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.

The Hoax of Climate Denial - by Naomi Oreskes

This post first appeared at TomDispatch. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

This is a very long and often pedantic article, so I'm editing out sizable passages that I don't want to comment upon. Also, it's worth noting that Ms. Oreskes is a geologist. She's not a climate scientist.

Read on:
-----------------------

[...]

...compared to many of his colleagues, [John] McCain looks like a moderate. They have dismissed climate change as a fraud and a hoax, while conducting McCarthy-esque inquiries into the research of leading climate scientists. (Hmm. And how do her and her ilk treat climate change deniers? Well, they question their veracity, uniformly accuse them of collusion with Big Oil, they're liars. They will even subpoena them to testify. We note the irony that these all meet Ms. Oreskes' definition of a witch hunt.)

Many of them attack climate science because they fear it will be used as an excuse to expand the reach of government. (Ms. Oreskes leaves this to dangle without comment, I suppose because it's undeniable that government's reach has and will continue to expand as a result of climate change.)

5 Signs of a Dying Church - by SHANE IDLEMAN

A very good article.
-----------------------------------

Church is boring for most because the power of God has vanished from many congregations ... there is a lack of desire to pursue Him in the pulpit as well as in the pew. Like Samson, they "know not that the Spirit of the Lord has departed" (cf. Judge 16:20).

High attendance is not the gauge of success, faithfulness is. Granted, a healthy church should experience seasons of growth, but even cults generate large numbers of followers.

Here are 5 simple ways to gauge the health of a church as well as a believer:

1. Is prayer an after-thought or a priority? Nights of prayer and worship are often replaced with Bingo and fundraisers.Many are in a hurry to burn through a sermon, scurry through worship, and head to the nearest restaurant. This is a sure sign of a dying church. If churches are too busy to pray—we're too busy. "When faith ceases to pray, it ceases to live" (E.M. Bounds). We should never allow our relationship with God to suffer because we're too busy. "We must spend much time on our knees before God if we are to continue in the power of the Holy Spirit" (R.A. Torrey). Spiritual life and prayer go hand-in-hand. You can't have one without the other.

2. Is the church known for either emotionalism or dead formalism?Unfortunately, Christians often embrace one of two extremes when it comes to the topic of the Holy Spirit. At one extreme are those who embrace pure emotionalism and hysteria—"if it's odd it's God" is often their motto. All weird behavior is excused. The other extreme resembles a cemetery. There's no living, vibrant spiritual life taking place. The church is dead, cold, and lifeless; talk of revival is either dismissed or ridiculed. Both extremes are wrong and offer a false impression of genuine Christianity ... both are characteristics of a dying church.

3. Is sin excused and holiness minimized? In short, has the fear of the Lord vanished? Some time ago, a pastor of a large church in my area made an unforgettable statement, "We should avoid mentioning the fear of the Lord. It makes people feel uncomfortable." Just writing that sentence makes me feel uncomfortable. The fear of the Lord is mentioned frequently throughout the Bible as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. "The LORD takes pleasure in those who fear Him..." (Psalm 147:11).

Fear can also motivate a person to repent. Jesus said, "Do not fearthose who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fearHim who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Jesus spoke more on the fear of hell than on the glory of heaven. "That makes me both love Him and fear Him! I love Him because He is my Savior, and I fear Him because He is my Judge" (A.W. Tozer).

The present condition of the church (and America) leads one to wonder if this lack of fearing the Lord is contributing to her spiritually dead condition: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth..." (Revelation 3:15-17).

4. Is love a concept or a reality? True love is a "choice" and a commitment that we make to do good to others; it is not a "feeling."If love is the greatest commandment, it should be our first priority. Love hopes for and believes the best in others. It is demonstrated through our actions and our words. The Bible is clear: If you have not love, it profits you nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:3). You can be well read in all sixty-six books of the Bible, preach as well as Whitefield, Moody, and Spurgeon, and have a Ph.D. in theology, but if you don't have love, you have nothing.

