Christian Counter Culturalism: The Foolishness of the Wise

 Whitson G. Waldo, III has a very major article today at the American Thinker entitled Countercultural Christianity. He makes it sound as if this is something new. But Christ has always been countercultural from the very start. What God wants is for men to change their minds, their hearts, and their souls to have a relationship with Him. It is not about morality or rules, as we understand these things, but developing a relation with God, after which we will be moral, we will follow the rules, because we will want to. This is what the Jews don't get, and what many Gentiles don't get either. Everyone wants to fake it till they make it, to "do" something to earn God's love.  But God already loves us, what he wants is for us to love Him.

If you are an orthodox traditional Christian, you cannot be a progressive, a socialist, or a communist. Why, you say? Because the charity that God commands must come from each person. It cannot be out of other people's money, or out of taxes which is the same thing. The collectivist ideologies encourage envy, but God commands us not to covet. Collectivist ideologies seek a state where no one owns anything, but God commands that we do not steal. Of course, one can only steal what belongs to another. Indeed, God prefers private property because it avoids the "tradgedy of the commons" and encourages people to take special care of it.

Bible-based, orthodox, historical Christianity is so countercultural today. There is less and less common ground between progressives and Christians.

Christmas and Easter are the great holidays of Christianity, celebrating the birth of our Savior and his resurrection from the dead, respectively. You can venture into Hobby Lobby or dine at Chick-fil-A and be greeted enthusiastically with cries of “merry Christmas!” But progressives are aghast at the birth of an exalted child in the ignominious circumstances of an animal shed with a bed made in a feeding trough. Consistently, in most companies, employees may bleat out the bland secular salutation “happy holidays” instead.

snip...

Continuing their two-hundred-year infatuation with racism (see here, here), progressives endorse racist, hateful, divisive Critical Race Theory which posits that racism is entrenched, oppression of minorities precludes escape, and there is no atonement for white privilege but rather only unending oblation of apologies. Against this, the apostle Paul taught, “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.” Embracing Christian teaching, which opposes CRT tenets, Martin Luther King, Jr., shared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Progressives recently buried the Defense of Marriage Act to raise up the abominable Respect for Marriage Act. This is one of the latest progressive actions celebrating LGBT behaviors. Thinking children to be little animals, there is progressive inclination to groom children for sexual exploitation.

In opposition, science, statistics, and the Bible indicate that LGBT behaviors are unnatural, abnormal, and immoral, respectively. Proscriptions against immoral sexual behaviors are extant because God has said, “I do not change.” Having created man and woman, God ordained the sanctity of marriage for the natural, normal, and moral behaviors of a man and a woman (see here, here). Knowing that children are made in the image of God, Christians want to protect childhood innocence as long as possible.

Christianity has always been countercultural because Satan is always fighting against God. His pride was such that though he was a created creature, he thought he should sit on the throne of Yahweh. It is countercultural because man always does evil in spite of himself. It is countercultural because the world is a constant distraction pulling mens' attention away from God. But Christ understands the weakness of man and offers forgiveness. He offers to make us brothers with the Son. All he asks in return is our faith and trust in Him. Sadly, too many cannot do it.

The New Gestapo

 I have been busy with holiday preparations, so have not been blogging as much.  By the way, the term "holiday" was originally "Holy day,"  and Christmas is a Holy day celebrating the birth of the Savior of the world, God incarnate, our Lord Jesus.  Between bell choir rehearsals, stuff around the house, and the perennial honey do list, I haven't had much time.  But I have a few minutes today, so here goes.

At the American Thinker today, Warren Beatty has an article today entitled Joe Biden Meets the Gestapo. I have been reading more pieces discussing the similarities of Biden's administration to fascist government style. It has become obvious to those of us who are conservative, Constitutionalist patriots. It has even penetrated to some in the MSM.

What Beatty does in his essay is to break down the ways in which the Department of (in)Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have become Biden's secret police, taking action against anyone perceived to be critical of Biden's agenda. This is not how a Constitutional republic is supposed to act. The loyalty of all members of government should be to the Constitution, not to the head of one of the political parties.

