Tag Archives: politics

Responding To An Article Attacking the Billy Graham Rule

I am not blessed with a lot of free time these days, especially because of the hectic details of moving while trying to finish out my last week of driving a school bus. As a matter of fact, below is a picture of where I am writing this very piece – on a school bus while waiting for elementary-aged crumb crunchers to finish swimming.

It’s 90+ degrees on this bus, I only have about 30 minutes to write, and I’m sweating like a glass full of ice on a hot day – except I’m not icy. Please allow me the opportunity to rant.


There used to be a time in American life when a man who actually tried to stay true to his moral convictions was considered the kind of man we respected. That kind of man, by all respects a hero of virtue, would be lauded, placed on a pedestal, and pointed to as a standard for young boys to emulate.

Joseph (the one in the Bible with the multi-colored coat) and Dr. Billy Graham are two such men who come to mind.

But nowadays, when a Republican running for governor of Mississippi wants to keep things above board and honorable, the first thing you hear from the media is that this guy is a sexist. In other words, when he tries to honor his wife and his marriage by avoiding the possibility of impropriety, the substance of which could not only harm his marriage and his livelihood, but also the reputation of one whom could be falsely accused, he’s labeled as a woman-hater and abuser of his wife’s integrity.

In other words, because the guy wanted to do things the honorable and godly way, he’s a scum bucket worthy of relegating to the trash heap of failed and forgotten politicians. If you think I’m exaggerating, take a moment to read the vitriolic and condescending article by Monica Hesse in The Washington Times (July 11) entitled:

“The ‘Billy Graham rule’ doesn’t honor your wife. It demeans her – and all women.”

Like I said earlier, I’m pressed for time and dripping sweat on my keyboard, but let me say that I think Monica Hesse and Larrison Campbell are out of their ever-loving minds.

What’s even more interesting is that, if true, The Washington Times was originally going to send a male reporter to shadow Robert Foster. According to one report I read, it was only at the last minute that the paper wanted to send Larrison Campbell to be alone with the gubernatorial candidate, forcing him to say no, not unless they could send a male along with her. If this is true, and if they already knew of Foster’s beliefs (which I’m sure they did), this could have been nothing more than a set up to smear him.

Oh, the irony. Oh, the deceit.

And they wonder why we distrust the media?

For the record, I think the “Billy Graham rule” is as wise as ever, and it is one which I abide by as much as possible. There are times when I am alone with a female doctor, for example, but not when I’m unclothed. Even when I am alone, it’s not the same thing as going out to dinner, sitting behind closed doors in my office, or counseling a woman alone in her home. For one thing, the doctor has more to lose than most if she were to act inappropriately and unprofessionally.

There’s so much more I could say about the individual points of Hesse’s article, but it’s not worth any more of my time, and I don’t have much to spare.

Regardless, Robert Foster’s convictions and rules are admirable, not demeaning. Any woman should be thrilled that her husband was taking proactive measures to protect the integrity of their marriage.

But marriage integrity and men of honor aren’t high on the shopping list for people who have no scruples of their own, I suppose. 

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under America, Christianity, Culture Wars, current events, Defending Traditional Marriage, Marriage, politics

Jesus Memes and the Comma-Challenged

imageIn a recent Facebook post a friend of a friend posted a meme created by John Fugelsang, the actor, Huffington Post contributor, and former co-host of America’s Funniest Home Videos (1998-99). The meme was posted in an effort to show how that Jesus Christ, if He were politically active in today’s America, would more likely be a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican.

Mr. Fugelsang uses his meme (if he was actually the one who created it) to state ten assertions regarding who Jesus was and what He believed. For ease of reading and future commentary by me, I’ve listed them below (punctuation intact).

According to John Fugelsang (and, by extension, the friend of a friend on Facebook) Jesus was a:

  1. Radical nonviolent revolutionary
  2. Who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks;
  3. Wasn’t American and never spoke English;
  4. Was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5);
  5. But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control,
  6. Never called the poor lazy,
  7. Never justified torture,
  8. Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes,
  9. Never asked a leper for a copay;
  10. And was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anit-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

Before I go any further, I must address Mr. Fugelsang’s punctuation. You see, I am not a grammar Nazi, nor am I a punctuation prodigy, but sometimes a point can better be made if one would pay attention to the proper use of commas. For example, without commas it could be inferred that Jesus hung around with the hooks and crooks which belonged to lepers. As for “anti-gay anti-death penalty anti-public prayer,” that simply makes my head hurt.

