
There shone a holy light
Go, tell it on the mountain
Over the hills and everywhere
Go, tell it on the mountain
That Jesus Christ is born
The shepherds feared and trembled
When lo! above the earth
Rang out the angels chorus
That hailed the Savior’s birth
Go, tell it on the mountain
Over the hills and everywhere
Go, tell it on the mountain
That Jesus Christ is born
Down in a lowly manger
The humble Christ was born
And God sent us salvation
That blessèd Christmas morn
Go, tell it on the mountain
Over the hills and everywhere
Go, tell it on the mountain
That Jesus Christ is born.
Lyrics by John W. Work, Jr.
November 29th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Culture
Motivational speaker and author Zig Ziglar has passed away. In addition to being a motivational speaker, Ziglar was also an outspoken Christian, or it is probably more accurate to say that he weaved his Christianity into his motivational work. This is important in a field that has more than it’s share of New Age heretical nonsense.
Ziglar could really spin a yarn. He was from Mississippi and always reminded me of Jerry Clower in this way. I think this is one thing that set his speaking apart from others. He was like listening to your grandfather spinning tales and imparting wisdom.
Ziglar was also an open Republican and Christian conservative. He endorsed Huckabee in 2008. (He’ll have to be forgiven for the Republican and Huckabee part. He was a motivational speaker and not a political theorist. What this says to me is that he wasn’t afraid to be a part of the culture he came from, Southern evangelical, even though it might have been easier and more lucrative for him to distance himself from it.)
I first became aware of Ziglar because my main pastor when I was growing up was a big fan of his and even co-authored a book with Ziglar. Ziglar once came and spoke at our church, an event which I was very excited about. At that point in my life, Ziglar was a celebrity on par with a sports star as far as I was concerned.
I have read two of Ziglar’s books (see here and here) and would recommend them to anyone who is looking for self-help literature that isn’t just New Age pablum. (Interestingly, his first book was published by Pelican which has been very friendly to conservative and pro-South books).
We have lost a good ‘un. The world was richer for him and will be poorer without him. I bet he’s up in Heaven telling a tale right now. May God bless his family in their time of mourning.
October 7th 2012
Posted under "Birther" & Christianity & Obama & Pro-Life & Religion
Everyone here should know that I think Obama may be hiding something about his background, but there is one thing I don’t get. I keep seeing people suggesting (such as some of my friends on Facebook) that Obama is secretly a Muslim. I know Obama was a Muslim when he was a child because of his step dad, but if he were still a Muslim then wouldn’t he be against abortion and gay marriage? Heck, I think we would be better off if he was a Muslim. Then he would oppose abortion and gay marriage and withdraw us from the Middle East. Obama is a liberal “Christian.” He attended the Trinity United Church of Christ. This is not a mystery. (I put Christian in quotes because I don’t think Obama actually subscribes to the traditional creeds of the Faith based on some things I’ve read.)
September 27th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Third Party
In the post below, I wrote “Reconstructionists similar to DeMar have been the most likely to make the case for a Christian voting ethic that precludes simple lesser of two evils considerations.” This is true among Protestants. I should add that Catholics have a very long tradition of making Christian ethical arguments about voting, most famously when it comes to abortion, but otherwise as well. Here is Mark Shea’s take on the issue. The first link is to an article he wrote for the National Catholic Register. The second link is to a follow-up blog post. His logic tends to lead to the rejection of the two major party candidates.
September 27th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Election 2012 & Republican Party & Ron Paul & Third Party
I don’t know that much about the structure of American Vision, but I assume I am correct to call Gary DeMar Joel McDurmon’s boss.
Anyway, Gary DeMar recently wrote a tired apologia attempting to make the case for why Christian conservatives should vote for Bankster/War Party Candidate B so that Bankster/War Party Candidate A won’t get another term. I replied to his article here.
So I was a bit surprised to see this Sept 25th post by Joel McDurmon which might not make the boss too happy. McDurmon links to a Mediaite column that is critical of a couple of Breitbart columns imploring Ron Paul supporters and libertarians to support Romney in the name of stopping Obama. The Breitbart columnist even had the audacity to invoke the Constitution when mainstream “conservatives” spent the whole primary calling Paul and his supporters bad names for actually wanting to follow it. While McDurmon doesn’t explicitly call for Paul supporters to vote third party or write in Paul, he linked to an article that is clearly hostile to the idea of voting for Romney. McDurmon recently wrote a book on the Bible and war that may explain his seeming sympathy for Paul.
