Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

A Fundamentalist Or Conservative Evangelical Treatment Of The Racism Issue Is Needed

Posted by Job on July 19, 2010

I admit to being generally skeptical of common popular approach to theology (i.e. a one that attempts to address “issues and concerns”) and prefer instead to rely on exegesis, exposition, application and the wisdom of Bible-believing Christians that have run the race for us. However, some current events have me thinking that perhaps it is time for theologically conservative Christians (by this I mean fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, or “Bible-believing Christians) need to come up with a Biblical approach to the racism issue. These events include:

Now, for reasons that I will not get into because they are not particularly relevant to the topic at hand, I believe that A) Obama will win re-election and B) the economy will continue to be bad, including possibly a “double-dip” recession. That means that it is very possible race will be a point of division in our country for years to come, and that it will affect a Bible-believing American Christian community in which many blacks will continue to foolishly support Obama and many whites will continue to foolishly support the Republicans. (Similar to A. and B. above, my personal views that Bible-believing Christians have no business supporting Republicans or Democrats is beyond the scope of this topic, other than the point out the obvious fact that both parties indulge in race-baiting.) Thus, it may be in the interests of the Body of Christ for a Bible-based approach to the racism issue to be promoted and defended from our pulpits, in our media outlets, and in our educational institutions during the next few years, and possibly beyond.

But the problem is that it appears that no such program or approach exists. This is not to say that the racism issue has not been addressed in the church arena. The problem is that nearly all of the deep, broad substantial treatments of the topic by those opposed to racism have come from churches and religious movements that can fairly be described as apostate. The “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach to race is one entirely rooted in liberal theology. It is deceiving, because the language of orthodoxy is used, and so are such time-honored Christian instruments as prayer, fasting, singing, preaching and quoting scripture. However, look a little deeper and you will see that the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach is one that denies and rejects a Biblical view of sin. It consciously rejects what the Bible states concerning both original sin that is collective and common to humanity, and the sin nature that afflicts each individual. Liberal theology – and Barack Obama/Jeremiah Wright liberation theology even more so – goes on to deny that both collective sin and individual sin were dealt with by Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (doctrines that were rejected by Martin Luther King, Jr., as was the virgin birth), and that freedom from sins, including but not limited to racism, comes to members of the Body of Christ only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Further, that even after salvation through faith occurs, one will struggle with sins – again including racism – because of the influence of “the flesh”, “the old man”, “the body of death”, but that if we are truly penitent and confess, Jesus Christ can be faithfully counted on to forgive our sins. And finally, the ultimate victory over racism, both in a collective original sin of the human condition sense and in a personal individual sense, will only occur when Jesus Christ returns and sets up the eternal kingdom of New Jerusalem for believers, when all believers receive their mansion/place/room in His Father’s house (again all doctrines which liberal and liberation theology Christians reject and deny).

Instead, liberal and liberation theology treats racism not as what the Bible calls sin, but as a social ill or condition. Thus, the Biblical truth that until Jesus Christ returns, racism cannot be eliminated on a large scale, such as in a larger society of unregenerate people, is rejected by them. So is the truth that racism can only be dealt with in the individual believer and in a church comprised of believers by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Instead, such people believe that racism can be defeated in the individual with education, and in a society by changing laws, economic and social conditions. That is why the SCLC, NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH and the other alphabet-soup assortment of civil rights groups often led by ministers like Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and similar never attempted and do not attempt to battle racism by encouraging racists to repent of their sins and believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, they rely on the same methods as secular organizations:  educational programs, lawsuits and political campaigns. Though they rarely come out and openly admit it, such people believe that the “root cause” of racism is capitalism. In their mind, capitalism is either racism’s cause or its primary enabler.  Therefore, socialism is the ultimate solution to racism in their estimation. They do not claim that socialism would completely end racism and transform the national – and world – society into a post-racial utopia, but they do assert that socialism would render racism as a nonfactor by removing (in their minds) what is primarily responsible for fomenting racial tension and rewarding racist behavior.  In other words, it is not so much that they claim that socialism will change racists hearts, but that it will remove most reasons and opportunities for racist hearts to act, turning racism from appearing sensible and potentially lucrative to being a pointless waste of time. And the true goal of the “anti-racist education programs” that are offered – thanks to the work of pressure groups – in schools, churches and workplaces are actually geared towards getting more people to support socialism – or at least liberal politicians who enact them – than fighting racism. Example: they manipulate people into experiencing white guilt or black anger that is supposed to translate into … well you figure it out. (Please note the extreme irony that the religious right, while purporting to represent the opposite end of the theological spectrum, has resorted to the same tactics as the civil rights movement of the theological left, and also how the religious right often promotes capitalism as the cure for social ills.)

Now of course, the problem is not truly the lies of the enemy as they relate to racism. Quite simply, the enemy lies about everything. Instead, it is the lack of response from Bible-believers. Where liberal Christians have decades of doctrines and actions on the race issue, Bible-believing Christians have … well nothing comparable. Or should I say if it exists, it was often in the form of defending of segregation and slavery in times past, and now often absorbs the racial rhetoric and thinking of conservative leaders and opinion-makers who are not Christians i.e. the aforementioned Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. To make matters worse, when Bible-believing Christians attempt to address race in a “positive” way, they normally use the constructs provided by liberal Christianity. This is generally by default – because thanks to the media and the educational system it is all they know – and also because no other “positive” way of attempting to address race has been consistently articulated and applied on a large scale. As a result, many – indeed most – fundamentalist and conservative evangelical black churches fully endorse the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” program on race, and so do not a few well-meaning theologically conservative white pastors and congregations.  The result is that race issue is used to get non-Biblical doctrines about sin, human nature and redemption into otherwise doctrinally sound churches, and the resulting confusion is used to slowly get these churches and pastors away from Biblical truth in other areas as well. I may be exaggerating were I to say “first racism, then creation care environmentalism, then supporting abortion and homosexual marriage”, but it would be only an exaggeration. A better illustration is this: before the civil rights movement, there were lots of doctrinally sound evangelical and fundamental black churches, including some entire black denominations dedicated to strong, Bible-based belief and practice. Well, take a look around and see what has happened to these churches – and especially the denominations – since. An entire book has been written on the topic.

So why deal with the racism issue at all in Bible-based Christianity? For the same reason that we deal with homosexuality, abortion, pornography, laziness, theft, adultery, murder, false religions etc.: because it is sin. We are to love God with all our heart, soul and strength and also to love our neighbor. So, we must address racism first because it is a sin that offends and dishonors God, and second because of the negative effect that it has on our neighbor. So, the problem is not the church’s addressing racism, but that it addresses it with liberal theology created by apostates and unbelievers walking in darkness. So, if we ignore the issue we ignore sin, and if we use liberal or liberation theology to address the issue, then those who are walking in the light of Jesus Christ are ignoring that light to follow those who do not have that light and are in the darkness of sin.

Now there has been some excellent treatments of this issue from black preachers over the years. Unfortunately, the civil rights rhetoric has long overtaken it, and these wise words have largely been forgotten. So, what informed, Biblical guidance do black people have to rely on when they experience the sin of racism committed against them? (Allow me to state that the reaction made popular and acceptable by civil rights community, which is “righteous” indignation, an aggrieved posture, and actions and attitude proceeding from them, are generally sinful.) And how are black people to respond to the racism – which does include anger, resentment and defense mechanisms that results from exposure to white racism – that exists in the heart of black people other than with the same repentance, confession, contrition, and reliance on Jesus Christ that is expected of white people? And yes, black people must acknowledge that the civil rights agenda of addressing racism through education, court decisions, laws, and changes to our political, economic, social and cultural systems is doomed to fail. Eliminating Jim Crow – which was unconstitutional anyway – is one thing. Changing the hearts of a mostly unregenerate population is another. Any pastor or church that teaches otherwise is acting in open defiance against the Bible, and such doctrines and the pastors and churches who teach them should be rejected just the same as should those who claim salvation by works, that homosexuality is not a sin, or that there is no Trinity should be. If we don’t accept liberal false doctrines in other areas, why should we when it comes to racism? And yes, the issue of why more blacks won’t join predominantly white churches needs to be addressed, even if it means enduring and overcoming racism. If blacks are willing to confront and overcome racism to attend mostly white schools and colleges and earn a living on mostly white workplaces, why can’t the same be done in attending mostly white churches? I dare say that this may indicate that blacks place a higher priority on getting an education and earning a living than going to church, because blacks are more willing to overcome obstacles in pursuing the first two than the last one. What you fight for is often an indication of where your heart is, and if you are willing to endure discrimination at a job that you know is worldly but not at the church were God calls you to forgive your brothers and sisters and bear their faults just as Christ bears ours, then that constitutes evidence that your heart is more willing to sacrifice for mammon than for Christ’s Body.

As far as white Bible-believing Christians go … the first step is probably severing political conservatism from theological conservatism on the race issue. (Actually, it is a good idea to do that on far more issues than race.) The reason is that the politically conservative position on race basically amounts to the notion that blacks should make all the sacrifices because blacks benefit far more from being in the presence of whites than any harm from racism. It follows from there that since whites receive no real benefits from having blacks in their presence, whites should make no sacrifices at all. Now not only is this illegal in a secular sense, but this type of thinking has no business in the church. Neither should Bible-believing white Christians emulate the apostates on the left by proposing political or economic solutions (i.e. tax cuts, free markets) for what is a spiritual problem. If socialism can’t change hearts or address sin, neither can political conservatism.

