Well, it's about time. The silly God we worship has included instructions like "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him" (Prov 22:15) and "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol" (Prov 23:13-14). Indeed, our God is so whacky that He says, "For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). What kind of crazy is that? Fortunately the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has come out with some real corrections for God, assuring us that "positive reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, setting limits and setting expectations" are "healthy forms of discipline" while any kind of corporal punishment like God recommended will make them aggressive, depressive, and stupid ("less gray matter in children's brains"). Thank you, modern science. We are now free to ignore God's instructions on this. You know better than He anyway, I'm sure. And when I look around at the current younger generation, I can see your methods are working. Oh, wait ...
This isn't new, of course. They've been beating this drum for years and years. The nearly total lack of discipline among children these days speaks poorly of this approach. And the complete inability of most people to understand how the kind of discipline God commends can -- must -- be administered with love makes it impossible for these anti-God types to evaluate. Let's just say that their conclusions ain't necessarily the case. God appears to disagree with them. Our society, of course, doesn't much care what He thinks.
Don't Put Your Trust in Princes
This just goes to show, don't put your trust in princes. Nevada managed to vote in a dead candidate. "A Nevada brothel owner and reality TV star who died last month after fashioning himself as a Donald Trump-style Republican candidate has won a heavily GOP state legislative district." It's funny and sad. Funny because the dead Republican beat all other comers. Sad because 1) he was a candidate for office as a Republican and 2) voters voted him in. I'm guessing this is the Democrats' fault. They argue, "The only good Republican is a dead Republican," so they voted in the dead Republican.
This should go without saying, but don't trust the dead guy to do the job you want.
What Means You Never Have to Say You're Sorry?
Last week Don Lemon, CNN commentator, brought calm to the country by encouraging people to stop demonizing people.
We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.CNN immediately required that Lemon apologize for his racist (and irrational) (You can't "stop demonizing" by demonizing.) remarks, which he ... oh, wait ... no, they didn't. He clarified his statements. No, no, it's not white men. It's white men who have been "radicalized to the right." Much better.
Just so we're clear, if someone makes a racist or sexist remark, the public expects an apology ... at the very least. (They may expect an execution.) If that racist or sexist remark is against a white male, it is perfectly suitable. If it is against a white male who leans right, it appears to be completely defensible. We only need to wait to find out what "We have to start doing something about them" means. I don't expect it to be pleasant.
(Note: I haven't asked any of them for apologies. I've complained that we require it in a country where free speech is supposed to be a constitutional right. I'm just concerned about the obvious double standard.)
What Did You Expect?
Bruce Jenner is a men's Olympic gold medal winner who identified as a woman and they call him "Cait." Why? Because he identifies as a woman, so he is. A 52-year-old father of seven identifies as a 6-year-old girl living with parents of a biological girl who have adopted him as their daughter to be their daughter's sister. Why? Because he identifies as a 6-year-old girl, so he is. Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who identified as a black woman and was a NAACP leader until they figured out she was actually white. "Oh, now wait!" they said. "That's too far." She still does; they still don't. Why? Because they're drawing an arbitrary line. Not to be outdone, Emile Ratelband, a 69-year-old, is suing Tinder to get his age changed to 49 because he identifies 20 years younger and ought to be allowed to be recognized as such.
If the logical arguments for "transgender" are to be maintained as valid, there is no basis to deny Dolezal her leadership role in the NAACP or Mr. Ratelband his new birthdate. I'm pretty sure the "trans" supporters will not be that consistent.
As I Figured
I thought it would go this way. The court has legislated from the bench again by requiring the current president to continue a temporary executive branch memorandum issued by the previous president in 2012. When multiple states sued the government over that memorandum, the Supreme Court barely blocked their suit by simply declaring that it was legal for that president to make such a memorandum that was intended to fill a gap until Congress could do it legislatively. Congress didn't. Now the court finds that it is legal for a president to make a temporary situation -- DACA -- but it is illegal for his successor to end the temporary situation. The three-member panel said that requiring Congress to handle the situation was "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." This is making sense to someone, I'm sure, but not to me. It looks to me that our "rights" and our "law" have become arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with anything much at all.
Election Results
The Babylon Bee is a satire site, and this was satirical ... but not. I mean, sure, no news outlet called the election in favor of Christ, but the fact remains, Christ is still on His throne. Don't let any political discussion move you from that confidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment