Did Not See That Coming
The Family Research Council says that anti-Christian sentiment is accelerating in the U.S. According to their report, attacks against churches doubled in 2023. Wow! Did not see that coming. Oh ... wait ... yes, we did (John 15:18; 2 Tim 3:12). Or should have.
I Feel Safer Already
Biden is going to issue an executive order safeguarding American personal data from US adversaries. Your genomic, biometric, health, geolocation, financial, and other data are supposed to be secured so Russia (et.al.) can't use it. They can't use it; that's the government's job.
Science Prevails
For a long time, society put off legalizing drugs, including marijuana -- deemed a "gateway drug." But, no, the lobby won out and state after state legalized it first for medicinal use and, ultimately, for recreational use. Now they tell us that it is associated with higher heart attack and stroke risk. Sure, try to put that toothpaste back in the tube. They won't even try. "Good" is "whatever we deem it to be" regardless of the consequences.
Strange Times
We all know how good Bidenomics has been to us, so how is this possible? First, there was the report that consumer confidence was in decline. Then the story we all (should) know, that big companies are laying off employees. And there's the increase in jobless claims. Finally a key measure of inflation is still going up. How is this even possible in a glowing economic environment like Mr. Biden gives us?
Showing Their Colors
Without a conviction, based solely on "I think it's true" even though multiple sources have said it isn't, Illinois joined the far-left "We don't care about jurisprudence" side and convicted Trump of insurrection without a conviction -- he's off the ballot there, now, too. Because if there's anything we know, it's that Democrats love democracy ... as long as it is to their advantage. Trump winning primaries is not to their advantage. Ignoring "innocent until proven guilty," they're demonstrating how much they hate America except for when it suits their interests.
Fine Recipe for a Mockery
Satanic Temple is pushing into Florida schools on the basis of the First Amendment. Mind you, Satanic Temple is a "non-theistic religious organization," an oxymoron right up front. Religion is belief in and worship of God or gods, and Satanic Temple is explicitly atheist. They don't even believe in Satan. Their fundamental tenets mention no deity or supernatural power. Being a non-religious religion is, however, right in line with the insanity that has gripped modern society where opposites can be and are regarded as true at random.
Bee Ready for Anything
After the U.S. Air Force member set himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in protest of Israel's self-defense (actual story), progressive suicide hot lines are suggesting callers go ahead and do it so long as it's for Palestine. In other news, at the start of this presidential race year, a new poll shows that voters are in a dead heat between "uncommitted" and "none of these." I feel your pain. Finally, after the disconcerting news of an illegal immigrant murdering a nursing student in Georgia (actual story), police are warning women not to jog within 2,000 miles of any border. Wait ... is that satire?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
12 comments:
If you deem words to be violence, and the churches are saying words you don't like, then actual violence is justified. Tolerance only matters for the things they want accepted.
You mean to say that it wasn't already illegal to transfer that data to foreign powers? Another example of the Left missing the point.
Another example of how stupid people have become. Just because a few people claim doing a thing doesn't hurt them means it doesn't hurt them. This whole "lived experience" mantra has gotten too far out of hand.
I don't know that I've heard a single true thing come out of the mouth of the Biden White House. Never mind the incomprehensible ones.
The Democrats have actually literally claimed that the democratic process is anti-democratic. I heard one say that "Democracy died" back during the whole hanging chad debacle.
Man, and Florida had been doing so well lately. Hopefully DeSantis vetoes it if it passes. He's seemed to have a pretty good head on his shoulders for this nonsense.
On the Satanic Temple story, the question hinges on the meaning of "religion." If there is no spiritual content, can it be religion? The most liberal definition I've seen for "religion" is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor" (Merriam-Webster). In that sense, they're a religion. So is the Proud Boys, most atheists who are anti-religion, and anyone who has anything they're fervent about. If we're to understand the 1st Amendment in that light, there are a lot of laws that will have to change. But, I suppose, in this crazy world, I'm sure someone is going to suggest we do it.
Hi Stan, You commented, “If we're to understand the 1st Amendment in that light [as existing to protect any “system of beliefs held to with ardor”], there are a lot of laws that will have to change.” I am under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that that is essentially how the 1st Amendment is interpreted--i.e. the government will not make judgments regarding the validity, absurdity, spirituality, etc., of any belief system in favor of protecting the exercise of any and all of them (even those “non-religious religions”). This is why the school “Satanic” clubs and Satan displays alongside nativity scenes on public lands are permitted; even groups such as the KKK, etc.--“anyone who has anything they are fervent about,” as you say--may meet, march, etc. I am curious--What laws do you see changing?
We had a case at a school near us recently where a “Satanic” club (claiming to be a non-Satan-worshiping, humanistic alternative for students) was permitted to meet; when the school board members then received death threats from opponents, the school retracted their permission (“due to safety concerns”) but was then ordered to reinstate the club in compliance with the law. This bothers me as a believer and a taxpayer (albeit in a different school district) but not as an American.