As to why theologically conservative white Christians don’t address this issue, there are no good answers. I propose the first is because racism doesn’t appear to negatively affect them personally. So, the issue is “out of sight, out of mind.” The second is likely because of the racist and segregationist history of a lot of denominations, churches and leaders. This is not an issue for the formerly racist Christian entities that have adopted liberal theology, because apparently once you reject the Bible and particularly once you join the left politically and take part in the (destined to fail) attempt to eliminate racism through enacting socialism, all is forgiven. But for those churches and denominations that remain faithful to the Bible, it is a tough situation. Even calling racism and discrimination sinful is mighty difficult, because it would mean that a lot of beloved Christian leaders (and followers) were sinners. To better understand the problem: imagine if the pastor that started your church, the group that founded your denomination or one of your favorite pastor/theologian/evangelist were branded an adulterer. (And also consider that there is a much bigger stigma in our modern society with being considered a racist than an adulterer.)

So, it is understandable that people who attended a seminary that may have been started to support segregation would want to let sleeping dogs lie. Still, how can white pastors, churches and institutions address this issue in more productive – and effective – ways than Bob Jones University’s decision to offer scholarships for “minority students”? (While I think that getting more black students into theologically conservative seminaries is something that absolutely must be done, this is another example of “the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr./racism is caused by capitalism and can be solved with socialism” approach.) Also, it simply is inappropriate to have pastors in racially homogenous churches in Dubuque, Iowa and Bismark, North Dakota to talk about racism all the time. Other things such as efforts to partner black churches with white ones, and also recruiting drives for black members have been tried before with disappointing results, and often do not address the real reasons why blacks do not fellowship with whites in the first place, a fact which truthfully has to do with black resentment against whites as much or more than white racism, and this is compounded by the erroneous thinking by so many blacks (that again are the results of decades of “civil rights movement thinking”) that A) maintaining black institutions for the purposes of using them for political and social agitation is Biblical and necessary and B) it is fine for blacks to nurse and maintain grievances against whites but not the other way around. Again, the arguments for the existence of BET, the Black Miss America pageant, black colleges, Ebony/Jet/Essence Magazines etc. knowing full well that white counterparts would never be tolerated may be fine for the secular arena but have no place in the Body of Christ, and this is a position that white pastors and theologians must boldly take and adhere to. If this means placing the responsibility for ending the fact that “Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America” primarily or disproportionately on blacks, then so be it. Again, the fact that blacks are more than willing to work for white owned and run corporations like BP, IBM, Coca-Cola etc. and attend Harvard, UCLA and Ole Miss while seeking lucre  but won’t do the same when choosing churches leaves them without excuse.

However, the primary area of involvement for white Bible-believing Christians (other than, of course, door-to-door evangelism among blacks) may be in the academy. The liberal and liberation theology people have produced volumes of scholarly work – from technical journal articles to books approachable by general audiences – on the race issue. By contrast, Bible-believing Christians have produced very little that can be used to guide people seeking a sound approach in doctrine and practice on the issue. Further, most of what does exist either attempts to shoehorn the liberal approach into Bible-believing contexts, or relates to cross-cultural missions. As racism is a sin that is manipulated to lead so many Christians – black and white – into errors in doctrine and practice, this situation cannot persist. There must be a well-developed line of discourse as well as practical strategies for confronting the race issue in theologically conservative Christianity just as there is on areas like homosexuality, abortion and feminism. Why should white theologians take the lead? There are several reasons, but the primary one is that for blacks the tendency to adhere to and defend the civil rights mindset is strong. (For example, even in conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity, finding the black pastor that is willing to discuss the theological beliefs of most civil rights leaders, acknowledge that the “civil disobedience” tactics of the civil rights movement were contrary to scripture, or that the “civil rights agenda” is rooted in ideas contrary to scripture and is destined to fail is very hard.) So, it would be far better for the Al Mohlers, Wayne Grudems, R.C. Sprouls and John MacArthurs to start the dialogue on the issue and then have their black counterparts respond. Essentially, black Christian leaders who take the Bible seriously would be required (forced) to articulate why racism should not be viewed and therefore addressed like every other sin.

It amounts to the fact that racism is going to continue to be a snare to larger society, and a major reason for this is that larger society is going to continue to view racism as a social ill that can be corrected with education, economics, government action and the simple passage of time. However, the race riots that occurred barely a week prior to the writing of this shows that it is not the case. Also, the rising numbers and influence of Islam in this country will add another dimension. The black leadership has decided to form political alliances with Islam – and indeed several influential black leaders have converted to that religion – and that will result in more white people viewing blacks as a “fifth column.” But just because race will continue to be a problem for the larger society doesn’t mean that it has to remain a stumblingblock for the church, or at least when the context is Bible-believing black and white Christians who ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE have more in common with each other than they do with the unregenerate members of their own respective races. To put it simply, just because Sean Hannity and Jesse Jackson hate each other doesn’t mean that black and white Bible-believing Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists etc. should have each other at arm’s length. Perhaps even more importantly, black and white Christians need to work together in order to close off an avenue that the world so often uses to lead us into things that range from temptation to severe errors in doctrine and practice.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Advertisements

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

Posted by Job on October 8, 2008

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter Last Updated: 1:36AM BST 08 Oct 2008

With war raging across the globe in July 1944, ministers from all 44 Allied nations met at the imposing Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to thrash out a set of rules that would govern world finance once Hitler was defeated.

