Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Blue State Blues: America’s Divisions are Not Political — They’re Religious
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... sions-not-political-religious/
Published: Jun 30, 2017
Author: Joel B Pollack
Post Date: 2017-06-30 07:17:58 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 6362
Comments: 26
As we approach the Fourth of July, Americans remain deeply divided. But those divisions are not political. They are religious. On one side, there is a political party operating as a millenarian religious movement –clinging to long-discredited beliefs, obsessed with sex, afraid of science, determined to impose its bizarre views on others, and insisting that the government must control every hidden corner of private life. On the other side are the Republicans. Broadly, the Republican Party is concerned about governance. That is why, for example, repealing and replacing Obamacare is taking so long. The Republican leadership in Washington seems genuinely concerned about passing something that works. Most are also afraid of criticism from the media and a backlash from voters. But those fears relate to the challenge of governance, because they acknowledge the accountability mechanisms of our system. Democrats had few such qualms when they passed Obamacare in 2010, which was a leap of faith. The Democratic Party is often called the “party of government.” But aside from representing public sector unions, Democrats do not care about governing — at least, not anymore. To them, power is the means to achieve a kind of secular salvation: a placid world where all are equal, all needs are met, and all are validated — something like John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Many Democrats accept that the methods they use to achieve their utopia may be harsh, even violent. The ends justify the means. Thus it was fine to strip health insurance from millions of people under Obamacare — even if, according to the argument Democrats are now using to attack Republican health care proposals, that meant “killing” those people. Losing elections, and losing millions, were necessary sacrifices to bring Paradise that much closer. Another example: earlier this year, in Los Angeles, Democrat Mayor Eric Garcetti participated in an illegal protest that blocked flights from LAX. It might seem odd that a big-city mayor — whose voice plays constantly in announcements over the airport’s PA system — would want to irritate residents and annoy visitors. Yet his point was to posture with radicals on the basis of a spurious constitutional claim that was just tossed by the Supreme Court. Governance must yield to other priorities for Democrats. Things like budgets and borders are the preoccupations of the mundane, unenlightened petty-bourgeoisie. For the faithful who have had the religious experience of becoming “woke,” the real question is the kind of world they want to create, rather than the immediate problems of the human beings living in it. The two parties are not clashing: they are talking past each other, and only seem to be arguing. President Donald Trump has accused Democrats on Capitol Hill of “obstruction.” Barack Obama once had the same complaint about Republicans. But something different is happening now. Under Obama, Republicans provided an opposition. Against Trump, Democrats are mounting a “Resistance.” In extremis, that means taking up arms. For most Democrats, “resistance” means denying Trump’s legitimacy and denouncing the heresy of his supporters. This is not quite, as Dennis Prager suggests, a civil war. It is a religious schism. Democrats think Republicans are the religious nuts, because of the party’s stance on social issues. But even the Bible prescribes family values for reasons that are, at least in part, practical. “Honor your father and your mother,” the Bible says (Exodus 20:12), “in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you” (emphasis added, obviously). Republicans believe that faith and traditional values help individuals live more fulfilling lives in an orderly society. Democrats substitute the government for God — or, like Nancy Pelosi, seem to confuse the two. They have their own internal divisions, between leftists who want the state to do everything and those who simply want to tear it down along with every other institution. But both reject America’s founding idea of God-given individual liberty. The country seems to be tearing itself apart. But we can manage these divisions. American has been a religiously pluralistic society since the colonial era, thanks in part to the general separation of church and state. The way to deal with Democrats’ fanaticism is to describe it as what it is: a fundamentalist religious faith. Let them indulge their beliefs, and tolerate their mostly harmless ideals. But keep them as far away from political power as possible.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, Liberator, CZ82, TooConservative (#0)
Good article. Yes, I frequent a Christian site where the mods work full-time this time of year fighting the onslaught of cults littering their site. The Dems are much like these cults. They have a 'rockbed' dogma that no matter how much you point out is in error, you get the 'party line.' Brainwashed minions I call them and the Dems are cut from the same cultic cloth.
The Bible refers to such persons as unteachable, having itching ears. And warns us to avoid them and to never fellowship with them or even so much as wish them Godspeed. The Dems have been trying to cobble together a fake version of Christianity for a long time. I think they have made a lot of progress. The result is the sharp drops in attending church or having anything to do with organized religion. It seems the bible of the Millenials is the Epistles of Harry Potter. I never did think it was religious per se. It does offer a competing and darker set of religious ideas than we find in the Bible.
