Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Mike McCarville says that a group of Oklahoma Democrats used the Iwo Jima picture to endorse local Democratic candidates. The problem is the leader of the group didn't have permission, which prompted an apology.
JR has a link to Gun Facts, an e-book that debunks all of the common myths about gun control. All you do is download it.
JR also weighs in on the current debate about open carry.
Roberta X says that the hand-wringing has already begun among the antis concerning Heller vs. D.C., although the decision has not even been issued from the Supreme Court.
Armed and Safe has the MUST-read of the day concerning the centrality of guns during the Civil Rights movement...on the part of the oppressed!
Clayton Cramer has an interesting read today on why his respect for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy continues to decline.
Gateway Pundit reports that Barack 'Fruitcake' Obama unleashed a spray of machine gun style bullets in attacking Dr. James Dobson. The Fruitcake doesn't realize that Dr. Dobson represents millions of evangelical votes.
Gateway Pundit also notes that the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is back full force. Nancy Pelosi supports it, despite the free publicity she and her Marxist cohorts get from the MSM. Can you imagine what this group of clowns will do with a greater majority AND a Democratic President?
One more from Gateway Pundit. Here is what liberal Christianity stands for, and it is SICK.
Gun Pundit reports that because we didn't get a decision on Heller vs. D.C. today, it will be tomorrow for sure.
Sharp as a Marble is a law-abiding gun owner. And it's a good thing!
Sebastian reports that the VPC has unleashed a pack of lies about concealed carry holders.
WHO IS THIS MAN?! LOL. Breda has a link that shows us.
David Codrea links to a post that says, 'There is no such thing as gun control.' Take a look.
Dr. John Lott reports that there is a move underway in Florida to overturn the new law allowing licensed gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars while at work.
Judges like THIS make me want to puke. Michelle Malkin reports.
Showing posts with label Christian liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian liberalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Furman University's Shame: The Gang of 200
In an act reminiscent of students who heckle and shout into silence conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, former Muslim Jihadist Nonie Darwish, Ann Coulter, and many others, 200 students and faculty at South Carolina's Furman University have signed a petition protesting the school's scheduling of President George W. Bush to deliver the graduation address.
The prestigious Baptist university, located in the scenic foothills of upstate South Carolina, prides itself on the fact that its students average roughly 1350-1400 on their SAT scores.
Through the years, however, the school has gradually fallen into the hands of liberal extremists.
Furman severed its centuries-old relationship with the South Carolina Baptist Convention several years ago in an attempt to prevent conservatives from gaining a controlling majority of its Board of Trustees. Since that time the school has continued its gradual descent into the abyss of liberal politics and religion.
One would think that having a U.S. President speak at one's college graduation ceremony would be a rare and high honor. Normally that would be true, with the exception of the 200 Furman students and professors who signed a letter objecting to the President's visit, and placing on the school's website a post entitled, 'We Object.'
Granted, out of the 2,625 students on campus, a mere 200 protesters is a tiny minority. However, given the Furman faculty's penchant for leaning Left in matters political and religious, the protests point to a much deeper and broader problem at the school.
Claiming that Bush had engaged in 'obstructing progress toward reducing greenhouse gases while favoring billions in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that are earning record profits,' the gang of 200 stated, 'We are ashamed of this administration.'
Perhaps the Baptists who gave of their hard-earned dollars to establish Furman would be ashamed to know that these so-called 'brightest of the bright' would buy into the debunked garbage of the 'global warming' nutcases.
Or perhaps these geniuses didn't do their economics homework, given that the percentage profit margin of Microsoft and Google surpasses that of the oil companies. The oil companies do not set the price of a barrel of crude, either.
Further, the 'gang of 200' wrote that they are ashamed of the administration's engagement in the War in Iraq, which 'has cost the lives of over 4000 brave and honorable U.S. military personnel.'
True, Bush has not always handled Iraq prudently. But the War has been an absolutely necessary component of the War on Terror, the central fact of which is that Islamic Jihadists around the world want to kill us.
But this has never mattered to anti-war freaks. They would prefer to lay down their weapons and surrender to being beheaded than to send one single soldier into war to defend this country against ANY enemy.
