Civil discourse is a Montana value - Chuck Tooley, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

 Did we just experience a bait-and-switch? The author lures us in with the promise of a discussion about civil discourse, but immediately morphs into a commercial for The Burton K. Wheeler Center. 

We spent some time on their website and found it to be curiously non-specific about its agenda. Like the article below, great effort is expended there to make the Center seem to be above the fray, reasonable, measured, fair, and unbiased. 

This sets off alarms for us. Especially since the debates of society are not just simple disagreements, they are active hostilities. The Left in particular is actively toxic in its tactics against the Right, tactics that are almost exclusively comprised of name-calling and character assassination. For the Left, the Right is not simply wrong or mistaken, it is evil and not fit to exist. 

It is not possible to come together and have friendly discussions with such people.

This is not to say that the Right doesn't have its bad actors. It certainly does. But one would be hard-pressed to find any Leftist who has the ability to make a thoughtful case for their beliefs absent of any reference to some sort of caricature of the Right. 

The author uses the word "we" nearly a dozen times in the context of "you and I together." He thinks that all we need to do is sit down and talk. We're all a part of one big family. Let's just have a beer. We can certainly work it out together, Right?

The language and tactics of the national Left is coming to Montana. In fact, it's already here. We can't be sure, but the author feels this undercurrent and thinks the Center is the answer. That would make him naïve, for the Left isn't interested in discussion or compromise. It intends the total annihilate its opponents.

Discussion with such people is not possible.

-----------------------

Rescuing Faith from Capitalism: A Theological Response to Project 2025 - by Mike Rivage-Seul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

This tarot card-reading "theologian" wants to tell us what the authentic Christian faith is. Really. Amazingly, while proclaiming another Jesus, he is somehow able to simultaneously determine when someone is being heretical. His theology is identical to the Left's political agenda, and his presentation is brain-dead bumper sticker Leftist slogans.

As is typical for Leftists, the author does not write to inform or explain, he writes to serve The Agenda, which is the overthrow of the system. It has nothing to do with any form of Christianity, because it is a political agenda, not a faith agenda.

Thus, as far as there being a "theological response," there isn't one.

-----------------------

Medicaid makes good health possible - Kaiser Permanente

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

It's no surprise that an "about us" page is completely self-serving. But it's more than telling people who they are. We suspect that Kaiser Permanente has a substantial financial stake in providing Medicaid coverage, and they're worried that Trump is going to fix the program, which for them represents the loss of a substantial revenue stream.

Self serving is an apt description, because they also trumpet their DEI program, going so far as to count up the number of diverse employees by category.

Astounding.

Kaiser Permanente isn't about providing care or helping people. They are about revenue, nothing more.

-----------------------

If you are okay with having Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students sit through a Christian prayer... Faceborg meme

A meme posted on Faceborg:

Transcript: If you are okay with having Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students sit through a Christian prayer in a public school, and not okay with having Christian students sit through a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu prayer, then it's not religious freedom - it's religious oppression.

How does one deal with the multiple levels of idiocy contained here? The person who wrote this, and those who posted it, obviously thought it to be a devastating argument.

The Ten Non-Commandments - Faceborg meme

Found on Faceborg:



Morality really bothers atheists and God-haters. They will do everything they can to avoid moral imperatives. Further, they are entirely convinced of their intellectual superiority but are unable to see past their own colossal irony. They bristle at the idea of absolute truth and having morality imposed upon them yet write their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.

Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these these folks offer us (non) commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there can be no imperative. However, each of these "non-commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally.

And of course, each statement is a commandment, not a non-commandment. They must have forgotten their premise.

So let's take the above statements one by one.

If you cut off my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours? - Bumper sticker logic

Seen recently on a new Land Rover:

The owner of this vehicle doesn't seem to realize how obviously dumb this is. 

The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way. - by Adam Grant, NY Times

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

This is what the "newspaper of record" has been reduced to, a parody of a news organization. We are living in times where satire is indistinguishable from journalism.