Knowing that greater international trade would help to prevent future wars, and determined to avoid another Great Depression, the delegates signed the Bretton Woods Agreements, creating the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It was a big vision, driven by grand historical figures: Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and the British economist John Maynard Keynes.

But a system that was designed 64 years ago has, not surprisingly, proved ill equipped to deal with the fiendishly complex practices of 21st-century banking that led to the current worldwide crisis.

Neither the IMF, the World Bank nor any other institution has the power to police the global financial system in a way that might have prevented the excessive risk-taking which led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and, in turn, the credit crunch.

A more recent creation, the G8 group of industrialised nations, looks hopelessly out of date without the emerging economic giants of Brazil, India and China among its ranks. And the “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies of guaranteeing savings that have sprung up in Germany, Greece and Ireland in recent days have shown that even in Europe, co-ordinated economic policy is a myth.

“The current system is in crisis and we have an environment where dog eats dog,” said Bob McKee, of the economic consultancy Independent Strategy. “Electorates will expect more regulation, and politicians will push for it.”

The new Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, argued last week that new global solutions are needed because “the machinery of global economic governance barely exists”, adding: “It is time for a Bretton Woods for this century.”

Gordon Brown argued as long ago as January 2007 that global regulation was “urgently in need of modernisation and reform”.

So, as the world’s central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic “policeman” to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.

Top of the to-do list for any new or reformed body would be new rules to manage the level of risk that banks and financial institutions are allowed to take on.

Major economies already have regulatory bodies designed to keep financial institutions in check, such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US. But even if these bodies had done their job properly, opinions differ wildly between different countries over what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Take, for example, the Basle II Accord, a voluntary international agreement which might have seemed a crushing bore when it was published in 2004, but which just might have prevented the credit crunch if the world’s major economies had realised it was actually a good idea.

In essence, Basle II, concocted by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, set up by 10 leading economic nations, was designed to make sure banks did not overstretch themselves by lending too much money in relation to the amount of capital they held.

If it had been implemented the moment it was written, Basle II might have prevented the collapse of Northern Rock – which had lent seven times the amount of money it held on deposit – and saved the likes of Lehman Brothers in America. Instead, motivated by national self-interest, not to mention greed, the world’s major economies dithered, so that few, if any, had implemented the agreement by the start of 2008, with 95 countries only able to promise they would adhere to it by 2015.

We can only speculate whether a global policeman would have intervened in another seismic shift in economic policy: the abolition by the US president, Bill Clinton, in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had, since 1933, separated retail banks from investment banks.

The Act had been passed during the Great Depression to prevent banks from speculating with depositors’ money, and its repeal by Mr Clinton has been blamed by some commentators for contributing to the current financial crisis, which would have been limited to investment banks if Glass-Steagall had remained in place.

Too late, then, to remedy the missed opportunity of Basle II or to reinstate Glass-Steagall. But a new global regulatory arrangement might come just in time to address another issue troubling the world’s financial watchdogs: mark-to-market accounting, about which we are likely to be hearing a great deal in coming weeks.

Mark to market is a system in which banks must declare the value of assets such as securities on a daily basis, forcing them to be transparent about their balance sheets. The assets must be valued in line with what they would fetch on the open market that day, and if their value has dropped, the banks must raise capital to make up the shortfall, even if they have no intention of selling the assets for another five or 10 years.

Many banks have argued that this is unfair, as those same assets will recover their value in the long term, and marking them down has, they claim, contributed to the current crisis of confidence.

Simon Ward, an economist at New Star Asset Management, said: “This kind of accounting is causing investors to see ghosts in banks’ balance sheets which just don’t exist. If we had suspended mark-to-market accounting a year ago, the current crisis may have been avoided.”

Why has this become such a hot topic in recent days? Because banks in America have exerted such pressure on the SEC that rules on mark-to-market accounting may soon be relaxed, giving American companies an advantage over those in the UK, where the FSA has no intention of following suit.

As chaos reigns in the financial markets, the issue of regulatory reform is never far from the headlines. So what might a new architecture of global economic regulation look like?

In essence, any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation. Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, identified the weakness of the current system this week when he said international organisations that excluded countries such as China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Russia were outdated.

Gerard Lyons, a member of the International Council of the Bretton Woods Committee, a steering group for the IMF and World Bank, said: “We need to look at the current crisis and decide what banks have been doing well and what went wrong.

‘The point we’re at now is like the scene in Apollo 13 when one of the mission controllers says they’re facing the worst disaster in Nasa’s history, and his boss points out that it will turn out to be Nasa’s finest hour if they get it right.

“We have an opportunity now to make changes in global banking that make sure we keep all the good bits and eradicate the bad. For example, there is nothing wrong with young people borrowing money against their expected future income if they have genuinely good prospects, but we need to prevent the sort of irresponsible lending to people with poor credit ratings that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

“What we mustn’t do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. The global banking system has helped increase living standards at a faster rate than at any point in history, and we are about to see the emergence of two-thirds of the world’s population into the developed world.”