Much to Furman's credit, the 'gang of 200' has been the target of harsh criticism and condemnation on the part of other students (but not the school's faculty or administration, which have remained silent). One student in particular wrote to the group, 'Don't you dare ruin my graduation.'
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but, they already have. By merely initiating this insane, imbecilic 'protest' leading up to a graduation ceremony, the 'gang of 200' has already left a sour taste in the mouths of many students, and most definitely in the mouths of South Carolina Baptists who at one time sent multi-millions of dollars to Furman.
And all we get for the effort is a faculty of Left-wing kooks and a group of students so dumb as to blindly follow in their wake.
Perhaps the school's financial supporters should send a clear signal to Furman that this sort of overt and crude manner of handling a Presidential visit will not be tolerated. They can easily do this by withholding their funding.
The prestigious Baptist university, located in the scenic foothills of upstate South Carolina, prides itself on the fact that its students average roughly 1350-1400 on their SAT scores.
Through the years, however, the school has gradually fallen into the hands of liberal extremists.
Furman severed its centuries-old relationship with the South Carolina Baptist Convention several years ago in an attempt to prevent conservatives from gaining a controlling majority of its Board of Trustees. Since that time the school has continued its gradual descent into the abyss of liberal politics and religion.
One would think that having a U.S. President speak at one's college graduation ceremony would be a rare and high honor. Normally that would be true, with the exception of the 200 Furman students and professors who signed a letter objecting to the President's visit, and placing on the school's website a post entitled, 'We Object.'
Granted, out of the 2,625 students on campus, a mere 200 protesters is a tiny minority. However, given the Furman faculty's penchant for leaning Left in matters political and religious, the protests point to a much deeper and broader problem at the school.
Claiming that Bush had engaged in 'obstructing progress toward reducing greenhouse gases while favoring billions in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that are earning record profits,' the gang of 200 stated, 'We are ashamed of this administration.'
Perhaps the Baptists who gave of their hard-earned dollars to establish Furman would be ashamed to know that these so-called 'brightest of the bright' would buy into the debunked garbage of the 'global warming' nutcases.
Or perhaps these geniuses didn't do their economics homework, given that the percentage profit margin of Microsoft and Google surpasses that of the oil companies. The oil companies do not set the price of a barrel of crude, either.
Further, the 'gang of 200' wrote that they are ashamed of the administration's engagement in the War in Iraq, which 'has cost the lives of over 4000 brave and honorable U.S. military personnel.'
True, Bush has not always handled Iraq prudently. But the War has been an absolutely necessary component of the War on Terror, the central fact of which is that Islamic Jihadists around the world want to kill us.
But this has never mattered to anti-war freaks. They would prefer to lay down their weapons and surrender to being beheaded than to send one single soldier into war to defend this country against ANY enemy.
Much to Furman's credit, the 'gang of 200' has been the target of harsh criticism and condemnation on the part of other students (but not the school's faculty or administration, which have remained silent). One student in particular wrote to the group, 'Don't you dare ruin my graduation.'
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but, they already have. By merely initiating this insane, imbecilic 'protest' leading up to a graduation ceremony, the 'gang of 200' has already left a sour taste in the mouths of many students, and most definitely in the mouths of South Carolina Baptists who at one time sent multi-millions of dollars to Furman.
And all we get for the effort is a faculty of Left-wing kooks and a group of students so dumb as to blindly follow in their wake.
Perhaps the school's financial supporters should send a clear signal to Furman that this sort of overt and crude manner of handling a Presidential visit will not be tolerated. They can easily do this by withholding their funding.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Obama and Fundamentalist Liberalism
Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama issued a package of proposals last week which he described as 'the attempt to usher in the Kingdom of God in America.'
Many observers were caught off-guard by the statement. Yet the concept is nothing new.
Obama belongs to a tradition within Christianity that has been around since the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century which maintains that the concept of the 'Kingdom of God' as mentioned in the Bible is a mandate for political and social structures.
Thus, 'Christian liberalism' was born and encompassed a vast segment of the Church in a variety of old, mainline denominations in Europe and the U.S. The adherents to Christian liberalism believed that the Kingdom of God could be ushered in by the activities of man. This could be accomplished by changing social and political structures to reflect what adherents believed was the 'teachings of Jesus' regarding the poor.
