Religion and Jesus are not opposed to each other

Saint Cyprian said that if we will not have the church as our mother, we cannot have God as our Father. In an age where we hate authority, this is a statement that makes us very uncomfortable. I was reminded of this statement when I came across a video that sets “religion” against Jesus. (See the video here and here.)

There are many things wrong with this video. The primary problem is that it is a series of straw men and ignores instructions throughout the Old and New Testaments for the structured worship of God. We had church officers in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Take a look at the Apostle Paul’s letters on the subject. (Remember, Apostle is an office.)

Churches with structured leadership were established all through the New Testament. Any time the Apostle Paul went to a new city, he set up a church. Without structured leadership, the Apostle Paul would not have been able to order the Corinthian church to excommunicate the man who was having sex with his stepmother.

Matthew 18 – the words of Jesus Himself – is an establishment of church authority. If you have a dispute, you handle it informally before taking it to the church. This is a clear establishment of “religion” by our Lord Himself. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, it was not because he opposed “religion.” It was because the Pharisees had perverted the teachings of Scripture for their own benefit. (See Matthew 23:13-39.)

As to the straw men, obviously it is a problem when church leaders are hypocrites more interested in the numbers they are “running” than shepherding the souls God has entrusted to their care. The video would have you believe that church is by its nature run this way, which is why he is a follower of Christ – just as some of the Corinthians were of Paul and some of Apollos, but the most “righteous” were “of Christ.”

Christianity was never designed to be “me and Jesus.” It has always been a team effort, with authority in worship. This is clear throughout all of Scripture. Those who set up Christ in opposition to “religion” either do not know Scripture or they are heretics.

Paula White is a heretic, a blasphemer and an idolater

One of big the reasons I did not vote for Donald Trump is that I was so utterly disgusted with many of his loudest supporters. In addition to being called a liar, a traitor, a cuck, a faggot and a danger to my family (among many other things) I was sickened by the brainwashed droves who followed Trump like a cult. They literally look at Donald Trump the way the Branch Davidians looked at David Koresh.

This leads me to Paula White, a fake “christian” who peddles the wicked “health and wealth gospel” heresy and is on her third husband. Speaking of the President, White said this:

“God says that he raises up and places all people in places of authority,” she continued. “It is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down. When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand of God.”

To address an objection: This is not my interpretation of what she said. The context of her heresy is that she was supporting President Trump, and that he was put in place by God. She absolutely was saying that opposing President Trump is opposing the hand of God.

Apparently White has never opened her Bible other than to use what she needs in her heretical sermons, because if she had she would know that throughout all of Scripture there are examples of God’s people resisting the civil magistrate. From the prophets rebuking various kings of Israel and Judah in the Old Testament to the Apostles refusing to obey the Pharisees and John the Baptist rebuking Herod for his immorality in the New Testament, the Bible is filled to overflowing with examples of how God’s people do not blindly follow the government.

Therefore, it is completely illegitimate to cite Romans 13 as an example of why opposing Trump is wrong. Furthermore, if you opposed Barack Obama’s legislative agenda or administrative actions, you are a two-faced hypocrite to cite Romans 13 in support of Trump.

White is also totally ignorant of our system of government. We are fully within our rights as citizens to advocate for or against policy, and lobby our other elected representatives (who were also put in place by God) to support or oppose certain actions. Furthermore, the other elected officials (senators, representatives, governors, mayors and many more) were also put in place by God. That is the way our system works. If you want an absolute ruler, move to Red China, Cuba or North Korea.

I support President Trump and if the 2020 election were held today, I would vote for him. I have been surprised at how well he has done on policy, even if I shake my head at his childish antics. However, I will continue to emphatically reject the blasphemy, heresy and idolatry of the cultists who worship Trump as a messiah. That is pure evil and must be condemned every single time it comes up. Blasphemers, heretics, cultists and idolaters like Paula White must be shamed into silence.

Addressing objections from my pro-abortion critics

It is amusing how illogical, dishonest and counterfactual many of the comments are when Leftists respond to my letters to the editor. I will address some of the responses to my most recent letter here. I’ve been meaning to do this for a while, but I am just now finally getting around to it.