5. Are difficult truths neglected, watered-down, or avoided in the hope of "not offending"? Ironically, churches that are "all about love" forget the other side of the coin: judgment is never mentioned; repentance is never sought; and sin is often excused. They want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict. This leaves people confused and deceived because they believe in a cross-less Christianity that bears no resemblance to Jesus' sobering call to repentance. Christianity only makes sense in light of the consequences of sin. The good news about Christ can only be appreciated with the bad news as the backdrop. There are times when the saints must be fed, and there are times when the sinners must be warned (C.H. Spurgeon).

Pastors (including me) must find the balance—preach the difficult truths as well as the joyful ones; preach the cross and the new life; preach hell and preach heaven; preach damnation and preach salvation; preach sin and preach grace; preach wrath and preach love; preach judgment and preach mercy; preach obedience and preach forgiveness; preach that God "is love," but don't forget that God is just. Ironically, it's the love of God that compels us to share all of His truth, including those things that are hard to hear.

Although disheartening, this trend away from God's Word (absolute truth) is not surprising. The apostle Paul warned centuries ago: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine [God's Word], but according to their own desires ... they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). If this isn't exactly what we see today, I don't know what is.

TONGUES OF PENTECOST? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Finnell wanders into unfamiliar rhetorical territory, with a "have you ever noticed" comment. We doubt he has ever noticed, because we doubt he's ever been to a charismatic church. He'd rather lob rhetorical bombs from a distance than obtain a first-hand witness. 

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

HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT CONTEMPORARY TONGUE SPEAKERS NEVER CLAIM TO SPEAK IN TONGUES LIKE PETER AND THE ELEVEN APOSTLES SPOKE ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST? (Two things. One, what tongues speakers claim or do not claim is clearly something unfamiliar to Mr. Finnell. Many tongues speakers have actually spoke in other, known languages. 

Two, Mr. Finnell artificially restricts the expression of tongues to what happened on the day of Pentecost. He gives no reason for this, since tongues were widespread in the early church.

And three, what does or does not happen in contemporary churches has nothing to do with the biblical case for tongues. Mr. Finnell, and all cessationists, must demonstrate from the Bible that the charismatic gifts have ceased. We have yet to read a persuasive biblically-derived argument from any cessationist advocating for their position.)

10 Solutions to Fight Economic Inequality - by Jared Bernstein, Melissa Boteach, Rebecca Vallas, Olivia Golden, Kali Grant, Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Erica Williams, Valerie Wilson

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

It is interesting indeed when Leftists start talking economics. You will note that there is precious little in these lists that has anything to do with the market. In fact, nearly every proposal has to do with a government action. It is ironic in that government action is largely the cause of economic inequality. Yet it is a requirement to be Leftist to believe that every problem be solved by government.

Also of note is the idea that economic inequality is a something that needs to be addressed in some fashion. In other words, these folks apparently want ditch diggers and brain surgeons to make the same amount of money. Maybe that is an extreme example, but we must realize that when we start down the road of making peoples' economic situation more "equal," we have no logical reason to stop at any point on the continuum. 

I suppose that leftists will call that a slippery slope argument, but sometimes the slope is actually slippery. And we certainly know that the Left, being "progressive," always presses on. "Inequality" will persist, and thus every day it needs to be solved once again. That is the nature of progressives.

One other thing. These folks are described as experts. But none of them, other than Valerie Wilson, have any training or experience in private sector economics. They are nothing more than activists. I have noted their education in each section.

Read on:
---------------------------------

Why Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers Not Illegal? - By Meaghan Winter

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

(Typical hyperbolic rhetoric for the Left, in that the author's concerns and complaints are strangely reminiscent of what abortion clinics regularly are doing. It is a feature of the unhealthy mind to project on others exactly you do yourself. 

It's also a handy diversion to accuse others of what you yourself are doing. Manufactured outrage over pro-life clinics is designed to create an emotional response, which again is a frequent leftist technique. 

In the below article, we will find these techniques used multiple times, while at the same time there will be a lack of actual evidence of atrocities in pro-life clinics.

Read on:
-------------------------
Last month the California State Assembly passed the Reproductive FACT Act, a bill that would require so-called crisis pregnancy centers (As compared to so-called "family planning clinics?")

to inform their clients that California “provides free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.”