Now, to the ten assertions . . .

Radical nonviolent revolutionary.  First, how many radical non-violent revolutionaries are there? I guess they exist here and there, but are they really that common? I mean, once you put radical and revolutionary together, specifically with the qualifier of “liberal,” how many are not violent? Jeez! However, that’s only based upon my own observations, so I’m happy to be proven wrong.

However, the question that ought to be asked first is: “Was Jesus really a revolutionary?”  I don’t believe He was. For one thing, most revolutionaries are focused on bringing about change within a political system – Jesus’ purpose in coming had nothing to do with any political system. Then secondly, it is clear from Jesus’ own words that He did not come to change or do away with anything, only to fulfill it.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” – Matthew 5:17 KJV

[He] hung around with lepers, hookers, and crooks (punctuation added).  One of the biggest misconceptions about Jesus is that because He chose not to stone anyone for things like adultery (John 8:11) He must have had no problem with their actions. The problem with that assertion is that it totally avoids his command to “go and sin no more.” Yes, Jesus ate with the sinners, but that’s not to be construed that He “hung around” with them. Jesus came for a purpose, to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10), not to condone their lifestyles and avoid confrontation. No, Jesus ate with sinners so that they might be saved!

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. – Mark 2:16-17 KJV

[He] wasn’t American and never spoke English. Except for the most die-hard KJV-only-ist, and one who might never have had even the most basic of history lessons, most would agree. This is pretty much a given. However, the assertion being made is that Jesus is thought of by conservatives as being pro-American and anti-everything else, and that is mostly untrue and unfair. Sure, there are some kooks who believe America is the New Jerusalem, but there are others out there, such as Louis Farrakhan, who believe aliens live in a spaceship and are circling Earth as we speak. Neither represents the majority, I hope.

Actually, the only think that we must be concerned with is whether or not our nation (whichever nation that is) is on the side of the Lord, for His Kingdom is not of this world.

When Joshua was near the town of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and demanded, “Are you friend or foe?” “Neither one,” he replied. “I am the commander of the LORD’s army.” At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. “I am at your command,” Joshua said. “What do you want your servant to do?” – Joshua 5:13-14 NLT

[He] was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5).  Oh boy. May I break this down into sub points? I mean, really, commas would have been helpful.

  1. Anti-wealth. I’d really like to know where Fugalsang got this. My guess is that he got it from passages like Luke 12:15 or Matthew 6:19-21. In the first Jesus warns us to guard against greed, while the second advises us to store up treasure in heaven, not down here where it can corrupt and/or be stolen. Even more, Fugalsang may be thinking of how Jesus is described as one having no place to lay His head (Luke 9:58), or that passage where Jesus says it’s easier for a camel than a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle (Mark 10:25).However, the fact is that it wasn’t wealth that Jesus had a problem with; it was greed, envy, selfishness, and faith in one’s own money and not in God.The reason Jesus spent more time with the poor than the wealthy was because the wealthy more often had hard hearts (much like today). The rich tend to put their faith in their possessions and positions more than in God, so why would they respect the One who divested Himself of the riches of heaven and humbled Himself, even to the death of the Cross (Philippians 2:8)?You see, Jesus wasn’t anti-wealth; He was concerned only with what men do with it (Matthew 25) and the condition of their hearts: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). For crying out loud, the Church is forever in debt to Christians who used their wealth (while remaining wealthy) to feed, clothe, house, and instruct the poor of the world. It was even a rich woman in Thyatira named Lydia who used her wealth to house the early Church in her town (Acts 16:14-40).
  2. Anti-death penalty. Again, this must be one of those derivations from John 8:11, the passage where Jesus rescued a woman caught in the act of adultery. The only problem is that this passage does not assert that Jesus disagreed with the law, but rather opposite. Jesus gave every opportunity for her accusers to carry out the death penalty which was prescribed by law, but none of them were able to stand without hypocrisy. Jesus knew they were trying to set Him up, not to mention the fact that there was an un-mentioned man involved. Jesus took the opportunity to take the Law beyond where it could go on its own and showed mercy and grace.
  3. Anti-public prayer (M 6:5). Seriously? First, you don’t abbreviate the book of Matthew with a capital “M”. I mean, there are other books in the Bible that start with “M,” such as Mark, Malachi, and Micah. I guess since we’re talking about Jesus we’re supposed to know the one to which he was referring.Secondly, to use Matthew 6:5 as a basis for condemning public prayer is to admit one has little understanding of context. The context in this passage of Scripture was one which dealt with pride and hypocrisy. Jesus was addressing those who did good deeds and prayed verbose prayers all for the purpose of being seen and praised by men. That is why He said of the hypocrites, “They have their reward.”

