by Al Benson Jr.
Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.
I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded. And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.
An article in The Dallas Morning News by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.
I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.
I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Friday, June 10, 2016
Southern Baptist Convention To Vote Next Week On Resolution To Condemn Confederate Battle Flag
by Al Benson Jr.
That was the headline on the article that a friend sent me just this morning (June 10th). The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest denomination in the country, right behind the Roman Catholics.
My friend, who is Baptist, is urging all those that are Southern Baptists to contact their ministers and tell them to oppose this resolution. My friend stated that this resolution is: "straight from the NAACP handbook." I don't doubt him for a minute. He has had past experience dealing with the NAACP and realizes that trying to talk reasonably with them is an exercise in futility. They have a cultural Marxist agenda and being reasonable with those whose culture they are trying to destroy is not part of that agenda.
This resolution to have the Southern Baptists condemn the Confederate battle flag has been couched in terminology that is supposed to promote "inclusiveness and healing." Anyone who has read any of these "resolutions" before knows what a farce that is and that racial healing is the absolute last thing all of this promotes--and it was never intended to. That's basically cultural Marxist language for the church to cave in and give into the desires of a small minority of dedicated leftists. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and with what the church is supposed to be doing.
This sort of thing has been done before in other smaller denominations where leftist radicals try to get churches to condemn a part of their heritage and to completely omit the use of words like "Confederation" because they are deemed too "hurtful" to offended parties. Once the flags or offending terms are done away with the "offended" parties move on to other churches to promote the same cultural Marxist shell game somewhere else. Sadly, most Christians never seem to get it!
So I pray that our Baptist brethren will make a point of contacting their ministers now and tell them to oppose this--as the meeting where this is to be done will be held on June 14-15. Let's hope that enough people will do this that it will make a difference.
That was the headline on the article that a friend sent me just this morning (June 10th). The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest denomination in the country, right behind the Roman Catholics.
My friend, who is Baptist, is urging all those that are Southern Baptists to contact their ministers and tell them to oppose this resolution. My friend stated that this resolution is: "straight from the NAACP handbook." I don't doubt him for a minute. He has had past experience dealing with the NAACP and realizes that trying to talk reasonably with them is an exercise in futility. They have a cultural Marxist agenda and being reasonable with those whose culture they are trying to destroy is not part of that agenda.
This resolution to have the Southern Baptists condemn the Confederate battle flag has been couched in terminology that is supposed to promote "inclusiveness and healing." Anyone who has read any of these "resolutions" before knows what a farce that is and that racial healing is the absolute last thing all of this promotes--and it was never intended to. That's basically cultural Marxist language for the church to cave in and give into the desires of a small minority of dedicated leftists. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and with what the church is supposed to be doing.
This sort of thing has been done before in other smaller denominations where leftist radicals try to get churches to condemn a part of their heritage and to completely omit the use of words like "Confederation" because they are deemed too "hurtful" to offended parties. Once the flags or offending terms are done away with the "offended" parties move on to other churches to promote the same cultural Marxist shell game somewhere else. Sadly, most Christians never seem to get it!
So I pray that our Baptist brethren will make a point of contacting their ministers now and tell them to oppose this--as the meeting where this is to be done will be held on June 14-15. Let's hope that enough people will do this that it will make a difference.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
When It Comes To Global Warming We Don't Need No Stinkin' First Amendment
by Al Benson Jr.
I expect there may be a "climate change" advocate or two that will not like what I have to say here. In my honest opinion the entire "global warming" scenario is fraudulent. Thank heavens I don't live in California after having just said that--i might be liable to imprisonment for that statement. I have dared to question the theology of the global warming faith. Oh horrors! While I am far from an expert on the subject, I have read enough over the past few years from reputable scientists that have the same doubts that I have about the theology of global warming. To paraphrase--There is one god, the state, and the global warming scientists are his prophets.
What makes me have even graver doubts is that this is not a subject open to debate by its adherents. They are almost unanimous in their desire to stifle all dissent and when I see someone trying to silence all debate on any given subject my first inclination is to doubt their position because, if they were honest, they would not fear healthy debate. The fact that the climate change crowd wants to silence any and all dissent from their dogmatic views leads me to believe that their position will not stand up to any real scrutiny and that is the reason they seek to silence their opposition. The adherents of global warming (climate change) want no voices out there on this subject but theirs, which fact, by itself, shows that their position is not legitimate.