The above (and the embedded link was quite hilarious and revealing) is what I deal with on other sites. There are professed Christians who believe the Sermon on the Mount discourse was for government. In fact when we make government the source of sustenance, we replace our reliance on God and His church--the ekklesia. Now if secular governments want to provide a safety net for the truly poor, that's fine and benefits those truly in need. But don't try to convince Christians that big government (a government which promotes abortion and other immoral practices) is God's answer to mankind. It's not. I see quite a few Christians mix up social programs with the Christian love of providing for the needy and sick. When I ask if they donate to their church to help with this cause or even a large (or even local) Christian charities (e.g. Samaritans Purse), I get silence. What is being promoted at some sites is the self proclaimed "Christian Left." Yes many in our country (and outside) always refer to this "Christian Right" as if this is an actual group or organization. When I ask if there is a "Christian Right" website, I get silence...No such site exists. The funny point is the "Christian Left" does have their own site. Take a look at it and then compare with the DNC vision of America: They seem to like Pope Frank too! Wonder if this site has anything to do with Hitlery's campaign strategy of creating fake Catholic and liberal church action groups to challenge orthodox beliefs? Remember that WikiLeaks memo? Musing about a "Catholic Spring" revolution being hatched by left leaning political organizers, John Halpin at the Center for American progress wrote that Catholics "must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations." Clinton Campaign Disdain for Catholics and Evangelicals is 'Staggering'
I have known and worked with dozens, if not hundreds. I am struck by both their utter cluelessness and their certitude.
The last refuge of a scoundrel, Marx, seems to be at the Vatican. I guess he already bankrupted North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, not to mention dozens of other miserable regimes around the world. Pope Frank took that name for a reason: Francis of Assisi is the only Catholic ever admired by the godless international communist Left. Quite a number of their major figures over the years have expressed huge admiration for Francis, not for any other saint or for the apostles or for Christ Himself. So Pope Frank comes with a warning label of his own choosing. The only way he could advertise himself more as a pope of the Left would be if he'd chosen to be called Pope Che.
This one was interesting.
This one even better:
That's both ridiculous and a little scary. How can they be serious, even discounting the Latin admiration for Che? It's like admiring Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. It's all great until you start to count the dead bodies by the millions. That is what Che stood for.
Woooow.... Paging VIC...
I especially liked how the 'artists' of the float had 'cherub' Castro with cigar in mouth.
Yes, Jimmy, you can! Peter was the first Pope, and there's more about him in the Bible than any other apostle!
Isn't the cherub next to Fidel actually Lenin? I can't see the other cherubs well enough to identify them.
Careful Jimmy. Lol
The Cherub right of Frank and lower looks to be Lenin.
Looking at the source page for your pic, the cherubs are Fidel, Lenin, Marx and Mao. I'll include another pic from July 2015.
in cambodia the khymer rouge execuTion gangs were eaTing mostly VieTnamese warm livers every nighT the 60 lefTies should Think abouT ThaT every nighT the viet cong had to invade - liberaTe whaT was lefT of Them paTheTic when The ends jusTify The means uuuugggghhhh If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
How is your electroshock therapy (EST) program going, Boris? You don't seem to have improved by much.
liberal jive rap jusT shorT lived flowering youTh afTer ThaT noThing love ps Drug - shock Trauma goT you If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
apple blossom fruiT some geT bee pollinaTed others lay Their eggs love ps in your mouTh snouT worms go in the worms go ouT play pinochle pss How's your drug - chemo Therapy comin along If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Peter was a follower of christ. He was not a pope. No one ever called him pope. He never heard the word. The pope thinks he is above God. When he is just a silly mortal man in a gay looking white gown.