Sounds simple enough, but such disclosures are anathema to crisis pregnancy centers, (Ironic considering the rejection of ultrasounds, disclosures regarding fetal development, etc. The pro-choice crowd flatly rejects any initiative that would even hint at dissuading a women from obtaining an abortion.)

or CPCs, which often use misleading advertisements—sometimes even posing as abortion providers—and regularly dispense inaccurate information in order to dissuade women from accessing contraception and abortion, as NARAL Pro-Choice America has documented. A 2006 congressional report found that federally funded CPCs informed patients seeking abortions that the procedure “could increase the risk of breast cancer, (Hardly "inaccurate," since the science on this remains uncertain. There is a recent study that does establish a correlation, however. So it is disingenuous to claim that increased risk of breast cancer is "inaccurate.")

result in sterility, (Which is a low, but real risk)

and lead to suicide and ‘post-abortion stress disorder.’” (Again, the risk is low, but real.)

EVERY RIGHT-WING ‘CHRISTIAN’ SHOULD READ THIS 2009 OP-ED BY PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------

The writer lionizes Jimmy Carter for giving up his principles and abandoning his long-held faith. This is heroic, apparently. However, when someone like Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) abandoned baby-killing and became a Christian, well, there was no parade for her. The Left didn't applaud her principled decision. 

I wonder why? Was it because the Left is all about the agenda? Of course. The Left will accept any technique, employ any rhetoric, and denigrate any person for the sake of the agenda. The ends always justify the means.

And we need to wonder why the author needs to recommend his version of Christian doctrine. Is he trying to "improve" the faith? Does he have some helpful suggestions? 

No, he's wanting Christians to read it because Christians need to change. In the face of less-than persuasive rhetoric from former President Carter, which the author thinks is devastating to the historic Christian perspective, Christians apparently should be so ashamed that they change for the sake of getting back in Carter's good graces.

Read on:
------------------------------

Former President Jimmy Carter has taken a stand for equality in a big way — by giving up his church. In a 2009 op-ed titled Losing my religion for equality published in The Age, Carter explained his “painful and difficult” decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention after his six decade-long association with the religious group.

“I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years,” Carter wrote. “My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

“So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult,” Carter wrote. He says that it was unavoidable, given the faith’s views on women: (Views which the SBC stubbornly won't change to suit Carter or contemporary secular culture.)

It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam (The SBC was "Claiming?" Ge. 2:21: 

"So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh." 

Now, it's up to you to decide whether or not you believe this passage, but there is no "claiming" involved. It is a real, unadorned, word for word quote from the Bible.)

and was responsible for original sin, (I spent a considerable amount of time trying to locate such a statement on the part of the SBC. I could find no such reference, although there are some others out there who do make the claim.)

Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite movement Republicans' demographic challenges have been well documented - by CONOR LYNCH

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------

The author fails in his analysis, because first he either doesn't understand or is unable to correctly present libertarianism; and second because he filters his analysis through his leftist world view. As such, he is unable to engage in a nuanced understanding of the issue, or, he prefers to misrepresent it in order to further his agenda. 

Read on:
---------------------

Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? ("Overwhelmingly?" As we will find out, there are plenty of libertarian women and minorities. No where enough, of course, but this is to be expected regarding a less well known political world view. And given the constant misrepresentation of libertarian perspective in the leftist media, it's no wonder. If they're not misrepresenting it, they're ignoring it. 

And the Libertarian Party itself was only formed in 1971. Thus it is not surprising at all that people are only now discovering what libertarianism really is. As a result, the numbers are growing, especially among those who are dissatisfied with the wishy-washy Republicans.

Pew took a poll, which the author later misuses. This poll reveals that about 11% self-identify as Libertarians and can accurately tell what Libertarians believe. Pew also supplies us with this helpful chart, which must be terribly alarming for the author:

Notice it is young, highly educated people who are gravitating to the Libertarian perspective. And there are a lot of Hispanics, which also violates the author's assertions. And lastly, notice about 6% of Democrats identify as libertarian.

Pesky facts like these are always the downfall of the Left. They happily spout their regurgitated talking points ad nauseum without regard for any real facts. Remember this as you read the rest of the article.)