Here is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR who thinks that democracy would be best served by eliminating voting. This not only speaks to the state of journalism, but also the educational system.

--------------------

Letter to the editor: Senate Bill 99 symbolizes Republican hypocrisy - by Ruth Kopec

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The letter writer thinks she has Republicans nailed. They oppose funding for genital mutilation but want parents to have control over their children's education. This constitutes hypocrisy in the eyes of the letter writer. How this is arrived at is a mystery.

----------------

Letter to the editor: Why not make it easier for Montanans to vote? - by Tom Stonecipher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The letter writer doesn't want common-sense voter ID laws. He thinks that because there isn't a present problem, there never will be. But somehow he still wants every qualified Montanan to vote, which necessarily admits there are people who are not qualified to vote. This means he favors some people not being able to vote. 

Therefore, he actually agrees with his political adversaries in principle. It's merely a matter of degree.

So we wonder what the big problem is in ensuring only legally able citizens cast a vote, since he otherwise supports the concept. He pretends (without evidence) that anti-fraud legislation will disenfranchise certain groups, but that is just a red herring. People who are motivated to vote will ensure their eligibility to vote, and people who can't be pried from their couches will not vote. 

There's not a thing wrong with that.

He can't come out and say what he really wants, because it's extremely unpopular: He wants anyone to vote. No standards. No voter rolls. No residency requirements. No legal status ascertained.

--------------------

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned

A "pastor" posted this on his faceborg feed:

***

Transcript:

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned:

1. That his vision for a transformed society, got twisted into an afterlife fantasy about heaven.

2. That a religion was formed to worship his name, instead of a movement to advance his message.

3. That the gospel says his death solved the problem of humankind's separation from God, instead of accepting thot his life revealed the truth that there is no separation from God.

4. That the religion bearing his name was conceived by the theories and doctrines of Paul, instead of the truth Jesus lived and demonstrated.

5, That he was said to exclusively be God in the flesh, putting his example out of reach, rather than teaching that we all share in the same spirit that empowered his character and life.

6. That the religion that claims his name, teaches that his wisdom and teachings a re the only legitimate way to know truth and God.

7. The idea that humankind stands condemned before God and deserving of Divine wrath and eternal conscious judgement, requiring the death of Jesus to fix it.

8. That people are waiting on Jesus to return to save the world and end suffering, rather than taking responsibility for saving the world and solving suffering ourselves.

9. That people think there is magical potency in uttering the name of Jesus, rather than accessing our own natural powers and capabilities to effect change.

10. That people have come to associate Jesus with church, theology, po litics and power, rather than courage, justice, humanity, beauty and love.

The first thing we want to note about this typically Leftist version of Jesus and Christianity is the raw audacity required to put one's own political and social opinions in Jesus' mouth, while simultaneously contradicting the biblical record on what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. 

Yes, we have an actual reference for what Jesus said, although most leftists would not accept it as valid: The Bible. But while the Bible is an indisputably trustworthy source of things Jesus said, it's also clearly superior to the references cited by the author, which are, well, nothing. He just makes it all up, spouting leftist agitprop.

As we noted, this is a typical leftist version of Jesus and Christianity, where Jesus becomes an excuse for leftist political philosophy and social action that perfectly aligns with Marxism.

Dear fundamentalists of all religions... John Fugelsang

Found on FB. 

You can be sure that when the Left discusses Christianity they will not even come close. John Fugelsang thinks he's being clever, but this is just dumb. 





Aside from the obvious error of speaking for God, Mr. Fugelsang simply makes up the idea that everything God created He likes, no matter what subsequently happens with that creation or what it does. 

Let's substitute some other things and see just how dumb this is.

"If I didn't like pedophiles I wouldn't have created them in every civilization in history."

"If I didn't like men I wouldn't have created them in every civilization in history."

"If I didn't like earthquakes I wouldn't have created them in every civilization in history."

Parental Rights and Public Education Shouldn't Mix - By Patrick Mattimore

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author makes an exceedingly weak case for excluding parents from the educational process.