Danny Gabay, a former Bank of England economist who now works for Fathom Consulting, suggested the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the umbrella organisation for the committee that came up with the sensible Basle II Accord.

“The BIS has been spot on throughout this,” he said. “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”

The failures of modern global capitalism have been brutally exposed in recent months. Opinion is now hardening around the case for a new global architecture to enforce rules that ensure lessons are learnt and that the actions which have brought free markets to the brink of collapse are never repeated.

It remains to be seen whether the political leaders of 2008 are up to the task. If they are, the first foundations of that new world could be laid in Washington this week.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Bailout Passed! The United States of America Is Officially Dead

Posted by Job on October 3, 2008

Well, the United States is gone. Teddy Roosevelt got the ball rolling, and George H. W. Bush finished it off. And did you see where California needs a $7 billion bailout? Amazing. This is just further proof that we cannot put our trust in the things of this world, but can only trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidentally, the flag waving religious right, what are you going to put your trust in now?

Revamped economic bailout picks up 20 votes in House

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Conspiracy Theory: Timing The Bailout So That John McCain’s Victory – And Barack Obama’s Defeat – Hinges On It To Overcome Conservative Opposition

Posted by Job on September 30, 2008

Ordinarily, there is no way that conservatives would support $700 billion in spending, not even the big business corporate welfare neoconservative socialists who looked the other way while George W. Bush spent more than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon B. Johnson ever dreamed. People would recognize that this bailout would A) make the federal government the nation’s biggest owner and broker of private property (in addition to all the public lands that it already owns) and B) increase the government stake and power in the banking and financial services industries. By way of comparison, it would accomplish in the banking industry what Hillary Clinton only tried in the healthcare industry. (But don’t worry: the next president will give us some form of HillaryCare to go with the Bush’s prescription drugs bill.)

But there is ONE WAY to get small government conservatives – or truthfully people merely opposed to the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal – to reject their beliefs and root for this package. (Truthfully, the goal is not so much to get them to support it, but to lessen their opposition so that they will stop calling their congressmen in anger and protest.) What is it? Simple: the same way that the GOP got religious conservatives to fall in line and keep voting for candidates that were not only personally immoral (i.e. Newt Gingrich) but do absolutely on abortion, gay rights, religion in the public square, fighting pornography, etc. … say that it absolutely has to be done or else the other guy will win! 

This is “the lesser of two evils” gambit like never before. Why? 1) Because even if this passes, there is still no guarantee that McCain will win. 2) What good does voting for Republicans do if they are going to spend like Democrats anyway? Please recall: Republicans could have blocked Bill Clinton’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act back in 1995. They could have reformed the act at any point from 2000 – 2006. And the person who could have led the way: John McCain, either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee for most or all of that time. So not only would supporting – or at least not opposing – this bailout not even guarantee a McCain win, even if the guy does win there is absolutely no evidence based on his career in Washington that he will prevent messes like this from happening in the future! 

And why, you ask? The threat of Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama has these people absolutely terrified like nothing before. (By contrast, most Democrats figure that they could live with McCain.) Why? There are a lot of alleged reasons such as his liberalism (when he is really to the left of Bill Clinton on only a few issues) or his inexperience (see Palin, Sarah) or his religious background (as if skulls and bones George “all religions worship the same God” W. Bush or necromancer Ronald Reagan were orthodox) but the main fear is that Obama’s election would mean losing their country. People would feel that any nation that puts Obama in the White House would not be the nation that “our founding fathers created”, the nation that they knew and loved when they were growing up. Obama would be the final victory for counterculture. 

Of course, it is all a scam. George W. Bush appointing an openly homosexual man as AIDS czar, being the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque, and so many other things. Then there was Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter doing the “Heather Has Two Mommies” thing (funny how the right wingers who attacked Ellen DeGeneres and similar demanded that Cheney’s family be respected) and even creepy stuff like all the times homosexual prostitute Jeff “Gannon” Guckert visited the White House … security records showed the guy electronically signing in BUT NEVER SIGNING OUT!

But the best part is that even if these things weren’t true, this bailout would permanently and drastically alter this nation economically and politically anyway. The bailout would make us some odd mixture between a social democracy and a fascist plutocracy (when I say “fascist” I mean Benito Mussolini’s original definition, which is the corporatization of government power). Now fascism has a strong nationalist element. But guess what … attacking Iran would mean having to strike up the band for the pledge of allegiance and our militaristic anthems for another 10,000 times in every state, city, street corner, and public and CHRISTIAN school on the planet. And a war with Iran wouldn’t be something that affects relatively few Americans like our conflicts in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our military is already stretched to the limit and our economy already in shambles due to high oil prices and bank failures. But Iran, a much tougher enemy than an Iraq weakened by over 10 years of U.S. led military and economic aggression, would mean massive casualties and global oil shortages. And what would the rest of the world’s Muslims think? It would be our third war against a Muslim nation in, oh, a decade or so (depending on whether the attack on Iran comes closer to 2009 or 2012). What keeps the other Muslim countries from thinking “we’re next!” and acting accordingly? Oh boy, imagine what will happen if those other nations adopt a policy of “pre – emptive strikes for self defense” like we did in Iraq. Let me say that anyone who has ever read “Animal Farm” knows that patriotic ferver is necessary for regimes to stay in power during tough times. 