But before I start, I found it entertaining that my critics were accusing me of forcing my view on others, when what I am objecting to is being forced to donate to Planned Parenthood. I am not forcing anything on anyone. Meanwhile, all of my critics are perfectly fine with taking my money by force and giving it to Planned Parenthood against my will. My critics’ hypocrisy is astounding.

Also, I never said money goes to pay for abortions. Refuting a claim I never made is not an argument. It is a straw man. I said that money goes to abortionists, which is true.

As I said in my letter, we need to be done with the meme that “without Planned Parenthood the number of abortions would be much higher.”

This is simply false. Abortions in Bloomington have skyrocketed. There were 23.6% more abortions in Monroe County in 2016 than in 2015. In fact, I led my letter with that statistic. Either the person making this fake claim accepts pro-abortion propaganda without thinking, or she is lying. Either way, the fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood in Bloomington is murdering far more babies than before.

Some of the comments are unworthy of a response, like the usual boring accusation that abortion opponents believe “women are lesser people.” This has been addressed many times and I am not dignifying it with a response other than “that is a lie.”

Now, to address some illegitimate, fake so-called “questions.” Why are they illegitimate and fake? Because I have answered these so-called “questions” numerous times. If you ask the same so-called “question” over and over and over after it has been answered, you do not want an answer. You want to grandstand. Everyone knows what is going on here, and nobody is fooled. Now, on to the “questions.”

Do you favor distributing condoms or other birth control methods in the schools?

No, I do not. The schools have no business doing this without explicit parental consent. This is a flagrant violation of parents’ rights and should be illegal.

Do you favor educating kids about sex in the schools?

To the extent that it is part of an age-appropriate scientific curriculum, educating students about sexual reproduction is perfectly fine.

Are you willing to adopt an unwanted child?

I’m not willing to adopt every dog that is rescued from dog-fighting rings, but I oppose dog-fighting and favor criminal penalties for it.

Are you willing to pony up the money to help a mother raise her child who might otherwise have been aborted?

That is frankly none of anyone’s business. Whatever I do, I do not need to advertise it. I am not into virtue signaling. Even if I had never lifted a finger, that does not make killing a baby permissible.

I said in my letter that “Of over $200,000 of requests denied, surely there was a more deserving organization, instead of an obscenely wealthy multinational corporation.” The so-called “question” in response:

You mean…..like the Christian church?

This is what I mean about fake so-called “questions.” I have always opposed tax money to churches. I have also written letters to the editor opposing vouchers for private schools and I have been consistent on this issue for over two decades. All of my critics know this, so the so-called “question” is dishonest.

Princess Diana was murdered 20 years ago today

I know people will see the title of this blog post and think I am an unhinged, wacko conspiracy theorist. I assure you I am not. I do not believe that there was a conspiracy to secretly murder Princess Diana, by the British crown, MI-6 or anyone else. I do, however, possess something that is lacking today: Moral clarity.

You see, Princess Diana was murdered by the jackals in the paparazzi.

The facts are clear. Paparazzi stalkers were following and snapping pictures of Diana and her companion. This is one thing: Celebrities have a lower expectation of privacy than average citizens, especially in public places. This is one of the trade-offs that comes with being a celebrity. But then it got very dark.

Diana’s driver began to speed away, and the paparazzi chased after them. By chasing Diana’s car at a high rate of speed, the paparazzi knowingly and intentionally created a highly dangerous situation that predictably resulted in the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. But this was no accident. This was murder. The fact that the paparazzi had no intention of committing murder does not absolve them of guilt in the murders.

Does the fact that Diana’s driver was drunk reduce the paparazzi’s moral guilt in her murder? No, it does not. Had the jackals not been chasing her at a high rate of speed, there would have been no high-speed accident. The paparazzi behaved in a sub-human manner, and caused the death of a woman who had committed no crime. They did this in worship of money. Princess Diana was literally sacrificed to the demon Mammon.

I believe in freedom of the press. I militantly oppose efforts to censor what the press is allowed to print and I militantly oppose efforts by government officials to prevent the news media from researching stories. A free press is essential to democracy. That does not give the press free reign to commit crimes and cause death and destruction. It is an abomination that none of the paparazzi jackals were ever punished for their role in the brutal murder of human beings made in the image of Almighty God.

Liars need to stop lying about the Woodburn Mural

Every single person who is distributing the petition to remove the Benton mural from Woodburn Hall is a liar who supports the Ku Klux Klan.

Harsh words? You betcha. They are also true. This paragraph from the petition illustrates why those distributing it are liars who support the KKK:

It also violates the student rights and code of ethics be forcing students (and faculty) of color to work and study in an environment that promotes a group known for discriminating against people of color, homosexuals, non Christians, and various other marginalized groups of people.

The Benton mural does not “promote” the Ku Klux Klan. The Benton mural was painted specifically to oppose the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the mural’s history knows this. Benton was an outspoken opponent of the Klan, and his mural was very controversial when it was painted – not because it “promoted” the KKK but because it served as a reminder of a shameful time in Indiana history where the KKK dominated Indiana politics. Politicians who were embarrassed of this did not want it prominently displayed.

The mural itself is a celebration of the downfall of the Klan. In the foreground, you see an image of racial harmony: A white nurse tenderly caring for a black baby. (This is much larger than the image of the KKK, which I remind you Benton opposed.) The mural also features a journalist typing on his typewriter. That is also a significant anti-KKK message because it was the news media that exposed and caused the fall of the KKK in Indiana politics.

Because of these inarguable facts, those who support removing the mural support the Ku Klux Klan. They are actively trying to remove a powerful piece of anti-KKK art from a prominent position on campus. The fact that they are liars who pretend that the mural “promotes” the KKK utterly annihilates their credibility and demonstrates that literally nothing they say can be trusted. If any of these people told me the sky is blue, I would have to run outside and check.

Can opponents of the mural actually be honest for once in their lives? They know full well what the mural stands for. They want it removed because they are pathetic snowflakes who cannot handle historical imagery, even when an image of the KKK is a small part of a mural by an artist who opposed the KKK, surrounded by much larger anti-KKK images. If you are too much of a crybaby to handle historical facts and must even silence those who support your position to protect your fragile feelings, then just admit it. Stop lying about what the Woodburn mural stands for.

Indiana University must never give in to the KKK and their apologists by taking down the mural in Woodburn Hall. To do so would be a violation of everything the university stands for and an act of extreme disrespect to those murdered by the KKK and to those who bravely fought and defeated the Klan. The mural absolutely must stay where it is.

Those who demand its removal, meanwhile, should reconsider whether they are mentally, psychologically, intellectually and emotionally capable of studying at a university. Perhaps returning to kindergarten to color with crayons would be a better option for them.

Hate crime laws should be rejected

Below is my open letter to the speaker of the Indiana House and Monroe County legislators.

Before I go farther, let me emphasize that it is important that we reject and rebuke Fake News, such as this statement in an article from the Associated Press:

The Anti-Defamation League lists Indiana as one of just five states without laws against crimes motivated by biases, such as race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. Proposals to establish such a law in Indiana have repeatedly failed over the past decade.

Obviously, this is false, but this statement is not just misleading or inaccurate. It is a lie, written by a liar. Murder, rape, assault, arson, vandalism and other crimes are already illegal. If someone commits a crime because he hates homosexuals, blacks or Jews, then he will be punished for it. He will be punished just as harshly as if he did it because he was bored or greedy.

Furthermore, it does not even make any sense. There is no law against crimes? The very definition of a crime is that it is against the law! Do the purveyors of Fake News at the Associated Press even understand how the law works? Or are they willing to risk appearing to be stupid to advance their lies?

Speaker Bosma,

I am very disappointed that you are once again pushing for a “hate crimes” law that is antithetical to the principles of our Republican Party and creates a special class of people who are more valuable in the eyes of the law than others. This proposal should be rejected.

Beyond the fact that hate crime laws are unnecessary, they are un-American. A basic principle of our nation, from our declaration of Independence to the Fourteenth Amendment to the values we allegedly hold today, is that we are all created equal and are equal under the law. When a crime against someone in a protected class is punished more harshly, it makes everyone else less valuable under the law. Too much blood was spilled overturning wicked Jim Crow laws to re-enact them in the name of Political Correctness.

Charlottesville does not demonstrate that we need hate crime laws. Charlottesville demonstrates that we need to enforce the law, and never allow thugs and criminals (whether “alt right” or Antifa) to rampage through our cities and engage in bloody street brawls with no interference from police who have abandoned their sworn duty as law enforcement officers.

If we are serious about protecting victims of hate crimes, We should enforce the law with zero tolerance. Every single murderer should be put to death, without exception, as commanded by Holy Scripture. People who commit arson, assault and rape should be harshly punished as well. What we must never do is abandon our commitment to equal protection under the law. We are better than this.

Threatening free speech will not stop sex trafficking

Representative Hollingsworth and Senator Young,

I am very worried about efforts to amend the Communications Decency Act to punish interactive content providers (including Facebook, Twitter, Google, WordPress, Instagram and countless comments sections for newspapers) for un-screened content posted by their users. I believe this is a direct threat to the First Amendment and could end free speech as we know it.

The idea is that this will prevent sex trafficking, but this has nothing to do with sex trafficking. This is about setting a precedent where government can go after an interactive content provider for the un-screened speech of its users. Sex trafficking is the low-hanging fruit, because everyone recognizes how evil it is and how the perpetrators of such crimes are worthy of the death penalty. As Christians, you know how a holy and righteous God hates these crimes and will punish those who commit them.

But that is not the real goal here. This is only the first step, and that this precedent will be used to bully websites into taking down “hate speech” and “extremist speech,” along with many other kinds of speech the government does not like. How do you define hate and extremism? As you know, that is much broader than one would think. That will be defined by who is in power and what speech is politically inconvenient for them.

Opposing same-sex marriage is hate speech to some, while opposing vouchers for private schools is hate speech to others. This is the very definition of the slippery slope. Statists hate free speech and the fact that the great unwashed masses can posts their opinions online, so we need limited government conservatives like you to defend us from them.

Then there is the question of basic fairness. Obviously, there are evil men online, who use the Internet to commit crimes worthy of death. But is it fair for government to punish an interactive content provider for something a user did, especially in violation of the company’s Terms of Service Agreement?

A basic premise of our criminal justice system is that there must be a mens rea to convict of a crime. There is simply no intent by reputable interactive content providers to allow their servers to be used to commit crimes. In fact, Google has partnered with other providers like Facebook and Twitter to identify and remove abusive content as well as catching people who have committed crimes.

This is why it is so incredibly offensive that some so-called “conservatives” accuse companies like Google of defending sex traffickers. This is a damnable lie worthy of nothing bus scorn and condemnation.

As former Congresswoman Susan Molinari pointed out on TheHill.com, Google engineers created a tool called Spotlight, which uses artificial intelligence to sift through millions of online ads to find and identify victims of sex trafficking. Law enforcement in all 50 states now use the Google-built tool to protect abuse victims and punish their abusers. Spotlight helped identify 2,000 sex traffickers and 5,000 victims of sex trafficking in one single year. Does this sound like a company that is defending sex trafficking?

As Republicans, you must realize that the Internet provides a unique took to help you bypass the mainstream media that often treats you unfairly. Through your websites and official social media accounts, you can reach the people directly. Do you really think it is a good idea for government to have the power to bully interactive content providers, knowing that a corrupt administration will inevitably use that tool to silence the opposition? We already saw the Internal Revenue Service being abused for this purpose, so is expanding that power really a good idea? Will this be expanded to campaign-finance laws and free speech by interest groups?

Congress was shockingly forward-looking in 1996, well before the blogosphere and social media revolutionized political discourse. They knew that punishing interactive content providers for the speech of their users would have a chilling effect on speech on the Internet. Please do not invalidate that wisdom and the protections for interactive content providers present in current law.

Sex traffickers must be caught, prosecuted and punished. People who facilitate the rape of children should be put to death as commanded in Holy Scripture. But setting a dangerous precedent that WILL be expanded and WILL be used to crush free speech online is the worst possible solution.

Instead, we should enhance penalties for monsters who sexually exploit children, including perhaps bypassing the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution to allow the death penalty for the rape of children and for the sex traffickers who enable those rapes. There are other options as well. Please pursue alternative solutions, instead of lighting the trail of gasoline that leads to our precious First Amendment.