---------------

Why the GOP Beats the Pants off the Democrats - By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

We don't have a lot to say about this article. It contains numerous characterizations against Republicans, but ironically they are all things Democrats actually do. We see this frequently. Republicans will complain about a anti-republican bias in the media, for example, and will document it. A while later, a random leftist will complain about the media being biased against Democrats. We have deemed this "Irony Alert," and have created a tag called "Mountain Man's Law."

There are several false statements as well, which we have labeled "False" or "Spectacularly False." 

Lastly, there is one surprising true claim: "The other was a mistrust of Democrats. That they were the party that shamelessly pandered to minorities on spending and social programs at the expense of tax-paying middle class and especially working-class whites." We expect that the author will soon be excoriated by his party for this moment of candor.

----------------

Fascinated by how the behavior of the people who took 3 pieces of pizza at a pizza party

 Posted by a FB friend:

Transcript: Fascinated by how the behavior of the people who took 3 pieces of pizza at a pizza party because they thought it would run out and the people who took 1 piece for the exact same reason is such a perfect encapsulation of American beliefs about community.

Apparently this person is making a statement about greedy rich people taking more than their fair share of the nation's wealth, which means others, the poor, are deprived of what they are owed. And this has something to do with community, and that community (communism?) is violated by people who take too much.

The Left seems particularly bad at constructing analogies, mostly because they build on false premises. An analogy only works when the underlying assumptions are true.

Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others - Barbara Ehrenreich - FB meme

A leftist Faceborg friend posted this:

Transcript:

"Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you. The working poor are the major philanthropists of our society."

These pronouncements require several assumptions:

What Is The Value of “Intellectual Diversity”? - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------

These 2203 words are a muddled mess of logical leaps and bare assertions. We refer the reader to several critiques we have made of Mr. Robinson's "superior" rhetorical and reasoning skills.

Mr. Robinson is an elitist, entirely convince of his intellectual and moral superiority. Thus intellectual diversity is a waste of time because all other viewpoints are inferior. He's already right, he's already determined the correct way of thinking, which makes other points of view stupid if not irrelevant.

------------------

If the Training Recommends Murder, the Training Is Clearly Wrong - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

The typically loquacious Mr. Robinson expends 2808 words in a vain attempt to establish that police are being trained to murder when they could be trained to disable. This is a false choice, and one of the elements is not even true. Police are not being trained to murder. It is not murder for a police officer to use deadly force against a person who is about to commit murder.

Mr. Robinson will be happy to show us videos of other knife-wielding suspects being successfully disarmed by police, but for some reason he does not provide us a link to the Ma’Khia Bryant incident. None of these videos he provides show a person about to stab another person to death.

In typical leftist fashion Mr. Robinson second guesses the split second decision to kill Ms. Bryant. These leftists are armchair quarterbacking a coulda-shoulda, as if these situations can be micromanaged by bureaucrats in cubicles. But there cannot be a procedure where the officer checks off each step at the scene before acting. In actual fact, highly trained police officers react on both instinct and experience, and 99% of the time they make a good decision, or in this case, the best decision in an impossible situation.

This is not to say there aren't bad officers or bad decisions. But to lump all police killings into the "murder" category is anti-intellectual. 

---------------------

Intersectionality quiz

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

This supposedly tells me how oppressive I am. It also tells me that there is little I can do to improve myself unless I agree with them, and even then I'm still an oppressor. 

In fact, the things I've been born with, like my skin color and my sex, makes me an oppressor. Just by existing. 

A high score doesn't immunize me either. In other words, I can be the perfect leftist all of my life, and one little slip from the orthodoxy dooms me to a life of ostracization, marginalization, doxxing, and exclusion.

That is, I get the treatment that I supposedly perpetrate on others. And this from the Tolerant Ones.
------------------

Christian: You Are Upset About the Wrong Things - by Darrell Lackey.

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------------

Sociologist Tony Campolo has been known, when speaking to Christian audiences, to begin by saying something like this:

I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact I just said “shit” than you are that 30,000 kids died last night.