The Hatreds of the Left - By John C. Wright

Found here. An excellent article.

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

A boorish reader takes me to task for speaking the plain truth bluntly. He greatly surprised me by backing away from his boorishness for a moment, and, to return his courtesy, I owe him an answer to his question.

This is the statement he doubted, saying this had nothing to do with Marxism, and saying that Leftism was a term I had not defined.

"They [the Left] hate money making. Hatred of being productive is the core of their thinking, next to hatred of truth, beauty, life, love, unborn babies, and Christ."

Hatred is the emotion that accompanies a desire to abominate and destroy the object of hatred. Hence, without being a mind reader, the hatreds of the Left can be rightfully deduced by their acts and their rhetoric. They do not hide what they believe.

1. They hate making money.

While there are heterodox Leftists, the core of Leftism orthodoxy is the mistrust of something called Capitalism, which is a deceptive mischaracterization of the free market.

In the free market, free and equal men exchange goods and services through indirect barter to their mutual benefit.

In capitalism, a coherent class called Capitalists manipulates the power of the market and the state to deceive the proletarian class into a situation of exploitation: per Marx, the value of a good is based solely on the labor expended on making it, and this is equal to the contribution of the laborer.

If you don't like the interaction you're having with police, just try obeying the law

If Sheriff Mike Lewis really said this, he's quite possibly an idiot.

False assumptions:

1) Police only have interactions involving criminals
2) Obeying the law means you'll never have an interaction with the police
3) The police always do the right thing in every situation
4) If things are not going well in your interaction with police, it's your fault

A Case for Cessationism - by Tom Pennington

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

This is a long and almost scriptureless presentation.

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

Strange Fire Conference

(...)

Well it is my joy, this morning, to look at a biblical case (Italics emphasis added throughout. In vain we will wait for Mr. Pennington to make good on his promise.) 

for cessationism. 

(...)

So what is it that cessationists believe the Spirit has ceased. Let’s be very clear. We only believe He has ceased one function and that is He no longer gives believers today the miraculous spiritual gifts, gifts like speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing. (After a long introduction, Mr. Pennington finally provides his thesis. Let's see if he will establish his case. From Scripture.

And we note that all spiritual gifts are miraculous.)

ORIGINAL SIN PROOF-TEXT - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here.
--------------------------------------

The author once again is completely reluctant to enter into discussion, preferring to either ignore those who comment on his site, or to create entirely new posts which simply restate his original opinion. He never responds directly to anyone.

In addition, I note there is an alarming paucity of "redeeming" topics on his site. You will find many posts about water baptism, original sin, cessationism, and other nit-picky doctrinal issues, but precious little about leading a Christian life, worship, or prayer, for example. 

So this latest post is simply a rehash of his objections to original sin, complete with the same misunderstandings, unsupported assertions, and misinterpretations. Read on:

--------------------------------------
To prove that all men are guilty of sin at conception and therefore born as sinners; original sin proponents quote David in Psalm 51:5. (Which is not the only verse available to quote.)

David Quote: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (NKJV)

Was David born into a sinful world? Yes. Was David's mother guilty of sin? Yes. Was David guilty of his mother's sin. No. Was David spiritually condemned because of the sin of Adam and Eve? No. David died physically because of Adam's sin. Men die spiritually because of sins they themselves commit. (This is typical rhetoric from the author. He begins by subtly twisting the position of those he disagrees with, then comes a summary denial with no proof or evidence offered. 

His error is his view of sin. He defines it as "bad things people do" as opposed to the biblical teaching that sin is the state of fallen man. He further errs by his supposition that God is incapable of causing bad things. But we read in Ps. 119:75" "I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me." God causes calamity, he hardened Pharaoh's heart, and He "causes men to stumble..." Is. 8:14. God is so much more than the binary creature envisioned by the author.)

DOES GOD CREATE SINNERS IN THE WOMB? (The author proceeds to conflate "create" with "born.")

An Alternative Vision of Church

A brainstorm essay of systemic changes needed in churches.