So, what is the assertion being made with this point? That people should not be allowed to pray in public? That freedom of speech should not include two Christian school football teams being allowed to use a public address system to say a prayer before a game? – Yes that just happened.

But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control.  The whole “anti-gay” thing has been argued over and over and much has been devoted to it, yet liberals will only hear what they want to hear; therefore, I will devote very little time to it in this essay. However, saying that because Jesus never mentioned abortion or birth control means these are non-issues and would have been no concern to Him is ludicrous. It would be just as easy to say that governments shouldn’t restrict unnecessary use of antibiotics because Jesus never mentioned Penicillin.

Let’s save some time and get straight to the big theological issue in the room: Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, Emmanuel (“God with us” – Matt. 1:23). What was said about homosexuality in the Old Testament are actually the same position Jesus took, for He and the Father are One (John 1:1-2, 14; 17:11).  The only difference is that Jesus came to show that the strict requirements of the Law could only cause men to realize their own sinfulness in the light of Holy God, not save them. Jesus came to show God was merciful and wanted to graciously save men through putting their faith in Jesus. If you divest Jesus from His divinity then all you have is a crazy man who thought He was God and died for nothing.

As for birth control (speaking of contraception), there is no mention of it in the Bible, most likely because it was commonly understood that children were a gift from God (Gen. 4:1; 33:5) and the man with a “full quiver” was blessed (Psalm 127:5). With regard to abortion, it is God who gives life and considers us persons even before we are born (Psalm 139:13-14; Jeremiah 1:5), so I believe Jesus would have viewed elective abortion as murder. After all, it was Jesus’ own cousin, John the Baptist, who “leaped” in his mother’s womb when (Luke 1:41) when she greeted the pregnant Mary.

[He] never called the poor lazy. No, I don’t think He did. However, the Bible (the Word of God – See John 1) does say the following:

  • By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” – Genesis 3:19 ESV
  • For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. – 2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJV

[He] never justified torture. That’s probably true – can’t argue with that. Of course, Jesus wasn’t a military leader who’s task it was to protect the lives of millions of his fellow citizens, either. Actually, Jesus was the One who gave His life so that others might live. Yet, He also said to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). We will all have to answer to God for our actions.

[He] never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes.  This is actually correct! Jesus never did fight for tax cuts for the wealthy. However, it is equally true that Jesus never fought to reduce taxes, either – even for the poor. In Matthew 22:17-21 Jesus made it perfectly clear that we are to pay taxes when taxes are due, and that even goes for the least of us. He said, “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Later, speaking to average Christians, the Apostle Paul wrote:

And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks. Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.  – Romans 13:6-7 HCSB

[He] never asked a leper for a copay.  No, I don’t guess He ever did that, either; He just healed them. The last time I checked, neither Republicans nor Democrats are God (even though some think they are) and somebody has to pay somebody for adequate medical services (therefore, refer back to Romans 13:6-7…not just the rich should pay).

And finally, [Jesus] was a long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, community-organizing, anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew.  Well, at least Mr. Fugelsang got the brown-skinned, homeless (technically speaking), anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew parts right. The rest, along with the usual lack of commas, he stereotypically got wrong.