And in the state of California they are taking legislative steps to insure that no position but theirs is heard--even to the violation of the First Amendment. But then, as long as they get to promote their agenda, who cares is someone else's First Amendment rights to publicly and openly disagree are abrogated?
According to an article on http://www.patdollard.com "The first-of-its-kind legislation--Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016--is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May. The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the states Unfair Competition Law...While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a 'totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead'."
So, in California, if you support any group in favor of using all forms of energy, including oil, or even if you have written a letter to the editor of your local paper favoring drilling for oil, you may well have broken this potential new law and the CCP (Climate Change Patrol) will be out to nail your hide to the wall. That would violate your First Amendment rights, you say? Do you honestly think that the people that run Washington (the ones behind your elected officials--the "shadow government" really give a rip about your rights? Disabuse yourself of that fantasy right now. We are currently living in Soviet Amerika where your "rights" are what the feds say they are, until they change their minds, which could happen momentarily. So what is okay today could land you in the slammer tomorrow. If they pull this off in California you can bet the farm it will be tried in other places too.
Never forget, we now have a president whose avowed (although he's not real "transparent" about it) agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. If he can manage to gut that, or even if he can't and Hillary has to finish the job when she ascends the royal throne, how will you protect any rights you have? Lose the right to defend yourselves and your families and all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights become little more than words on a piece of old parchment and you can light your cigar with the Bill of Rights, (if you are even allowed to smoke anymore) because, after all cigar smoke might contribute to global warming.
People had better start turning off those reality shows and start keeping an eye on what their state legislators are doing because, and let's don't kid ourselves here, lots of our legislators would sell out our rights in a New York minute for a mess of socialist pottage. So wake up and learn to be vigilant. The liberties you preserve may be your childrens'.
I expect there may be a "climate change" advocate or two that will not like what I have to say here. In my honest opinion the entire "global warming" scenario is fraudulent. Thank heavens I don't live in California after having just said that--i might be liable to imprisonment for that statement. I have dared to question the theology of the global warming faith. Oh horrors! While I am far from an expert on the subject, I have read enough over the past few years from reputable scientists that have the same doubts that I have about the theology of global warming. To paraphrase--There is one god, the state, and the global warming scientists are his prophets.
What makes me have even graver doubts is that this is not a subject open to debate by its adherents. They are almost unanimous in their desire to stifle all dissent and when I see someone trying to silence all debate on any given subject my first inclination is to doubt their position because, if they were honest, they would not fear healthy debate. The fact that the climate change crowd wants to silence any and all dissent from their dogmatic views leads me to believe that their position will not stand up to any real scrutiny and that is the reason they seek to silence their opposition. The adherents of global warming (climate change) want no voices out there on this subject but theirs, which fact, by itself, shows that their position is not legitimate.
And in the state of California they are taking legislative steps to insure that no position but theirs is heard--even to the violation of the First Amendment. But then, as long as they get to promote their agenda, who cares is someone else's First Amendment rights to publicly and openly disagree are abrogated?
According to an article on http://www.patdollard.com "The first-of-its-kind legislation--Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016--is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May. The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the states Unfair Competition Law...While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a 'totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead'."
So, in California, if you support any group in favor of using all forms of energy, including oil, or even if you have written a letter to the editor of your local paper favoring drilling for oil, you may well have broken this potential new law and the CCP (Climate Change Patrol) will be out to nail your hide to the wall. That would violate your First Amendment rights, you say? Do you honestly think that the people that run Washington (the ones behind your elected officials--the "shadow government" really give a rip about your rights? Disabuse yourself of that fantasy right now. We are currently living in Soviet Amerika where your "rights" are what the feds say they are, until they change their minds, which could happen momentarily. So what is okay today could land you in the slammer tomorrow. If they pull this off in California you can bet the farm it will be tried in other places too.
Never forget, we now have a president whose avowed (although he's not real "transparent" about it) agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. If he can manage to gut that, or even if he can't and Hillary has to finish the job when she ascends the royal throne, how will you protect any rights you have? Lose the right to defend yourselves and your families and all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights become little more than words on a piece of old parchment and you can light your cigar with the Bill of Rights, (if you are even allowed to smoke anymore) because, after all cigar smoke might contribute to global warming.
People had better start turning off those reality shows and start keeping an eye on what their state legislators are doing because, and let's don't kid ourselves here, lots of our legislators would sell out our rights in a New York minute for a mess of socialist pottage. So wake up and learn to be vigilant. The liberties you preserve may be your childrens'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)