The Gestapo’s power focused upon Hitler’s political opponents through lies, atrocities, and reprisals. It often made up facts against political opponents in order to achieve its objectives. Those political opponents included people deemed dangerous to Nazi policies and politics. They could arrest and imprison anyone and always assumed that their targets were guilty. Once arrested, people found it difficult to prove their innocence.

The Gestapo crushed opposition through actions, both legal and illegal, such as fear and intimidation. It operated without any civil or criminal restraints. Propaganda, which included censoring the media, kept the majority of the population in line.

Sound familiar?

Gentle readers can read how Merrick Garland has turn an already partisan DOJ and turned in into an enforcer of Biden and the Globalist's so-called "elite" agenda. The FBI has become the thug goon squad of the DOB, while the IRS takes selective action against conservatives and anybody else the Biden administration takes a dislike to. The goal is to intimidate us, shut us up, and steal our resources. What I wanted to spend some time on is the FBI infiltration of Traditional Latin Mass Catholics.

Sarah Arnold has an essay at Townhall.com entitled FBI Under Fire for Targeting Radical Traditionalist Catholic Ideology.

This week, during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO.) questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray after the FBI struggled to define its “Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology” and “the far-right white nationalist movement.”

Earlier this year, the agency’s Richmond office issued a memo warning about the rising domestic threat posed by “radical” Catholics, claiming it “certainly presents new mitigation opportunities.” The memo suggested “trip wire or source development” within parishes that offer the Traditional Latin Mass and within online communities.

...snip...

Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with the Catholic Association and popular radio broadcaster, expressed disappointment in the FBI, telling the National Review that the “agency, designed to protect Americans and their rights, was spying on Catholics everywhere from their choir lofts to their rectories.”

One commenter noted that Traditional Latin Mass Catholics and (non-progressive) Lutherans were some of the least likely people to commit terrorist acts. The Latin Mass is prized by traditional people not because it is in Latin but because it represents the pre-Vatican II understandings of Church doctrine. Lutheran doctrines similarly are Biblical and thus do not adhere to the "woke" ideologies, which really hark back to the ancient pagan gods. Thus this is really a spiritual battle in which the devil has taken the control of the government to punish Christians.  We are sure where we are going when we die, and frankly torture and intimidation for Christ's sake is our joy.

There is no place called Utopia

 Tom Knighton has a post at Bearing Arms entitled 'Your Right To Feel Safe' Versus 'My Right To Feel Safe' that asks the question: Does your right to feel safe trump my own? It's an interesting question, for as Knighton points out, if your right trumps mine, you can impose all sorts of things on others. Indeed is that not what people mean when the call speaking ideas they don't like "violence'?

Every so often, someone brings up their “right to feel safe.” They argue that our right to keep and bear arms infringes on their right to feel a certain kind of way.

Now, first, we need to acknowledge that this “right to feel safe” doesn’t actually exist. If it did, such a thing could be exploited to restrict, well, almost anything.

But some people persist in pushing this idea. They’re firmly convinced that they have a right to restrict the actions of others, even restrict a constitutionally protected right, all so they can feel “safe.”

Knighton makes an important point. The right to "feel safe" does not actually exist, or if it does, it is entirely in your personal control. You alone determine how you feel about extremal stimuli. No one "makes" you feel anything.  what you feel is entirely in your own control. But the other reason that the "right to feel safe" does not exist is because it requires someone else to do something for these people to exercise the "right." But that is not how rights work. A right is something you can exercise without someone else doing anything. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms requires only that you and no one else choose to acquire and use arms.

Yet I’m not going to debate them anymore about whether the right exists or not. They’re not likely to listen to that argument, anyway, so why waste the oxygen?

Instead, I’m going to ask them one simple question: Why does your right to feel safe trump my right to feel safe?

See, by owning and carrying firearms, I feel safer than if I didn’t. I understand that criminals break the law, which means they’re likely to break any gun control regulation you care to put in place, much as they have all the other gun control laws already in place.

I also recognize that the police, despite their best efforts and intentions, often get to the scene of a crime just in time to draw a chalk outline around the body. When seconds count, help is just minutes away.

So, I don’t feel safe with restrictive gun control laws in place. Someone else might, but I don’t. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. I feel far less safe than I did without them.