But that is going too far in the future. For right now, the fear of Barack Hussein Obama turning Peoria into San Francisco (or Compton) is what will cause conservatives to do the bidding of George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and adopt this disastrous bailout. (As for Hillary Clinton, well the product of white flight suburban Chicago turned out to be not so scary after all … the right wing wags are actually referring to “Hillary Clinton Democrats” in the same breath as “Reagan Democrats.”) That means that whether Barack Obama wins or loses, he will have done his job. If you ever wanted any more proof that ultimately Bush, McCain, and Obama serve the same master, then this is it!

The only question is this: whose master do you serve? Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Congress Has Opted For A Ten Year Recession

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Ron Paul: Congress Has Opted For 10-Year Plus Depression

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Government Has $700 Billion For Bailout But Not $300 Billion To Insure Washington Mutual?

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Now I grant you, the $700 billion is to be raised over time with terms negotiated to facilitate the speedy repayment of the money. After all, the savings and loans bailout that had to be done under the LAST president Bush (the Keating scandal that implicated our NEXT president John McCain) was paid off rather quickly. Still, the very fact that we are talking about a $700 billion bailout when this article says that the government seized the assets of Washington Mutual (apparently something that they have the right to do at any time according to their prerogative, which is, you know, interesting in a free market capitalist society THAT DOESN’T EXIST!) because they didn’t have the funds to ensure Washington Mutual’s $307 billion in case they collapse. And keep in mind: the government isn’t even responsible for the entire $307 billion, since FDIC only insures up to $150,000. This adds to IndependentConservative’s thesis that it is all just funny money. See, the money that FDIC needs to ensure is somewhat tangible and real, because people worked for, invested, and saved it. So that needs a level of government protection. But the money that the government talks about … monopoly money, a figment of the imagination, that isn’t worth the number of zeroes that it takes to type it into a computer screen. 

Or at least that is one way of looking at it. I am still interested in the possible fact that the government can seize the assets of any bank at any time for any reason that they wish to contrive and that there is apparently nothing that anyone can do about it. And this makes us different from a socialist – or fascist – government how?

WaMu becomes America’s biggest bank failure

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Iran And Russia Sign Major Oil Deal

Posted by Job on July 15, 2008

Even so, come Lord Jesus Christ. 

Link from Worthy News.  Link from Jerusalem Post

Iran and Russia sign major oil deal
Jul. 14, 2008  The Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST

A few days after French oil giant Total withdrew from its planned multi-billion dollar gas investment project in Iran, Russia’s Gazprom is entering the market in a multi-billion-dollar deal.

Gazprom’s Chief Executive Alexei Miller met on Sunday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and went on to sign an agreement for developing Iranian oil and gas fields.

Iran, according to the agreement, has offered Gazprom an extended package for the development of oil and gas fields; construction of refineries; transfer of oil from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Oman; development of Iran’s North Azadegan oil field; exchange of technology and experience; and the possible participation of Gazprom in the planned pipeline between Iran, India and Pakistan.

Azadegan is Iran’s biggest onshore oil field with an estimated 42 billion barrels of crude oil. Iranian firms began working on the field in February after the Japanese partner, Inpex, quit the project. (Thought Japan and France were our allies against Iran?)

The accord also includes the future formation of a joint company between the two countries, for cooperation in oil and gas.

Official reports from both countries have not yet revealed if the South Pars gas field will also be part of the deal. Last week, France’s Total decided to freeze its investments in South Pars, following Iran’s test-fire of long-range missiles. (When the heat got too much for the French. They will start it back up when the heat dies down.)

“After Total’s announcement that because of political risk they do not want to commit themselves to the South Pars multi-billion-dollar project, it was natural that Iran would continue and expedite its current negotiations to use other companies,” Manouchehr Takin of the UK-based Center for Global Energy Studies, told The Media Line.

The South Pars field in the Gulf has around 500 trillion cubic feet of gas, which accounts for about eight percent of the world’s gas reserves.

Takin was however skeptical regarding whether or not it was the American pressure on European companies that made Total withdraw from the project.

“I think it is more within Total’s shareholders and board of directors, who have looked at every aspect, and decided not to take too much political risk in their portfolio,” he said.

“However, I do agree that one cannot help but think of the pressure from the US Department of Treasury, who had been directly talking to managements of banks and big companies, twisting their arms not to get involved with Iran,” Takin added.