The ultimate objective was to wipe out poverty and war by implementing governmental policies that supposedly made society more just and fair. Humanitarian pursuit was the order of the day with the goal of not only alleviating human suffering but preempting that suffering in the first place by making sure that society was structured in such a way as to minimize the risk of poverty, disease, and war.
This, of course, meant that capitalism had to go. Human freedom and personal choice had to be minimized in such a way as to insure that wealth was spread as evenly as possible throughout society.
The remnants of Christian liberalism are still alive in Europe today. The only change is that the masses generally do not recognize that the secular Socialism that governs their nations had its roots in a segment of Christianity.
The main reason that Europe and the rest of Western society in general have forgotten that fact is the rampant disillusionment that occurred in the wake of two World Wars and the Great Depression. Man's best attempts to 'usher in the Kingdom of God' resulted in disaster.
In short, you may be able to change social and political structures externally, but you cannot change the internal darkness that leads to such horrors as the Holocaust.
Further, under the influence of liberal theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to 'demythologize' Christianity, there arose in Europe a securalized version of Christian liberalism. The mass suffering that occurred on the continent during the first half of the 20th century led to a growing distrust of church structures, which of course, fed the securalized version of Christian liberalism.
Yet the basic premise of Socialism is just as bound for failure as its religious equivalent.
Much of Europe seems to have failed to learn that lesson.
Despite the obvious failures of Christian liberalism and its secular equivalent, Socialism, that segment of Christianity that embraces such a point of view is alive and well. Barack Hussein Obama belongs to that segment of Christianity.
Obama would mandate certain key tenets of Socialism in the name of 'ushering in the Kingdom of God' just as his spiritual forebears did in Europe in the early 20th century. The problem, of course, is that Christian Liberalism as it stands today is just as unwilling to allow any deviation from its prescriptions as the Fundamentalists on the extreme Right.
This is why I do not hesitate to refer to Christian Liberals as 'fundamentalists.' They have a dogma that must be strictly followed just as surely as the rightwing fundamentalists.
For example, a speaker before the annual meeting of the National Council of Churches, which represents those Christian denominations that adhere to liberalism, stated that 'government should have a monopoly on the use firearms.' Period, end.
This, in a nutshell, is the mindset. Government, in their view, truly IS the means by which to usher in the Kingdom of God. And to them, that means government must have ultimate power to confiscate wealth in order to distribute it to others, confiscate firearms in order to insure a 'peaceful society,' withdraw U.S. troops from every region of the world to show in good faith that we 'mean no harm,' and to exhibit a literal reading of Jesus' words to 'turn the other cheek' by allowing our enemies to strike us without any response that uses force.
Those who dissent from this liberal dogma are vilified every bit as thoroughly as the most rabid rightwing Fundamentalist preacher you can imagine. In fact, in many ways the leftwing fundamentalists are worse.
Various and sundry organizations that are dominated by the leftwing mainline denominations, such as Barack Obama's United Church of Christ and others, are known for their intolerance of dissenting points of view. Talk to many of our military Chaplains, for example, and you will discover that organizations such as the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, the Association of Professional Chaplains, and others, are notorious for making it difficult if not impossible for a conservative Christian to be recognized professionally by those groups.
One of these organizations in particular, the ACPE, demands that its members adhere to standards that many conservative Christians find to be against Biblical teaching.
This is not to say that these organizations do not have the right to set their own standards. For certainly they do. Further, this is not to say that their standards are necessarily wrong. That is not the point at all. The point is that there is within Christian liberalism a fundamentalist mindset that is every bit as exclusionary and dogmatic as rightwing fundamentalists.
And this is the problem with Barack Obama. In the name of Christianity he would unleash on the Republic a plethora of tyranny that flies in the face of every single principle of liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought and died.
Many observers were caught off-guard by the statement. Yet the concept is nothing new.
Obama belongs to a tradition within Christianity that has been around since the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century which maintains that the concept of the 'Kingdom of God' as mentioned in the Bible is a mandate for political and social structures.