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

Current conditions

Imagine you are a Martian visiting the earth, and you decide to attend a church service. What will you find? Typically, you would find a church organized around a large weekly meeting with a full-time paid pastor. Generally, this pastor functions as a sort of CEO. In addition, often there is a selected group of sub-leaders, commonly called elders or perhaps deacons. Depending on the church, there may also be a paid support staff.

The pastor presides over nearly every meeting, particularly Sunday services. Generally, the pastor is usually a credentialed clergy, a gifted speaker and/or a strong, charismatic personality that attracts attendees and financial support.

Typically, the children and/or youth are separated into a service of their own so the adults can be relieved of distraction, a musical group performs some songs (which may or may not require the participation of the attendees), one or two prayers are said, probably by the pastor, and an offering is taken. The pastor then delivers a message in a lecture format, offering his insights into the meaning of biblical passages and/or cultural issues while the attendees take notes.

The service concludes with more music, a perfunctory prayer, and announcements regarding special events or activities. The people are then dismissed. This happens pretty much every Sunday, perhaps in different order, but generally following the same pattern.

As a Martian seeing this for the first time, you probably wonder why church is this way. There might be something that attracts you, but in the final analysis you don’t find much reason to be there.

Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion - by Michael Stone

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues states may establish an official state religion, and sees no problem with an individual state making Christianity the official state religion.

Thomas believes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states. The Establishment Clause is that part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The Establishment Clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, or none. (Well, no. Here's the text: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Do you see the phrase "unduly favor?" Do you see any hint that Congress is allowed in any way address religion, or to pass ANY law regarding religion? Neither do I.

But this is the Leftist template, that nothing religious [or actually, nothing Christian] is allowed to happen in government. Despite the depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. Despite "In God we trust" being engraved in the House chamber. And the many other Christian references found all around the capitol area.)  

How to end boom and bust: make cash illegal - By Jim Leaviss

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

(This approving article, containing not a single detraction or critical statement, fully embraces the idea of more government economic involvement.

Lest you think that this is Denmark and therefore irrelevant, may I remind you of how the Left values the European ways of doing things? They are always comparing us to Germany's health plan or the Belgium's infant mortality rates or how many days off of work they get in France. So these ideas are soon to be floated in the US, I guarantee it.

Crucial understanding: Money is a proxy for your labor. That is, your work has value, which you exchange for your pay. So your money is a meter of sorts that represents how much of your labor you are able to exchange for cash. Then, when you buy something, you are in fact trading a valuation of your labor for those goods or services.

So what happens when government assumes the power to dictate where you spend your cash, in the form of mandates, or how much of your cash you are allowed to keep, in the form of net income after taxes? Well, what happens is the government has in essence allocated your labor to serve the interests of some other party, and not you. 

So what has happened is you are working for someone else's benefit. Your labor, and/or its cash proxy, ends up in someone else's pocket. And that, my friends, is slavery.

So now to the root of the article. The author believes that government can and should lay additional claim to your labor proxy, and render its value as zero. Because if the government can tax your cash accounts to manipulate your behavior in order to serve the aims of society, the money is no longer yours, and the value of your labor is zero.  

Read on:
------------------------------

Forbidden Data - Wyoming just criminalized citizen science - by Justin Pidot

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

"Just criminalized science." Well, actually, not. Leftists, quick to jump on the bandwagon at the slightest sniff of a buzzword or slogan, happily run with the latest in "anti-science" examples.

Below the article I have posted the relevant portions of the actual legislation. As you read the article, compare the claims the author makes with the language of the legislation. You will quickly discover that the author's characterizations bear no resemblance to the law.

Read on.

------------------------
Imagine visiting Yellowstone this summer. You wake up before dawn to take a picture of the sunrise over the mists emanating from Yellowstone hot springs. A thunderhead towers above the rising sun, and the picture turns out beautifully. You submit the photo to a contest sponsored by the National Weather Service. Under a statute signed into law by the Wyoming governor this spring, you have just committed a crime and could face up to one year in prison. (The law contains no mention of Yellowstone. Nor would it, since Yellowstone does not belong to Wyoming. But Yellowstone certainly makes for good story telling. Nor is there any reference regarding any protected area or federal government-owned land. Thus, the first paragraph is nothing more than a pretty lie.)