The Media Line News Agency

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Christians And Labor Unions

Posted by Job on December 25, 2007

Christians and Labor Unions

Posted in big business, christian left, christian liberalism, Christianity, liberal christian, liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee

Posted by Job on December 11, 2007

See link:

More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee

Posted in Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, GOP, Mike Huckabee, Republican | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Another Reason Why Christians Should Leave Public Schools

Posted by Job on November 19, 2007

THE LATEST GROUNDS FOR ABANDONING GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

 http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven31.htm

By Steven Yates
November 10, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Last month California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a legislative package effectively banning the phrases ‘mom and dad’ and ‘husband and wife’ from the state’s government schools as discriminatory against homosexuals. The same measures would allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa. Critics are charging that this will enable California schools to finish their journey towards becoming full-fledged indoctrination centers for those promoting a homosexual-bisexual-transgender lifestyle.

SB777, a major component of the package Schwarzenegger signed, bans anything that could be interpreted as negative or discriminatory against homosexuality or any other alternative “lifestyle” choices. Another part of this package was AB394, which targets teachers and parents for indoctrination through “anti-harassment” training. There are, of course, no special protections from harassment written into these bills for, e.g., Christian students.

Ripple effects are already being felt. Analysts have noted, for example, that California is the largest market in the country for many textbook publishers. The latter will likely not spend the money it would take to produce separate editions for other states. Thus where California goes, the rest of the nation will be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary.

This is political correctness running straight off the cliff. In my book Civil Wrongs, published back in 1994, I argued that if political correctness was not stopped, it would very soon embrace homosexuals. This would place it on direct collision course with Christianity not just in academia but in the workplace where it had already gained a solid foothold via radical feminism and the “hostile workplace environment” that grew out of the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill hearings. Leftist affirmative action provisions for homosexuals were already being introduced in ultraliberal states such as Massachusetts.

More specifically, I argued in Civil Wrongs that leftist affirmative action programs had resulted in reverse discrimination against white men, and that political correctness had become one of the hard left’s most effective counterassaults against legitimate criticism of programs that offered favors to some at the expense of others. It worked through mind control—by enabling opponents of leftist programs to be demonized. I argued that if political correctness was not exposed for what it was and ended, it would embrace more and more groups nationally, including homosexuals, until it became one of the dominant features of this society. Opposition to the political agendas of these groups would be criminalized little by little, in the form of “hate crimes” legislation.

I hate to say it, but you were warned, especially since schools at all levels have been the primary testing grounds for all manner of social experimentation.

There remains, however, a way out, and Christians in particular need to pay attention to it before it is too late. The way out is to abandon government schools. Under present circumstances, thinking Christians are more justified than ever in the belief that government schools have become repositories of indoctrination into evil. They need to remove their children from these schools pronto, and either homeschool them or send them to private Christian schools.

During my Civil Wrongs period I, too, was locked into a box where I believed government schools could be “reformed.” Then I became acquainted with Rev. E. Ray Moore who was just setting up Exodus Mandate, which calls on Christians to leave government schools. Rev. Moore’s book Let My Children Go! Why Parents Must Remove Their Children From Public Schools Now goes further. This meticulously researched book compares the history of public education in America with what the Founding Fathers wrote in this country’s founding documents. Rev. Moore shows there is no evidence that the latter ever intended education to be a government responsibility.

Government schools as such didn’t really begin until the 1840s, when Horace Mann visited Prussia and returned with the “Prussian model.” This model was alien to our founding traditions. According to the latter, following British philosophers such as Locke, children do not belong to the state. Prussia, following German collectivists such as Hegel, reversed this. Mann promoted an Americanized version of the Prussian model. Government schools caught on slowly but eventually became ubiquitous and then mandatory. The word kindergarden is derived from Prussian. It means, roughly, “child garden”—growing children, like vegetables, as in a garden.

Regrettably, in the late 1800s, few sensed danger. Initially, there didn’t seem to be any.

Then, in 1902, John D. Rockefeller created the General Education Board. Its initial publications contained chilling statements like “In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a responsive and rural folk.”

This was a recipe for social control, and when the Rockefeller Foundation began to bankroll John Dewey’s Progressive Education movement a couple of decades later, the use of government schools as laboratories of social engineering proceeded apace—delayed, perhaps, only by the second world war. We can see the results all around us—a significant percentage of public school graduates cannot read or write well enough to fill out a job application. They cannot make change without machines or do simple arithmetic without calculators. They cannot get Thomas Jefferson in the right century much less describe any features of his thought. They cannot walk up to a world map and find, e.g., Iraq (or even the U.S. and find, say, Louisiana).

Is it any wonder foreigners are cleaning our clocks in areas like science and engineering?

One of the key missions of government schools in modern times has been to disrupt the values children inherit from their parents. This has been admitted openly. Benjamin Bloom, a giant among modern education philosophers and inventor of the ‘cognitive’ vs. ‘affective’ domains dichotomy, once said, “a large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives [attitudes, values, beliefs] through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs …”

There has been little evidence that the remaining part involves real education in any recognizable form. Here are the exact words of two 1990s School-To-Work educrats, David Hornbeck and Laren Resnick respectively: “[E]ducated employees have higher turnover rates, lower job satisfaction, and poorer promotion records than less educated employees.” “Most employees under this model need not be educated. It is far more important that they be reliable, steady, and willing to follow directions.” With the dominance of this kind of thinking, it is small wonder we have college students who cannot write a coherent paragraph!