Lorna, you're talking about actual religions. If we take that generalized "anything you believe with ardor" as "religion," that encompasses a whole lot of things. "I really, really love pizza; therefore, that's my religion." To the absurd. A broad definition like that eliminates the definition. "Religion is anything I feel strongly about" is nonsense.
Well, pizza lovers don’t need protection under the 1st Amendment, but if they did, they would get it. I am not sure if the 1st Amendment even defines “religion,” but it probably should have. And yes, it can get absurd, and it’s why I’m glad I didn’t go into law. :)
Did Not See That Coming
It's been increasingly obvious for quite a few years now. The worse it gets, the more likely He will return. So bring it on.
I Feel Safer Already
Biden and his party are US adversaries. I don't want them having my info, either. Stories like this remind me of how foolish I was not learning as much as possible about hunting, fishing and other skills useful for one who sees the benefit of living off the grid. Of course, I'm not confident this bunch is even thinking about protecting the grid, so it's hard to believe it will be around much longer, anyway.
Science Prevails
Even in my yoot, when I partook of many things, I never thought legalizing any of it was a good idea. I'd say, "Man, you'd have to be high to want to legalize this stuff!"
Strange Times
Well, who ya gonna believe? Biden or your own lyin' eyes? C'mon, Man!
Showing Their Colors
I'd say they hate America even when it suits their interests. Should they prevail in November and then again in '28, I think we'll see proposals to change the name of the country. They wan to fundamentally change it, after all!
Fine Recipe for a Mockery
It's all gone downhill since the courts ruled Scientology's a religion. Now anything can be.
The freedom of religion doesn't prelude the government from stopping aspects of a religion that are otherwise illegal or detrimental to society. The government isn't supposed to empower a specific religion, but if someone's religion required they do human sacrifice, that is a religion that will have to be interfered with by there government. I don't think hateful groups should get the same religious protections, ie KKK should not be allowed to march for anti-black/Jew positions. People calling for the eradication of another group for religious reasons shouldn't be allowed to march. When we go down the road of absolute religious freedom, that's how we get to the point of allowing pedophiles to march in support of letting them have sex with children, because hey, they believe in it fervently.
David said, " I don't think hateful groups should get the same religious protections." That protected rights are not a monolith has long been the case. For instance, the freedom of speech does not include yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. And we would all agree that hate in the name of religion isn't protected, we can't all agree on just what that is. Today, we're on the verge of "disagreeing with someone else's view" as "hate" (think LGBT). Last year a street preacher while reading Scripture at an LGBT event. Many today already define our adherence to Scripture on these topics as "hate."
Because the steady stream of reports about anti Christian violence in Islamic countries in Africa doesn't mean a thing.
It's bizarre to see the Satan folks claiming protection under the 1st amendment's freedom of religion clause, while denying that they are a religion. Much like the Iowa case where they erected a statue in a public area because other religions could do so.
I have no problem with applying the 1st amendment to non Judeo Christian religions, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Lots of things "climate change" have the earmarks of a religion nowadays.
I just saw that Oregon is rescinding their legalization of hard drugs because the results were really bad. Shocking.
Craig, I don’t believe that the Satanic Temple is “denying that they are a religion.” Their description of themselves as “a non-theistic religious organization” is an oxymoron to us, as Stan says, but alleging to be a religion is indeed the basis of their current liberties.
I continue to concur that, basically, the issue hinges on the definition of “religion”--beginning with how it was intended to be interpreted by the authors of the 1st Amendment and then whether that understanding is subject to revision 230 years later or not. (After all, they did not know back then about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!) In any event, I am personally glad that currently my “religion”--theistic or otherwise--is not scrutinized by the government (or the courts) before my freedom to practice it receives protection; that might change before too long, however, as the very subjective definition of “hate” speech, as Stan mentioned, alters what is protected as a “religion” under the law.
Lorna,
Most Satanists deny that they are a religion, so if they are acknowledging their status as a religion, that is a something new. The non theistic part isn't that much of an oxymoron, as there are eastern religions which are also non theistic.
Craig, Stan reported specifically on the Satanic Temple (perhaps it’s different from the “Satanists” that you mention), so that was what my comments addressed. After poking around at TST’s website, I found several references to themselves as a religion (including at their FAQ page). As an example, here’s a quote from their “About Us” page, where they apply that description twice:
“The Satanic Temple has become the primary religious Satanic organization in the world with congregations internationally, and a number of high-profile public campaigns designed to preserve and advance secularism and individual liberties. The rise of The Satanic Temple has been met with an increase in commentary regarding what Satanism is as media outlets struggle to grasp how this upstart religion has begun to shift religious liberty debates with claims of equal access.”
I can’t speak for Stan, but the oxymoron for me would be their stated disbelief in the supernatural, i.e. either God or Satan, and being essentially a “non-religious religion” (in Stan’s words). Once again, establishing a universal definition of “religion” is the conundrum.
Post a Comment