Wyoming doesn’t, of course, care about pictures of geysers or photo competitions. But photos are a type of data, and the new law makes it a crime to gather data about the condition of the environment across most of the state if you plan to share that data with the state or federal government. (Well, no. It doesn't. It makes trespassing illegal. You know, entering a place without permission? The law requires that you have permission to be on someone's land!) 

The reason? The state wants to conceal the fact that many of its streams are contaminated by E. coli bacteria, strains of which can cause serious health problems, even death. (Document the claim, sir. An unsupported assertion is worth nothing more than a summary dismissal.)

A small organization called Western Watersheds Project (which I represent pro bono in an unrelated lawsuit) has found the bacteria in a number of streams crossing federal land in concentrations that violate water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. Rather than engaging in an honest public debate about the cause or extent of the problem, Wyoming prefers to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. (Another unsupported assertion.) 

And under the new law, the state threatens anyone who would challenge that belief by producing information to the contrary with a term in jail. (No, the state will jail trespassers.)

Why the desire for ignorance rather than informed discussion? (The author now makes a logical leap, that the reason for the law is a preference for ignorance. This is known as a false choice. There are more than two possibilities, but the author is attempting to construct a scenario that pushes the buttons of the environmental Left. He needs the Pavlovian response of outrage, cloaked in a veneer of "scientific-ness." This is nothing more than rhetorical manipulation.)

The reason is pure politics. The source of E. coli is clear. (The author has yet to demonstrate that this is the reason for the legislation.) It comes from cows spending too much time in and next to streams. Acknowledging that fact could result in rules requiring ranchers who graze their cows on public lands to better manage their herds. The ranching community in Wyoming wields considerable political power and has no interest in such obligations, so the state is trying to stop the flow of information rather than forthrightly address the problem. (The legislation doesn't mention the environment. Or cows. Or e coli. Or pollution. Or ranches. The author has offered nothing but supposition. He doesn't know any of this.)

The Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws recognize that government officials lack the resources and sometimes the political will to address every environmental problem. Ordinary citizens therefore play an integral role in carrying out these laws. The statutes authorize citizens to bring lawsuits against polluters and recalcitrant government agencies, and citizen scientists have long played an important role in gathering information to support better regulations.

The Wyoming law transforms a good Samaritan who volunteers her time to monitor our shared environment into a criminal. (Yup, if the "Samaritan" is trespassing.) 

Idaho and Utah, as well as other states, have also enacted laws designed to conceal information that could damage their agricultural industries—laws currently being challenged in federal court. But Wyoming is the first state to enact a law so expansive that it criminalizes taking a picture on public land. (The law does not criminalize any such thing.)

The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. (No, one would have to be on the land without permission. But the issue remains open what constitutes "open land." At this point, I am reluctant to take anything the author says as true.)

The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself. (No, if you're traipsing around on someone's land without permission and poking your nose into peoples' business, you're breaking the law.)

By enacting this law, the Wyoming legislature has expressed its disdain for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment and the environmental protections enshrined in federal statutes. Today, environmentally conscious citizens face a stark choice: They can abandon efforts to protect the lands they love or face potential criminal charges. The United States government should not sit idly by. It should plainly express its disapproval of this law. Ideally, this would entail the U.S. Department of Justice filing a lawsuit to invalidate the Wyoming law, much as it did when it challenged Arizona’s state immigration law as unconstitutional. At the very least, the federal agencies that manage public lands should issue written statements providing express permission for citizen scientists to continue their efforts to protect our shared environment. (Obviously the law doesn't come to bear on federal land.)