It is not unreasonable to feel safer with a weapon. The news reports crimes taking place every day, and they seem to take place pretty much anywhere. Now, recognizing that doesn't mean walking around expecting to be attacked at any moment, but at the same time, one should be constantly ware of ones surroundings. And one of the things one must be aware of is that criminals often carry concealed weapons, and unlike law abiding, they don't bother to obey any gun control law. They obtain their guns by illegal means and you will never know. How safe do gun-grabbers feel about that, or is ignorance bliss?

Gentle readers should go read Knighton's post. Frankly, Knighton's position seems to be to be more realistic and more balanced. In light of the understanding that mankind is a fallen creature, it makes more sense to be prepared that to constantly be asking why these things keep happening. Hint, it's because there is no such place as Utopia.

Update on the New Mexico Governor's Edicts

 Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms updates us on the New Mexico Governor's "temporary" edict telling New Mexicans that they can't carry in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque in particular. Apparently, the 'temporary' part was said with tongue-in-cheek.  You can find Edward's report at New Mexico Governor's Never-Ending 'Emergency' On Guns.

When Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s declared a “public health emergency” due to gun violence back in September, she made a lot of noise about the order being temporary. In fact, that was one of the main arguments deployed in her attempt to keep her ban on concealed carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County in place. Grisham’s attorney failed to convince a U.S. District Court judge that a total ban on lawful carrying comported with the Constitution, even temporarily, but the judge did allow for the governor’s revised order prohibiting concealed carry in parks and playgrounds in the city and county to be enforced while the lawsuit against her order continues.

The litigation is still ongoing, and as it turns out, so is the governor’s “temporary” declaration. After renewing her public health order in October and November, the governor has once again declared the carry ban will remain in effect at least through the end of the year.

...snip...

The problem for Grisham, at least when it comes to her stated justification for declaring a public health emergency based on “gun violence”, is that the number of homicides in Albuquerque was already trending lower than last year when she made her announcement on September 8th. According to APD statistics, the city had recorded 74 homicides from January 1st through September 8th this year; while in 2022 the city had investigated 94 homicides through September 8th.

The drop in murders is undeniable, but there’s absolutely no evidence that Grisham’s public health order has anything to do with it; particularly her ban on lawful concealed carry in parks and playgrounds. Though the governor has touted the number of arrests made, guns seized, and traffic citations issued since she issued her declaration, her office has yet to send out a single press release highlighting a citation handed out to someone caught carrying a concealed firearm at any of the locations she unilaterally declared to be “gun-free zones.”

This is an attempt by a devilcrat Governor to see how far she can go in infringing on New Mexicans right to arms for self-defense. It was totally illegitimate, and I have confidence the courts will find it such. I think she was also trying was to see how far the 'public health emergency' excuse went.  Could a 'public health emergency' allow any executive action?  Too many people complied with the lockdowns that were said to be 'temporary.'  Fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice shame on me.  Meanwhile, it apparently is not being enforced. Thank goodness someone there has some common sense.

Is the 17th Amendment the Root of Our Problems?

 Today, at the American Thinker Alexander G. Markovsky has an essential article entitled How The American Republic Was Lost. Marking the exact date when the Constitutional Republic was lost is not easy. Mark Levin in his book Men In Black has placed the loss of the Republic in the Courts circa 1900 and on, with the doctrine of the "living constitution." Markovsky places it later, with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Markovsky is right, that too many are too poorly educated on our history. Democrats would surely not want to repeal the 17th Amendment, and thus at least half the population would vote against doing so.

So, what is the 17th Amendment, you ask? That was the Amendment, ratified and signed into law by the Woodrow Wilson administration to provide for the popular election of Senators. I urge gentle readers to read the entire article and to do some more research on the topic. Markovsky is absolutely correct in his assessment.

Periodically, the world produces a demonic leader who challenges the legitimacy of established order with force or an ideologue who does the same with utopian ideas. Nevertheless, America’s Founders refused to prevent those people from pursuing political office within the bounds of legality. Instead, with their foresight, they crafted the Constitution not to prevent those individuals’ rise to power but to safeguard against their destructive impulses via constitutional restraints. Unbeknownst to many, though, Wilsonian progressives broke one of those restraints in 1913, mortally wounding the American experiment.