When citing this, I have had people prove his very point by responding something to the effect of, “Yeah, I get it, but I still wish he would make his point some other way…” Ummm, that is his point. His point, in my opinion, isn’t really about the children (although it is, obviously); his point is that we (Christians) get upset over the wrong things. Our moral sense of outrage is often misdirected. (That is, the author is frustrated that people don't agree with him about what we should be outraged about. In typical leftist fashion, the author will begin to describe people like this in withering terms. Leftists can't fathom people who disagree with their morality.)

This Flow Chart That Destroys Religion’s Case Against Gay Marriage Is So Easy, Any Zealot Can Use It - by Scott Bateman

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------

This is one of those biblically illiterate, self-congratulatory, sarcastic "refutations" of Christians. Frankly it's so embarrassing that I'm surprised it was published.

Before we address Scott Bateman's contentions, since he appeals to Jesus for support for gay marriage, might we ask him if he considers the Bible authoritative; and also, do the other sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible also carry weight with him? If not, what criteria does Mr. Bateman employ to make his delineation?

The first point in his flow chart is that Jesus never mentioned gay marriage. This is a "duh" comment, for the concept of gay marriage is a modern-day expression. Jesus never mentioned sustainable energy or tax the rich, and there is nary a word about Medicare or infrastructure as well. An argument from silence is not an argument.

Perhaps Mr. Bateman would have a bit more credibility here, had he restricted his comments to simple gayness instead of gay marriage. But even then he is on shaky ground, for we note that Jesus did speak about marriage. Since the author values what Jesus said, I'm sure the author will also value these words from Jesus:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Matt. 19:3–6).

Jesus was affirming the O.T., particularly Genesis 1:27: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." And Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It seems pretty clear, even to the casual observer, that Jesus affirmed the traditional expression of marriage.

Jesus also spoke of sexual matters, contrary to Mr. Bateman's position.

Mark 7:20-23: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean’. For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean’.”  

Jesus' words, not mine. The word "immorality" is used many times in the N.T., so Jesus' statements are part of a thread of understanding that is found throughout the N.T.. In each case it is used to describe various kinds of sexual impropriety, like for example in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul writes against the church for its toleration of a man who is having sex with his father's wife. In other words, Jesus put boundaries on sexual behavior. Some sex is good, other sex is bad.

Further, we also find an account of an adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus.

John 8:10-11: "Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'" 

Notice Jesus does not "condemn" her, that is, he doesn't pronounce sentence against her in punishment. But He does say, "leave your life of sin." Thus, it is not condemnation to call the sinner to repentance. Jesus has a standard, and he is not shy about imposing his morality.

So clearly Jesus isn't on the side of the gay lifestyle or Mr. Bateman. We again appeal to how much Mr. Bateman values Jesus' teachings, and assume he will either abandon his previous admiration of Jesus, or he will conform to his new-found knowledge.

It isn't hard to discover that the rest of N.T. teaching is also in harmony with Jesus, which means that Paul's writings mesh perfectly with Jesus' teaching. Thus the frequent practice of the Left to dismiss Paul or isolate Jesus is unjustifiable.

Mr. Bateman's flow chart now appeals to dietary restrictions and tattoos. However, since we do not have to rely on the O.T. for our defense, this objection is rendered moot. This is because the legal prescriptions of ancient Israel are not relevant to us, for we are not Jews. We do not sacrifice animals, for Jesus is the Lamb of God, offered for our sin as the one perfect sacrifice. We need not build a tabernacle, for the Body of Christ, that is, the Church, is the dwelling place of Deity. We do not have to stone anyone. We have no requirement to wipe out cities, or any of the other O.T. stuff. We are not Jews.

It is the moral law, timeless and enduring, which we must obey. Those O.T. moral principles were restated and affirmed by Jesus as binding upon us.

Matt. 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 

Thus in two sentences Jesus makes the whole of the moral law a requirement and simultaneously negates Mr. Bateman's arguments.