I assume that by now you've heard of Huma Abedin. She's the real focus of the latest Clinton email probe. Ostensibly it's about improper use of email and whether or not there was classified stuff there, but this Huma, the estranged wife of Anthony Weiner, is the real question. You see, apparently she is one of the very top Hillary Clinton campaign aides and apparently she has connections to all sorts of questionable, even frightening Muslim issues. Reports say that Abedin has family ties with the radical Muslim Brotherhood which has been linked to Hamas and other anti-Israel groups as well as Muslim terrorists. She worked for a Saudi journal, publishing articles blamed the U.S. for 9/11 and dismantling Hillary's positions on women's rights and empowerment.
On one hand, I find it disturbing that she has risen to such a position of power while writing and publishing articles that decry the empowerment of women. I'm not saying anything for or against the empowerment of women. I'm wondering about the cognitive dissonance required to hold in one hand the idea that "empowerment of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men," and be in such a position of power in the other hand. And then to realize she appears to be Hillary's closest advisor is disturbing on its own.
Why is it ...
... that when a couple of guys last year beat up a homeless man and invoked the name of Trump, every major media outlet carries the story, but when some anti-Trump folk take on a homeless black woman defending Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you can't find it in a single one? (A couple of notes. FIrst, the language on the You Tube video is not clean. Watch at your own risk. Second, why is there a news vehicle at the scene, but it is still not reported?)
I find both events deplorable, but the inequity of the "equality" supporters seems really blatant here.
Military Pay and the LGBT
There are two things that don't go together, eh? As it turns out, while some in Congress are working to get our military members a pay raise, Democratic opponents are holding up the bill because they want to strip religious liberties from it. The amendment they're protesting says that federal defense contractors can, on religious grounds, opt not to do business with gays or lesbians. Now, clearly the concept is "religious liberty", not "anti-LGBT". I mean, no one has the religious freedom to go out and kill or injure gays, for instance. So the position is not "We should have the right to harm them", but "We should have the right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs." But it won't be depicted as "religious freedom" and it won't be allowed and they're holding a pitiful 2.1% raise for the troops as hostage until they get their way.
To punctuate the point, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is fighting in court to defend their "religious freedom" law that was supposed to go into effect last July. It is opposed, however, not as "religious freedom", but as "anti-LGBT". Oddly, while the Constitution supposedly explicitly affirms the right to free exercise of religion and does not affirm some supposed rights for choosing what gender you will have sex with, it is the defense of the Constitution that is losing out over the rights of sexual preference.
The claim is that if you favor religious freedom, you oppose "LGBT rights". This is simply not the case. To make the point, do you suppose they will admit that they oppose religious freedom when they demand their rights in opposition to the right to the free exercise of religion? Do you suppose that a media outlet -- any media outlet at all -- will make the claim that pro-LGBT forces oppose the freedom of religion? Not a chance. But they freely do it in reverse.
Just a heads-up here. You think there is a religious freedom clause in the Bill of Rights, but it is fast fading from the minds of Congress, of the courts, and of the American people. Don't expect it to last.
The Hatmaker Controversy
I don't know if you've heard of Jen Hatmaker. She is an extremely popular writer of Christian books, making the New York Times bestseller list and netting her an HGTV series. Well, last week, she jettisoned her evangelical base and said she supports same-sex marriage and believes LGBT relationships can be holy.
Of course, her denial of biblical truth is not the story. The story is about how LifeWay Christian Stores have opted to discontinue selling her stuff. And "that's not fair!" So her husband, Brandon, took to Facebook to defend his wife and explain, "We both believe a same-sex marriage, as a life-long monogamous commitment, can be holy before God." He claimed, "Every verse in the Bible that is used to condemn a 'homosexual' act is written in the context of rape, prostitution, idolatry, pederasty, military dominance, an affair, or adultery." He and his wife claim that there has never been clarity or consensus on what the Bible claims on the subject.
Exceptional voices like Kevin DeYoung, and Rosaria Butterfield have some outstanding responses to consider. As for me, I'm reminded of Paul's words to Timothy.
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim 1:5-7)We should always be cautious when folks who call themselves Christians depart from clear, biblical, historical orthodoxy in order to tickle itching ears to suit their listeners' passions (2 Tim 4:3).