When the Founders set out to keep tyranny from infecting the federal government, two of the most important and interrelated safeguards were the separation of powers and federalism.

...snip...

The states, in turn, joined the Union on the condition that their sovereignty would be protected. The House of Representatives was intended to be a “People’s House,” with representatives directly elected by the people in their respective districts. Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states to ensure their sovereignty.

No doubt it seemed at the time to be a good idea to the average person, though I have wondered who in the state legislatures would have thought it was a neat idea to give up their authority. For it was the state legislatures that had to vote to ratify the Amendment. In any case, we can see what has become of the Senate.

Those restraints on the executive were irreparably damaged following the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, on Woodrow Wilson’s watch. That amendment established the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. This effectively took power from the states, de facto nullifying the Tenth Amendment.

The senators elected by the people for six-year terms no longer represent the interests of the states. While “we the people” are represented by the House, the senators de facto represent nobody but themselves. They become committed to their respective parties’ agendas and personal gain.

Markovsky blames the Obama administration for much of the transformation that has taken place, and Obama deserves all the blame we may heap at his feet. But the fact is that the socialist progressives have been at work since Theodore Roosevelt was in office. They have slowing taken over the Democrat party, which always had a bit of Satanism, and they have also taken over parts of the Republican party. To the extent that they have imported Islam into a nation of Christians, they have not only sowed discord, but have imported Satanic forces that are already tearing Europe apart.

Not bound by constitutional constraints, the socialists began the process of gradually dismantling the established law and order. Institutions of marriage and religion, capitalism, the judicial system, individual liberty, and the English language—all have come under assault after having been branded as antiquated, biased, and intolerant. Moreover, Democrats even altered the voting laws to ensure the Democratic Party’s electoral supremacy.

Some may say that it is an exercise in futility to consider what could happen if… Nevertheless, if not for the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate would not be controlled by political parties, and the states would have a say in any proposed legislation. Obamacare, the skyrocketing deficit, generous welfare programs, the government-run education system, the departments of Energy and Agriculture, open borders, climate change, and a host of programs and executive orders, plus volumes of intrusive government regulations, would never have seen the light of day.

The Seventeenth Amendment trashed the key provision of the Constitution and made the powers of the federal government infinite and undefined. The immense transfer of power away from the democratically elected representatives of Congress to the executive branch has produced an extraordinary imbalance between power and legitimacy.

Honestly, we are facing so many problems today, they seem to attack from every direction. We need at some point to return to our Constitutional roots. Perhaps, if we did, we might solve some of the other issues as well.

The Satanic World is the World of the Left

 Following up on yesterday's post about The Satanic Temple conducting abortion rituals, Andrea Widburg at the Americcan Thinker has a post entitled Cosmopolitian magazine wants its readers to admire satanic ritual abortions.

As Cosmopolitan’s CEO, Helen Gurley Brown took the magazine from being a high-end literary magazine and turned it into the ultimate guide for single women in the swinging '60s. Now, under the aegis of Jessica Giles, Cosmopolitan is promoting satanic abortions as a way to undo “the religious right’s grip on abortion laws.” It’s stories such as these that make me wonder whether the 2024 election even matters, given that I honestly don’t see how a culture can walk back from this abyss.

...snip...

The problem for a publication like Cosmo is to stay cutting-edge in a world where your competitors keep diving deeper into the muck with you. One way to stand out would be to be classier than the next publication. That, however, is not the path that Jessica Giles, the current editor-in-chief, has chosen for Cosmo. Instead, Giles, a veteran of The New Yorker, Vogue, Glamour, Marie Claire and Teen Vogue, has opted for the ultimate debasement. Cosmo is encouraging its readers to view with admiration satanic ritual abortions:

The women’s magazine details the specifics of how the “ritiual” abortion is meant to take place and writes favorably about The Satanic Temple (TST) and their New Mexico abortion clinic named after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s mother.

Cosmo writes that for The Satanic Temple, “abortion is a religious ritual—one they argue deserves legal protection even in restrictive states.” The Satanic Temple also claims that “a uterus is private property that comes with a set of ownership rights that do not extend to an uninvited fetus.”