Anyone with a passing familiarity with our Constitution (That is aptly phrased. A "passing familiarity" is about as much knowledge the typical leftist has regarding the Constitution.) 

will recognize that the Wyoming law is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of the supremacy clause (Let's quote the relevant provision of Article VI: 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

There's that one little word that voids the author's entire argument: "Pursuance." Federal laws are only supreme above the states if they are made in "pursuance" to the Constitution.) because it interferes with the purposes of federal environmental statutes by making it impossible for citizens to collect the information necessary to bring an enforcement lawsuit. The Wyoming law also violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech because it singles out speech about natural resources for burdensome regulation and makes it a crime to engage in a variety of expressive and artistic activities. And finally, it specifically criminalizes public engagement with federal and state agencies and therefore violates another right guaranteed by the First Amendment: the right to petition the government. (Whew. Quite a litany. None of it true or accurate based on the overlooking of single concept: Trespass. You just can't waltz onto someone's land without permission and start poking around. How simple is that?)

Justin Pidot is an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Follow him on Twitter.

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

And now for the bill's text:

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; creating the crimes of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawful collection of resource data; limiting use of unlawfully collected data; providing for expungement; providing definitions; and providing for an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Section 1. W.S. 6-3-414 is created to read: 6-3-414. Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data; unlawful collection of resource data. 

(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he: 

(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and (ii) Does not have: 

(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data; or (B) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter or access the land to collect the specified resource data. 

(b) A person is guilty of unlawfully collecting resource data if he enters onto private open land and collects resource data without: ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 2 

(i) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter the private land to collect the specified resource data; or (ii) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter the land to collect the specified resource data. 

(c) Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawfully collecting resource data are punishable as follows: 

(i) By imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both; (ii) By imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both, if the person has previously been convicted of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data or unlawfully collecting resource data. 

(d) As used in this section: 

(i) "Collect" means to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government; (ii) "Open land" means land outside the exterior boundaries of any incorporated city, town, subdivision ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 3 approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-308 or development approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-403; (iii) "Peace officer" means as defined by W.S. 7-2-101; (iv) "Resource data" means data relating to land or land use, including but not limited to data regarding agriculture, minerals, geology, history, cultural artifacts, archeology, air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species. "Resource data" does not include data: 

(A) For surveying to determine property boundaries or the location of survey monuments; (B) Used by a state or local governmental entity to assess property values; (C) Collected or intended to be collected by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties. 

(e) No resource data collected in violation of this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator. 

(f) Resource data collected in violation of this section in the possession of any governmental entity as defined by W.S. 1-39-103(a)(i) shall be expunged by the entity from all files and data bases, and it shall not be considered in determining any agency action. ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

Scalia and Roberts Don’t Know Best - by Jamie Raskin

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. This post first appeared at Salon. My comments in bold.

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

If you take away Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) and its repeal (the 21st), most of our constitutional amendments since the original Bill of Rights have expanded the voting rights and political equality of the people. (No, most of the amendments and the Bill of Rights have further restricted government.)

Our post-Reconstruction amendments have abolished slavery (the 13th), provided for equal protection of the laws and required reduction of states’ congressional delegations if they disenfranchise eligible voters (the 14th), denied states the power to discriminate in voting based on race (the 15th) and shifted the mode of election of US Senators from the legislatures to the people (the 17th). They have passed woman suffrage (the 19th), given residents of the federal district the right to vote and participate in presidential elections by casting electors (the 23rd), abolished poll taxes in federal elections (the 24th) and lowered the voting age to 18 (the 26th).

Moreover, many of these amendments have directly responded to Supreme Court decisions denying the political rights of the people. For example, the 19th Amendment overturned the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which held that Equal Protection did not protect the right of women to vote, affirming precedents finding that women’s proper place is in the domestic sphere. Similarly, the 24th Amendment banning poll taxes in federal elections overturned the Court’s 1937 decision in Breedlove v. Suttles upholding such taxes. (My point made. Intrusions into the liberty of Americans by government were overturned by the amendments.)

But if you listened only to some of my colleagues in the legal establishment, you might never know that our unfolding Bill of Rights ("Unfolding?" The Bill of Rights, passed in 1789, has not been changed since. It isn't "unfolding."

is a dynamic chronicle of the democratic struggles of the people for participatory political equality (No, it is part of the highest law of the land, its self described purpose is "...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Restrictive clauses upon government power.)

nor would you know that the people have often had to override reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court in the process. (It's odd to me how the Left is so interested in the courts overturning the democratic will of the people on one hand, yet here this author thinks the Supreme court is acting improperly. You see, the problem here is the excessive power that the court, and all government, wields. The Left loves government power, but sometimes it acts in a way you agree, sometimes not. Thus the Left is very happy when it goes their way and unhappy when it doesn't. The fact that government has assumed the power to act according to any political or social agenda is the issue.)

A lot of lawyers today react with horror to US Reps. Marc Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) excellent push for a constitutional amendment to establish an affirmative and universal right to vote against recurring state efforts to disenfranchise people. And a lot of academics were aghast last summer when every Democratic United States senator supported a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United, McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011). (So the author has her agenda and advocates constitutional amendments to further that agenda. But should the people actually choose to pass a state constitutional amendment (as Montana voters did with the definition of marriage), well, we can't have that, can we? Thus all her arguments in favor of amendments are supplanted by the agenda. 

She doesn't want amendments when she gets a court ruling. She doesn't want a court ruling if she can get a law passed. She doesn't want a law if she can get an protest. Any or all of these are fine if they further the objective. No holds barred for the sake of the agenda.)

The Tabernacle - sermon text

Introduction
There are three manifestations of the tabernacle.

1) a physical dwelling place constructed by the Hebrew people. It is a representation of the heavenly tabernacle. Have them make a sanctuary for me

2) Today’s tabernacle, the body of Christ, made of living stones 1Pe. 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house (tabernacle) to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

3) The heavenly tabernacle. Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

From the human perspective, a past, present, and future manifestation of His Presence.

The Tabernacle of Moses
After God delivered Israel from Pharaoh, He began leading them with the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night as they wandered the desert.

God commanded Moses to build Him a tabernacle (The Hebrew word translated “tabernacle” isohel, means “a tent, a dwelling place, a home.”). This Tabernacle would be where the Glory of God dwells. Ex. 25:8-9 “…Have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.”

It was a tent that was set up outside of the camp, (Exodus 33:7) which Moses called the tent of meeting, where he would go to inquire of God. He and God would speak face to face! Whenever Moses went there, the pillar of cloud would descend in front of the door, and the people would worship. The purpose of the tabernacle of Moses was to provide a place where the people could go to worship God.

The tent was divided into two rooms: the Holy Place, where the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense sat; and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies), where the Ark of the Covenant (Testimony) was placed. The ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

What sick socialist bastard would want to provide free healthcare for the poor? - FB meme

I am beyond astonished at how the Left will continue to repeat ad nausem the same arguments over and over again no matter how many times the truth is pointed out. It simply doesn't matter to them that the things they assert are false. The same arguments return as if yesterday hadn't happened. Today is a new day and all the arguments get a reset.

Witness the below picture. In 14 words there are at least six outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, and/or insinuations not justified by the facts.

The Defining Moment, and Hillary Rodham Clinton - Robert Reich

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich apparently lacks the ability to put two and two together. He's complaining about Obama's America. Obama's economic plan. Obama's stimuli. Obama's tax plan. Obama's compassion.

Does Dr. Reich remember who's in charge? Before someone pipes up and blames the Republicans, may I remind you that the Left always blames the president? The Bush deficits. Reagan was stupid. Big oil buddies. Corporate cronies. 

So Dr. Reich yearns for a bold Democratic voice, like Paul Wellstone or Teddy Kennedy. Doesn't Dr. Reich recall that these Leftists were in charge when all the bad stuff was being installed, nurtured, and expanded? These "heros" were rich and wanted to stay that way.

We have Obama, the perpetuator of black inequality, the Great Divider, this is the man who Dr. Reich claims is successful. ACA is successful. He likes the deficit. All under the Obama presidency.

But for Dr. Reich, it's Big Money's fault, not Obama's. Obama, who raised $715,150,163 to get re-elected, compared to Romney's $446,135,997. Hmm, maybe it is Big Money. Big money contributors like  

1 University of California $1,350,139

2 Microsoft Corp $815,645

3 Google Inc $804,249

4 US Government $736,722

5 Harvard University $680,918

And not only does Dr. Reich like Big Money Obama, he wants more of the same thing, while expecting different results. Read on:

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