Nazarenes (sometimes called Nazarites) were from Nazareth; Nazarites were those who took a vow not to cut their hair, drink wine, etc. Jesus never took a Nazarite vow. But, then again, Mr. Fugalsang is not a Bible scholar, only a political comedian who writes for the Huffpo and creates comma-challenged memes.

Funny how all of this would have been unneccessary if Mr. Fugalsang had actually read the Bible . . . and a grammar handbook.

3 Comments

Filed under Abortion, America, Apologetics, Bible Study, Jesus, politics

Seven+ Predictions for the Next Two Years (10/18-10/20)

Now that the Democrats have won back control of the House of Representatives, I will go ahead and make a few predictions about what will happen over the next two years.

If you are a Democrat, I’m pretty sure this list will look very similar to the “to do list” already held in place on your refrigerator door with “Keep Abortion Legal!” and Che Guevara magnets.

1) Democrats will demand investigations on everything Donald Trump has done or ever will do.

2) Democrats will obstruct anything the Republicans try to do or try not to do.

3) Democrats will make up stuff in order to keep investigations going.

4) The country will continue to be divided and become even more polarized based on the continual anti-Trump messaging fueled by Democrat accusations and pushed by the media. There will be no “working together” on anything.

5) Democrats will accuse Republicans of partisan obstructionism and complain constantly of hateful rhetoric.

6) The next election cycle will

  • See even more left-wing celebrities like Katy Perry and Madonna going nude to draw out the youth vote,  but the last 27 Reagan Democrats will call in their last favors and keep Hillary Clinton clothed;
  • The race card will be used more often than Visa and Master Card combined;
  • Civility will be thrown out the window like a piece of chewed gum;
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will record a remix of the Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love” and sing, “All You Need Is Socialism”;
  • More celebrities who unfortunately lied to us the first time will once again promise to leave the country if Trump gets re-elected;
  • Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi will finally remove their outer shells and reveal that they are actually alien lizard people intent on the destruction of humanity, but MSNBC and Rolling Stone will blame Trump for Pelosi and Waters’ inability to “come out” before then. Trump’s “Space Force” initiative will then be condemned as xenophobic and blamed for inciting intergalactic incivility.  The new #MeTooLizard movement will justify the aliens’ apocalyptic plans as a natural response to Trump’s attempts to “drain the swamp.” The Geico Gecko will then identify as a lizard, get fang implants, and be invited to a week of guest spots on Jimmy Kimmel.

7) We will be 2 years closer to the destruction of a once-great nation.

Think I’m wrong?

Share if you agree.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Aliens, America, current events, Humor, politics

A Little Less Ignorance, Please

This week I have been “away from my desk” doing other things…things on which I will report as early as next week.

But even though I have not been doing much writing, I have had a phone nearby, and Facebook has been a constant source of stress.

You know, all it takes is one comment on one thread to stir up a hornets’ nest of anger and hate. Even if your comment is meant to be objective, somebody is going to interpret it as an attack. Too many people are WAY too defensive and full of anger.

Unfortunately, part of the problem is that there are a lot of people out there throwing words around without knowing their actual meanings. And if you DARE make an attempt to draw out an actual definition, the one being questioned will launch into a vulgar, condescending, grammatically-incorrect, ALL-CAP rant accusing you of everything from racism to being born out of wedlock (followed by demands that you go perform a sexual act upon yourself which is physically impossible).

For example, according to some, Donald J. Trump is supposed to be a Nazi. However, if Trump was really a “Nazi,” would he have befriended Israel and moved the American embassy to Jerusalem? Would he have allowed his daughter to marry a Jew and convert to Judaism? Don’t think so. Those are the kind of things the National Socialist German Workers Party would have disapproved.

In the same vein, there are a lot of people who throw around the label Christian when describing nice people, non-Muslims, the American alt-Right, or nominal church attendees. Do they really know what “Christian” means? Do they have any concept of what wearing that name tag demands? Not likely, especially if they believe Jesus was a radical socialist and an “anti-establishment, hippie freak with strange ideas” who never judged anyone.

If you want to be honest, the majority of Americans can’t even define what it means to be a “conservative” or “liberal,” a Democrat or Republican, much less a Nazi, Socialist, or Fascist!

We hear adjectives like “unbiblical” and “unconstitutional,” yet more often than not the users of these words never read the Bible nor the Constitution, just a few out-of-context memes.

Therefore, why not call a truce until we are better able to define what it is that we actually believe, and why? How about let’s read more source material and less social media propaganda? Maybe then we could get past the name-calling and attacks and move forward to more informed, civil and intelligent conversation.

Or, <<<U can AKT LYK a IGNERANT SHEOPLE>> on the facebook>>> W/NUTN  BUT H8t!!>><< HOW BOW DAH??!!

Your choice. Choose wisely.

“If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking.” – James 1:5 NLT

1 Comment

Filed under America, current events, General Observations, politics

Wisdom from Williams

Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University

“There’s such a broad ignorance or contempt for constitutional principles among the American people that any politician who bore truth, faith and allegiance to the Constitution would commit political suicide.” – Walter E. Williams, Is It Permissible? 2005

Leave a comment

Filed under America, politics, voting, wisdom

Even Siri Gets It!

Honduran migrants take part in a caravan heading to the US, on the road linking Ciudad Hidalgo and Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico, on October 21, 2018. – Thousands of Honduran migrants resumed their march toward the United States on Sunday from the southern Mexican city of Ciudad Hidalgo, AFP journalists at the scene said. (Photo by Pedro Pardo / AFP) (Photo credit should read PEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Images)

Hey Siri, define “immigration.”

The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

Hey Siri, define “invasion.” 

An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: 1) an incursion by a large number of people or things into a piece or sphere of activity; 2) an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

They may not be driving armored vehicles and carrying AK-47’s, but the intent is to overwhelm the border and demand (not request) entry. That’s not legal immigration; that’s an invasion.

There is a difference. Even Siri gets it.

1 Comment

Filed under America, current events, politics

The Indignation Seems Misplaced

A Monday-Morning Opinion Piece:

I am amazed by so much these days. Even though you’d think I’d know better, especially because I see it all the time, I still find myself in utter amazement at what I read in the media.

“A majority of voters now believe Bret Kavanaugh is guilty.”

How in the eighch ee double hockey sticks is that possible???

Oh, that’s an easy one… the media wants people to believe he’s guilty. The political and social left runs the media, so that’s all the public is going to hear – he’s guilty.

But it doesn’t seem that long ago that a Democrat by the name of Bill Clinton was accused of far worse things than forcing himself on a girl at a drunken party. As a matter of fact, President Clinton was actually accused of rape, pure and simple. Oh, and it wasn’t just one woman who made that kind of claim.

If 36 years is not too long ago to request an FBI investigation when there is very little – if any – evidence to warrant it, then why not launch an FBI investigation into the claims of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick?

One person (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY) asserted that Judge Kavanaugh must be guilty because he is not calling for an FBI investigation on himself! Well, did Bill Clinton? Uh, don’t think so.

And what about all the supposed shaming of female victims of rape and abuse? Are those in the media too young to remember the term “bimbo eruptions”? That was the term used by Hillary and her team in the 1990’s to describe the regularity of accusations against Bill Clinton. And each one who made an accusation was summarily attacked and destroyed.

Hillary is widely quoted as saying: “These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”

The media loved Bill.

Hey! You folks in the #MeToo! movement! Is there a statute of limitations on enabling a serial abuser?

Honestly, what I see in the news regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh is nothing but sickening. Not because I sense that he’s guilty of anything, but because of the hypocrisy of those calling for his lynching. If Judge Kavanaugh had only been a Democrat and was sure to approve of killing babies in the womb, he would have had no problem getting approved.

The media would have been worshipping at his feet.

But if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been Republicans – and let’s not forget about Sen. Ted Kennedy and a certain dead girl in his submerged Oldsmobile – we would have heard calls for the death penalty.

So, in my humble opinion, I think the indignation of the left is sorely misplaced.

2 Comments

Filed under current events, politics