“So how does a Satanic abortion ceremony even work?” Cosmo asked. “Patients of all faiths are welcome at Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic in New Mexico. Along with medical counsel, TST offers free ceremonial support to everyone. Abortion ceremonies are totally optional—and customizable.” Cosmo then describes an “abortion ritual” recommended by the Satan worshipers.

It doesn’t matter whether you believe in Satan to find this beyond appalling. It’s what Satan stands for that should horrify us all.

Actually, it does matter whether you believe in God and the devil or not. That is the only bone I have to pick with Widburg here. I realize our country was founded as a "secular" government to avoid all the conflict that Europe had faced over the various "official" religions. When Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's, I don't think he had in mind a Christian theocratic government. First, you must believe, or at least pay lip service to believing.  But God wants a true relationship, not lip service.  An "official" religion tempts people to do things that are against God's will. By laying no religious tests on people running the government, the framers allowed individual conscience to be the guide. But our laws are based on Mosaic laws, or at least, they were.

True belief does matter, nonetheless. For if you believe, you will want to uphold the dignity of not only yourself, but everyone else. You will want, insofar as possible, to obey the Mosaic laws as Christ commanded. For the Left, there is no forgiveness, but if you are Christian, forgiveness is a precept to which you will adhere. For our salvation is the very reason Christ came to earth and died on a cross. None of this is possible without believing in God, and of course, in the devil.

No matter how leftists try to dress up “Satan,” the fact is that Satan is understood to be the antithesis of God. Whether you believe in God, the Judeo-Christian God stands for two important things: Noahide and Mosaic morals and a reverence for the value of human life that has morphed into our American concept of individual liberty.

Understood this way, those who embrace Satanism, whether they believe in Satan or God, are explicitly siding with a world that rejects the principles that are the bedrock of Western culture. It was not a pretty world.

Gentle readers can read Widburg's summary of what pagan life was like. In short, life was a war of every man for himself, and was nasty, brutish and short. This is the Satanic world, the world of the Left.

The Satanic Temple Conducts Ritual Abortions

 Sarah Arnold, at Townhall.com has a post entitled Liberal Magazine Endorses 'Satanic Ritual' Abortion Provided by the Satanic Temple. The magazine in question is Cosmopolitan. Arnold points out that most members of the Satanic Temple don't really believe that Satan exists. But that ignorance actually makes what they are doing worse. For that implies that these people don't believe in God either. Therefore they are doing it to mock Christians, but who they are actually mocking is the Lord of Creation, who blesses each woman who finds herself pregnant. God cries each time an abortion occurs, and Satan laughs.

Cosmopolitan magazine published one of the most horrifying, evil things I have seen as part of the Leftist movement to push abortion on society.

This week, Cosmo printed an article praising satanic abortion rituals that writes favorably about The Satanic Temple (TST) and their New Mexico abortion clinic named after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's mother.

An ABC affiliate in South Carolina refers to the clinic as "a telehealth abortion clinic that mocks a Catholic judge who serves on the U.S. Supreme Court."

According to the magazine, the Satanic Temple views abortion as a "religious ritual—one they argue deserves legal protection even in restrictive states." It also claims that "a uterus is a private property that comes with a set of ownership rights that do not extend to an uninvited fetus."

The ancient Canaanites (those would be the ancestors of the Hamas terrorists who butchered 1,400 Jewish men, women and children) sacrificed their first-born children to the demon Molock, in the belief that the demon would provide fertility to their crops and flocks. Note that Satan's motive is to kill as many people as possible.  It was because people were killing their own children that God ordered the Israelites to literally wipe out certain cities in Canaan, so offended was He.  Remember that God's first command was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

While people no longer throw their babies alive into the fires of Molock's belly, there is really no difference. For the reason people kill their babies in the womb is for the personal convenience of the mother so that she can make more money. It is the same motive as the ancients had. Now, she may not believe in Satan, but you better believe he believes in her. The evil of the thing is beyond imagination.

The magazine notes how the "ritual" aims to make women feel "empowered" when killing their unborn baby— something a decent human being should feel immediate sorrow and remorse for.

Indeed