With the primary unstated mission of government schools being social engineering—for political correctness and corporate-globalist economics—should we be surprised that homosexuality and other alternative “lifestyles” are now being openly promoted in them, that criticisms are being labeled as “hate speech,” and that commonplace phrases such as “mom and dad” or “husband and wife” are banned by a state legislature in a bill signed by a celebrity governor?

The underlying philosophy of government schools has been hostile right from the start to fundamental American values of limited government and freedom of the individual from dominance by state and corporate interests. This hostility, as we noted, was invisible for a long time. The schools seemed to be doing a good job. Today it is out of the closet. Government schools, absent any instruction in decent values, are now dangerous. They are breeding grounds not just for politically correct indoctrination but for gang activity, drug abuse, and even sexual abuse of children by teachers. WorldNetDaily has a published roster of no less than 114 cases of female teachers who have been either convicted or credibly accused of sexual assaults on students!. This may be just the tip of the iceberg! An Associated Press investigation suggests that there may be more than 2,500 cases of sexual abuse of students by teachers!

There is no evidence these problems can be “fixed” from within by conservative “reforms.” They are now part of the fabric of public education itself. The only solution—especially for Christian parents—is to get their children out.

Rev. Moore, of Exodus Mandate mentioned above, recently told me, “The difference of opinion between those supporting Exodus Mandate and conservative public school reform will soon reach a critical moment. In the past, this has been a debate among friends on how to proceed, but no longer, with the growth of homosexualism in the public schools. The conservative public school reformers and their Christian Right allies who advocate little children being ‘salt and light’ in public schools will deny us a chance for victory by not joining efforts to set up a K-12 Christian or home school system.”

He explained further, “These same conservative reformers have failed to make any gains over the humanist left in the last 30-40 years of public school reform. The conservatives have lost all the major battles and will continue to lose because they follow an unbiblical strategy.” Rev. Moore believes Christians have a biblical mandate to take charge of the education of children, based on passages such as Deuteronomy 6: 1-9, Proverbs 22:6, Psalms 78:5, Ephesians 6:4, Joel 1:2-3, and elsewhere. “The way to victory,” he said, “is now for Christian families and churches to set up a whole new K-12 Christian education system. This will save our Christian children and give other families hope for their children, too. This is the way of revival in our nation.”

He warned, “The rise of homosexualism in the public schools will continue to grow and finally engulf the entire system. It is inevitable now. Applying Romans 1:24, 26, and 28 to the institution of public schools that have officially and legally denied God as Creator and Lawgiver, we can see that God Himself is ‘handing them over’ to moral corruption. To now try to reform such an institution is to fight against God, too! Currently there are over 4,000 GLSEN clubs in public middle and high schools in the U.S. Many are in Bible Belt states. This problem is not just in California but has already reached the Southern states, too.”

Rev. Moore concluded, “We can now safely say that Christian families who leave their children in such morally harmful places are not responsible parents.” Pastors, too, have a moral obligation. “Pastors who fail to warn their flocks and [do not] help set up K-12 Christian education in their churches are not being faithful shepherds.”

His is a harsh-sounding verdict, but it may be the most defensible one. Nor is he alone. Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, told WorldNetDaily, “We’re calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California’s public school system.” He added, “The so-called ‘public schools’ are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts.”

“There will be no exemptions to this indoctrination,” he also observed. “Private schools and homeschool will be the only sanctuary left for parents in California who love their children and want to protect their sexual innocence.”

Where California goes, the rest of the nation shall eventually follow.

The time has come to abandon government schools while doing so is still legal. There are organizations in every state devoted to providing information, curricula, etc., for home schooling parents. If evangelical Christians in America were to abandon government schools, removing their children not by the thousands but by the tens and then hundreds of thousands, state-sponsored education would implode, along with its political agendas. New forms of education would already have appeared. They would answer to We The People, not they the social engineers. Children could learn the history of the rise of Christian and Constitutionally-grounded freedoms in the English-speaking world, as well as how to use the latest technology.

This kind of solution should not be thought of as limited to evangelical Christians. Presumably there are people who cannot accept Christianity but still want their children to be able to understand something of this country’s founding principles. Presumably even an atheist wants his children to be literate, able to do simple arithmetic, think as individuals instead of as group members, and perhaps question those with money and power. I doubt that the globalist corporate-governmental elites really care two iotas about homosexuality. As with abortion, they see it as a means to an end: global population control.

 

Do parents, Christian or not, want their children to be more than cogwheels in the brave new world of a homosexual-friendly global corporatocracy? Do we, perchance, not want a homosexual-friendly global corporatocracy in our future? What must we do to avoid one? Removing our children from social engineering indoctrination centers might be one very good place to start.

© 2007 Steven Yates – All Rights Reserved

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.

Posted in abortion, christian right, Christianity, gay rights, globalism, hate speech, homosexuality, multiculturalism, political correctness, public education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: