I was reading a story about how the Church of England's House of Bishops had, after much analysis and discussion, voted to encourage "a culture of welcome and support for gay Christians" while affirming that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It has brought division, however, as the church has voted to reject the report of the leadership. The House of Bishops voted 43-1 in favor and the House of Laity 106-83 in favor, but the Clergy just didn't quite make it with a 100-to-93 vote against it (two abstaining). Their official position now? "Not to take note". It has nothing more to say. Start over. Wise leaders like the "Reverend Bertrand Olivier, who's gay, told the BBC the Church needed to reflect modern society."
The LGBT group that called for the rejection of the report said "the Synod's vote was a 'victory for love and equality.'" A victory, apparently, over the reliability and authority of Scripture. God was wrong (Gen 2:24). Jesus was wrong (Matt 19:4-6). Paul was wrong (Eph 5:31). All of Scripture on the subject is wrong. All of the history of humanity and of Christianity has been wrong. And when John warned that we should not be allied with the world (1 John 2:15), apparently the "Reverend Bertrand Olivier" would say that John was wrong as well. Fortunately we have a new model for Christian religion -- modern society. Forget "Christians". We should now be "Modern Societians".
Old News
The Reuters headline reads, "U.S. inquiries into Russian election hacking include three FBI probes." There is an opening picture with the caption, "Voters cast their votes during the U.S. presidential election in Ohio." So, now we know what the story is about. Russia hacked the election, changing the votes made by American voters.
Except ... that's a lie. It isn't the story. It isn't even the allegation. They are not saying that Russia got into our voting system to affect or change the outcome. Instead, the FBI "is trying to identify the people behind breaches of the Democratic National Committee's computer systems." The "hack" was not our voting systems, but the illegal release of private details from the DNC's computers. Kind of like what others did to Michael Flynn -- the illegal release of private information. The hack is believed to have "exposed the internal communications of party officials." That is, the information wasn't false. It was true; they just didn't want everyone to know what they did and the only right thing to have done was to keep Americans in general and Democrats in particular blind to their activities.
So let's summarize. We have a national party wishing to cover up the truthful evils that they committed and we have a major media outlet attempting to cast this story as a hack by a foreign government into the American vote of November. Unfortunately, two lies do not make a truth. Russia did not hack the American vote, and the Democratic Party was not honest and forthright in their campaigning. According to the story. And at some point people are going to have to decide -- are folks like WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden and the Russian hackers heroes for releasing secret information or not? You can't have it both ways.
Then ... Who Is?
In honor of Presidents Day, thousands across the nation ... opted to dishonor America's president. In major cities across the nation they gathered to declare that President Trump is "Not my president". They do not offer an alternative1. They apparently have no president. Nor do they recognize that the nation has no alternative; we have one president. I suppose, then, that they're willing to go without the nation and its benefits because they don't like its leader, right? No, I don't suppose so. The one I found particularly amusing was the Chicago one that had "a pointed purpose: unity." I see. Ignoring the fact that a sufficient number of Americans voted for this president to put him in office, we will call "Not my president" a call to "unity". "We want to fight the entirety of the administration," said one of the coordinators2. Excellent. That ought to draw us all together ... you know ... into anarchy. So, Trump is not your president. Then ... who is? (And do you suppose if some of us had said, "Obama is not our president" they would have applauded our "call to unity"?)
________
1 There were calls for impeachment; signs are too short to tell why. I'm wondering if they'd be satisfied with the result -- President Mike Pence. Or will we just have a total revolution on our hands?
2 I'll tell you what I'm waiting for. The headline reads "Trump had oatmeal for breakfast" followed by "Americans have started boycotting oatmeal because Trump ate it." I'm not sure that's an outlandish possibility.
________2 I'll tell you what I'm waiting for. The headline reads "Trump had oatmeal for breakfast" followed by "Americans have started boycotting oatmeal because Trump ate it." I'm not sure that's an outlandish possibility.
States Rights No More
Texas looked at those videos showing Planned Parenthood doing really bad things to and with baby parts and moved to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas. You know, the state opted to decide how to spend their money. Silly Texans. A federal judge told the state they cannot cut funding to Planned Parenthood. It's one thing (a bad thing, to be sure) that murdering babies in America and, therefore, by extension, Texas is legal. It's another thing that the federal courts mandate that the state and, therefore, by extension, the people of Texas have to pay for it. That is, the federal courts have mandated that Texans (and, of course, the citizens of all states providing money to Planned Parenthood) be complicit in murder.
The Bill of Rights attempted to limit the rights of the federal government in favor of the rights of the State and the rights of the individual. Thanks to our turned-around society, that's turned around.
The Sad Loss of a Life
Another senseless police killing in New York. Apparently on Tuesday a bull escaped from a Queens slaughterhouse and valiantly made a break for freedom. Police tried to corral the animal and eventually had to shoot it with tranquilizers. The bull died. On Wednesday night New Yorkers gathered for a candlelight vigil to commemorate "Courage" (the name they gave the bull). "No one deserves cruelty, abuse, torture or murder." "We're here fighting for our brother." "Another innocent victim was cut down in the street." Just a few quotes from the story.
Seriously, folks, you can't make this stuff up. Killing babies? Absolute right. Killing animals intended for the slaughterhouse? A travesty of justice. Wait ... I'm confused ... did she just say, "We're here fighting for our brother"? I thought you guys came from monkeys. Sigh. Can't keep up.
3 comments:
Sometimes, I don't want to live on this planet any more.
As for the cow, my regret for its death is, with tranquilizers in its system, is it still safe to eat?
I understand the first sentiment.
Some of the comments I heard on the cow story were hilarious. "These kinds of vigils are rare, but this one was not well-done." "I would have had a candlelight vigil, too, but only so we could have enough fire to cook it." As it turned out, this is not the first time this happened. The last time some celebrity and his wife bailed the escaped cow out of the slaughterhouse custody and took it out to a farm. Go figure.
It confounds me about vegetarians that are choosing that way on principle. Evolution tells us (I cite evolution because they believe in it, not me) that humans developed their brains from eating cooked protein. So, without eating meat we'd be as simple as any primate. So, from their own world view, meat should be a beneficial part of our diet. Unless they want us to go back to caves and a more "wild" life, eating meat puts us as the dominant species. Let alone the fact that our teeth are set to be omnivores. And why is it atrocious for us to eat meat, but perfectly natural for other animals? Shouldn't they be imposing their vegetarian ideals on all the world, not just humans. And who says plants don't feel? Haven't they proven that plants grow differently based on the types of music played around them. That certainly indicates feelings to me. But, I digress.
Post a Comment