Papal Infallibility From the past and present, here are some things that have been said about papal infallibility by Catholics themselves: "Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of Scripture or evident reason (for I do not believe either Pope or councils alone, since it is certain that they have both erred frequently and contradicted themselves)...I neither can nor wish to revoke anything." (This was said by Martin Luther at Worms in 1521 while still a Catholic priest). "No enlightened Catholic holds the pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of do." (This was said by Bishop John Purcell in the Campbell-Purcell Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion in 1837. The Debate was later printed in a book and Bishop's Purcell's statement is found on page 27. He made his remark before papal infallibility was decreed by the Vatican Council in 1870 to be an article of faith). "Therefore, to resume, I establish: (1) That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. (2) That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. (3) That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope...I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate." (This, along with many arguments against papal infallibility, was said by Bishop Joseph Strossmayer in his speech before the Vatican Council in 1870). "It has now become quite clear that the conception of continuity, authority, infallibility of the Church and the Church's teaching, on which there has not been sufficient reflection, has led the Catholic Church into a dangerous tight corner." (This, alone with other doubts regarding papal infallibility, was said by Hans Kung, a prominent Catholic theologian, in his book, "Infallibility, An Inquiry," 1971). Click to View Was The Apostle Peter A Pope? In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: "Pope," "Holy Father," "Vicar of Christ," "Sovereign Pontiff." All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, "Holy Father" is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11) Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ." A "vicar" is "One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office." (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows: "Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God." Some religionists today advocate that man is saved by faith only. However, there is only one passage in the entire Bible that has the words "faith" and "only" together and it says, "not by faith only" (James 2:24). The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him "the man of sin." James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, "Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82). The apostle Paul said, "For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ. Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope! Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources: "The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christ's kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head." (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49). "According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope." (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42) Catholic officials always use the word "visible" no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.). Luke 17:20-21 says, "And on being asked by the Pharisees, 'When is the kingdom of God coming?' he answered and said to them, The kingdom of God comes unawares. Neither will they say, 'Behold, here it is,' or 'Behold, there it is.' For behold the kingdom of God is within you." The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king. Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church. "Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things." Consequently, the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one head--her husband, the church is subject to only one head--Christ. Just as the husband does not send a substitute to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a substitute to rule over His bride, the church. Catholics often use the expression, "One fold and one shepherd" to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the "one shepherd" is the Pope and the "one fold" represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep...I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:11, 14-16). Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd--that's one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd--that's two! The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: "What part of the body is the Pope?" Also, "How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?" One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Notice the following: "Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26). The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal--the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry--and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, "But not so with you." Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others. By David J. Riggs
The pope isn't the holy father. He is more like a piece of poop than the holy father.
You forgot "Papa" and "Pontifex Maximus". : )
I noticed in your lists of scripture against popery, you missed a primary verse. 23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Yeah that place has turned into a total nuthouse, I thought it was bad before the election it's 10 times worse now. Every "useful idiot" is calling that place home nowadays. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
On one side, there is a political party operating as a millenarian religious movement –clinging to long-discredited beliefs, obsessed with sex, afraid of science, determined to impose its bizarre views on others, and insisting that the government must control every hidden corner of private life. On the other side are the Republicans.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
The Dems are much like these cults. They have a 'rockbed' dogma that no matter how much you point out is in error, you get the 'party line.'
#3. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#2)
Democrats substitute the government for God — or, like Nancy Pelosi, seem to confuse the two.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
They have a 'rockbed' dogma that no matter how much you point out is in error, you get the 'party line.'
#5. To: redleghunter (#3)
They seem to like Pope Frank too!
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
So Pope Frank comes with a warning label of his own choosing. The only way he could advertise himself more as a pope of the Left would be if he'd chosen to be called Pope Che.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)
So Pope Frank comes with a warning label of his own choosing. The only way he could advertise himself more as a pope of the Left would be if he'd chosen to be called Pope Che.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#5)
/719_Che-01.jpg)
#9. To: redleghunter (#8)
#10. To: redleghunter, vicomte13 (#8)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
That's both ridiculous and a little scary.
#12. To: redleghunter (#6)
#13. To: redleghunter (#11)
(Edited)
I especially liked how the 'artists' of the float had 'cherub' Castro with cigar in mouth.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#16. To: redleghunter (#15)
(Edited)
/634_Sickle-01.jpg)
The Red Pope receives a Soviet-style crucifix from Bolivian president Morales
#17. To: Tooconservative (#9)
boris
#18. To: BorisY (#17)
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
boris
#20. To: All (#19)
(Edited)
boris
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
Yes, Jimmy, you can! Peter was the first Pope, and there's more about him in the Bible than any other apostle!
#22. To: All (#21)
#23. To: All (#22)
In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: "Pope," "Holy Father," "Vicar of Christ," "Sovereign Pontiff." All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, "Holy Father" is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: "Pope," "Holy Father," "Vicar of Christ," "Sovereign Pontiff."
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Matthew 23 King James Version (KJV)
#26. To: redleghunter (#1)
Good article. Yes, I frequent a Christian site where the mods work full-time this time of year fighting the onslaught of cults littering their site.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]