Thus, 'Christian liberalism' was born and encompassed a vast segment of the Church in a variety of old, mainline denominations in Europe and the U.S. The adherents to Christian liberalism believed that the Kingdom of God could be ushered in by the activities of man. This could be accomplished by changing social and political structures to reflect what adherents believed was the 'teachings of Jesus' regarding the poor.
The ultimate objective was to wipe out poverty and war by implementing governmental policies that supposedly made society more just and fair. Humanitarian pursuit was the order of the day with the goal of not only alleviating human suffering but preempting that suffering in the first place by making sure that society was structured in such a way as to minimize the risk of poverty, disease, and war.
This, of course, meant that capitalism had to go. Human freedom and personal choice had to be minimized in such a way as to insure that wealth was spread as evenly as possible throughout society.
The remnants of Christian liberalism are still alive in Europe today. The only change is that the masses generally do not recognize that the secular Socialism that governs their nations had its roots in a segment of Christianity.
The main reason that Europe and the rest of Western society in general have forgotten that fact is the rampant disillusionment that occurred in the wake of two World Wars and the Great Depression. Man's best attempts to 'usher in the Kingdom of God' resulted in disaster.
In short, you may be able to change social and political structures externally, but you cannot change the internal darkness that leads to such horrors as the Holocaust.
Further, under the influence of liberal theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to 'demythologize' Christianity, there arose in Europe a securalized version of Christian liberalism. The mass suffering that occurred on the continent during the first half of the 20th century led to a growing distrust of church structures, which of course, fed the securalized version of Christian liberalism.
Yet the basic premise of Socialism is just as bound for failure as its religious equivalent.
Much of Europe seems to have failed to learn that lesson.
Despite the obvious failures of Christian liberalism and its secular equivalent, Socialism, that segment of Christianity that embraces such a point of view is alive and well. Barack Hussein Obama belongs to that segment of Christianity.
Obama would mandate certain key tenets of Socialism in the name of 'ushering in the Kingdom of God' just as his spiritual forebears did in Europe in the early 20th century. The problem, of course, is that Christian Liberalism as it stands today is just as unwilling to allow any deviation from its prescriptions as the Fundamentalists on the extreme Right.
This is why I do not hesitate to refer to Christian Liberals as 'fundamentalists.' They have a dogma that must be strictly followed just as surely as the rightwing fundamentalists.
For example, a speaker before the annual meeting of the National Council of Churches, which represents those Christian denominations that adhere to liberalism, stated that 'government should have a monopoly on the use firearms.' Period, end.
This, in a nutshell, is the mindset. Government, in their view, truly IS the means by which to usher in the Kingdom of God. And to them, that means government must have ultimate power to confiscate wealth in order to distribute it to others, confiscate firearms in order to insure a 'peaceful society,' withdraw U.S. troops from every region of the world to show in good faith that we 'mean no harm,' and to exhibit a literal reading of Jesus' words to 'turn the other cheek' by allowing our enemies to strike us without any response that uses force.
Those who dissent from this liberal dogma are vilified every bit as thoroughly as the most rabid rightwing Fundamentalist preacher you can imagine. In fact, in many ways the leftwing fundamentalists are worse.
Various and sundry organizations that are dominated by the leftwing mainline denominations, such as Barack Obama's United Church of Christ and others, are known for their intolerance of dissenting points of view. Talk to many of our military Chaplains, for example, and you will discover that organizations such as the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, the Association of Professional Chaplains, and others, are notorious for making it difficult if not impossible for a conservative Christian to be recognized professionally by those groups.
One of these organizations in particular, the ACPE, demands that its members adhere to standards that many conservative Christians find to be against Biblical teaching.
This is not to say that these organizations do not have the right to set their own standards. For certainly they do. Further, this is not to say that their standards are necessarily wrong. That is not the point at all. The point is that there is within Christian liberalism a fundamentalist mindset that is every bit as exclusionary and dogmatic as rightwing fundamentalists.
And this is the problem with Barack Obama. In the name of Christianity he would unleash on the Republic a plethora of tyranny that flies in the face of every single principle of liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought and died.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)