What is so baffling about Gary DeMar’s refusal to consider third party voting is that Reconstructionists similar to DeMar have been the most likely to make the case for a Christian voting ethic that precludes simple lesser of two evils considerations (William Einwechter, Doug Phillips, Michael Peroutka, John Lofton). Also, Reconstructionists make up a disproportionate share of the Constitution Party.
Hopefully McDurmon’s good instincts will rub off on DeMar with time.
September 15th 2012
Posted under Christianity & Culture War & Political Correctness
Rev Jim Jones and the Rainbow Family
On Christian Cultural Marxism. Russell Moore and other Useful Idiots.
By Walter Everly (reprinted from Invetors’ News)
During the recent debates surrounding the firing of John Derbyshire from National Review for writing the politically incorrect truth that everyone knows to be true, many people began to notice what others had noticed for a long time: the function of Conservativism Inc. (i.e. mainstream “conservatism”) is not to battle the left but to police the real right.
On a recent email list, this line of thought got people to thinking: perhaps the same is true for Conservative Christianity Inc. (i.e. mainstream “conservative” Christianity). Perhaps the purpose of Conservative Christianity Inc. is not to battle the left but to silence and mislead conservative Christians. What’s most notable is that many so-called conservative Christian leaders today peddle what is essentially Cultural Marxism repackaged as “Christianity,” and the sheeple uncritically consume it.
While the candidates for such sinister work are many (neocon Timothy Dolan, John Piper, Richard Land, Leith Anderson, et al.), here I will focus on Russell D. Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), since many conservatives have been criticizing him recently, and, most importantly, since The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be one of the more conservative Baptist seminaries in the USA.
Where to begin? Much could be said about Russell Moore’s subtle anti-Western assumptions, but here I’ll focus on some of his more egregious positions.
1) On the issue of immigration, “Russell Moore has sided with the Third World and against the West,” as others have noted. Moore openly supports the Third World invasion of Western countries, esp. the USA. Employing the censorship methods of Cultural Marxists, Moore thinks that discussions should be prohibited that relate to immigrants driving down American wages or immigrants draining social services. Moore has gone so far as to write a resolution criticizing European Americans who oppose their own dispossession from the institutions their ancestors built. The conservative Christian blog the Dow Blog has published extensively how Moore’s position resembles not traditional Christianity but Cultural Marxism, a stated purpose of which is the dispossession of Europeans worldwide. See Pt. I, Pt. II, Pt. III. (Patrick Cleburne comments here, here, here, and here.)
2) A second facet of Moore’s Cultural Marxism is his fanatical support of transracial adoption (vide Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches), which in essence tells Westerners to forsake their own inclusive fitness for the sake of non-Westerners. When Part Robertson sensibly stated, “You do not have to take on somebody else’s problems,” implicitly criticizing all the nutjob multicult Christians running off to Africa or Haiti to adopt black children, Moore went into crybaby PC meltdown. Here, Moore doesn’t even conceal his own pathetic ethnomasochism. As implied by conservative Christian blogger Generation5 (here and here), Moore’s fanatical support of transracial adoption is a betrayal of traditional Christian realism and a championing of Cultural Marxism.
3) Another recent example of Moore’s Cultural Marxism is his opposition to laws opposing the Islamification of Western countries. This is what Louis Pauwels has called “Mental AIDS,” where, as with real AIDS one’s body cannot distinguish between what’s beneficial and harmful, infected Christians do not oppose a religion that clearly seeks to replace Christianity.
4) The list could go on and on. For instance, Moore seems to support the Cultural Marxist line that “race is unimportant,” although traditional Christianity always recognized racial differences and thought race mattered. Nonetheless, Moore is quick to label his opponents with the Cultural Marxist charge of “racism.” More recently, people who follow Moore’s Twitter feed told me that Moore has been going on rants about “white supremacist Darwinists.” Moore must subscribe to Trotskyite Lysenkoism? Or Liberal Creationism? In reality, from what I can see, most of the anti-Moore criticism seems to come from conservative Christians. On Twitter recently Moore has even gone so far as to invite the radical black-liberation preacher CJ Rhodes to visit SBTS (with free room and board!) and suggested to him that he get a degree at SBTS with a focus in “black church.” What about white church, Russ? What about Pro-Western Christianity? Oh yea, ethnomasochism. The now left-wing SBTS must be going the way of Jeremiah Wright!
Of course, all of this does not mean that Moore is a conscious Cultural Marxist; he probably has never even read anything written by Cultural Marxists. Rather, Moore has probably imbibed Cultural Marxist ideas from popular culture and has then repackaged them as Christian.
People on an email list have suggested that Moore might suffer from pathological altruism, ethnomasochism, or pathetic beta maleness. People in the field of theology have told me that Moore isn’t the brightest person, so, regardless of his condition, I suspect he’s uncritically repackaging Cultural Marxist platitudes as Christian, which raises the bigger question: Why is someone so grossly incompetent the Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, moving in the direction of the Rainbow Coalition, no longer seems to be a beacon of traditional Baptist Christianity it once was and the truly devout should be weary about studying there.
Updates:
Russell Moore has really been drinking the Cultural Marxist Kool-Aid. He seems to have mistaken Cultural Marxism for traditional Christianity. Poor guy. Here’s a recent tweet referring to this article as “white supremacist, hyper-Darwinist, anti-orphan eugenics propaganda” and another referring to it as being promoted by a “group of white supremacist eugenicists.” Moore here is deliberately trying to mislead his followers, since, as I noted previously, most of the anti-Moore criticism comes from conservative Christians. Seriously, Russ, take a deep breath, stop with the maudlin hyperventilation, watch this video (everyone’s talking about it), purify your mind of all the politically correct clichés that you’ve imbibed from Cultural Marxism, and at least try to be rational. *Yawn*
Articles emailed by a reader:
Religious perspective:
James Edwards: “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy”
Generation5: “Reconsidering Interracial Adoption”
Nil Desperandum: “Bloodlines: John Piper’s Assault on the Hereditary Family”
Nil Desperandum: “A Response to Dr. Moore’s Opinions on Immigration and Race”
David Opperman: “A Defense of Traditional Christianity”
Secular Perspective:
Steven A Camarota: “74.7% of Mexican immigrants use some form of welfare in the USA” and “Legal and Illegal Immigration Driving Down American Wages”
Peter Dodds: “International Adoption: In Whose Best Interest?”
Steve Sailer: “Where Dawkins Fears To Tread: Ethnic Nepotism And The Reality Of Race”
Frank Salter: “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”
Jared Taylor: “Pathological Altruism”
.
August 23rd 2012
Posted under Christianity & Political Correctness
Pat Robertson actually said something wise: “You don’t have to take on somebody else’s problems,” implicitly criticizing all the nutjob multiculti Christians running off to Africa or Haiti to adopt black children. Of course, the conservative Cultural Marxist Russell Moore pulled out the crybaby act, peddling maladaptive nonsense. Moore seems to think that whites should reduce their inclusive fitness for the sake of globalist Cultural Marxism.
Addendum:
Apparently Pat Robertson has back-peddled from his previous statement. You don’t criticize the Cultural Marxists. You just don’t.
Update: See new article here.
August 1st 2012
Posted under Christianity & Conservatism & Culture War & TEA Parties
At the recent League of the South National Conference in Alabama (see video here), I talked about the Tea Party’s utter failure to conduct and carry out a real campaign for liberty. Indeed, as I pointed out in my talk, the Tea Party is little more than a tool of the Republican party and the National Security state. One example: politicians the Tea Party helped elect have supported legislation that expands and consolidates the central government’s power over us, such as the Cybersecurity Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act, which gives the government the authority to monitor all online communications in the name of national security. That’s a helluva way to protect our rights.
Continue Reading »
July 31st 2012
Posted under Christianity & Culture War & Political Correctness & Roy Moore
Below is an e-mail from Judge Moore:
We are going August 1 in support of Mr. Cathy and their stand – will you?
JUDGE ROY MOORE AND THE FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW SUPPORT CHICK-FIL-A’S STANCE ON MARRIAGE
Montgomery (AL) Judge Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law support Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family for their stand for traditional marriage.
Judge Moore stated that, “Marriage between one man and one woman is an institution ordained by God and is the foundation of the family, upon which the future of our nation rests. Like the great majority of the Country, Alabama has recognized in its law that marriage, to be valid, can only occur between one man and one woman.”
At a time when moral values are under attack by a philosophy which contradicts everything upon which our Country began, it is encouraging to see Chick-fil-A boldly stand for truth and virtue in our society.
The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization, is located in Montgomery, Alabama, and is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.