Intolerant, Totalitarian, Authoritarian, Despotic, Hell-Bent…

The Totalitarian Left is Hell-Bent On Destroying our Liberties and Forcibly Imposing Its Thoughts and Ideas

David Limbaugh

October 2019

The left is becoming more unapologetically totalitarian every day. Every freedom-loving American should be alarmed.

From hounding conservatives out of restaurants to spitting on Trump supporters at rallies, from firing employees for politically incorrect statements to fining people for “misgendering” a person, the left is on a path toward absolutism.

Even some former and current leftists have recognized this intolerant trend and broken from their colleagues, lamenting their intolerance of opposing ideas and disturbing mission to suppress dissenting opinion.

Just the other day, three incidents typifying the left’s authoritarianism popped out at me as I was surveying the morning news.

The Federalist reported that venues in three North American cities — Toronto, Brooklyn and Portland — canceled screenings of a movie about Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson because of leftist criticism. Peterson exploded onto the scene in recent years with his no-nonsense, brilliant and clear-eyed critique of insane cultural trends, especially those concerning gender.

Peterson’s book “12 Rules for Life” is wildly popular, and there are countless viral videos featuring his encounters with various leftist interviewers, panelists and audience members who have tried and failed to entrap him on a number of issues, and been reduced — in every case — to blundering, ineffectual bullies. If you haven’t partaken of these videos, you owe it to yourself to witness one arrogant leftist after another being gobsmacked by the simple weapon of unadulterated logic. These videos are irresistibly contagious and imminently satisfying for those longing to see intellectually defenseless, virtue-signaling finger waggers brought to their knees through the medium of polite debate.

Peterson, you see, won’t kowtow to the leftists’ demand that we embrace the tenants of gender ideology, which teaches that gender is less about biology and more about personal identification. He refuses to support laws that criminalize one’s failure to use a person’s preferred pronouns, such as “they” instead of “she.”

Peterson has the temerity to say that men and women are biologically different, and that gender is not a fluid, human construct. That doesn’t sit well with the left, who not only insists that we accept its cockeyed ideas as normal but also advocates imposing them on us by force of law.

Can you get your mind around the irony of the left banning a movie about Peterson because he’s dangerous? Who is more dangerous: a person who peaceably expresses an opinion that happens to be supported by thousands of years of human experience and common sense, or those who try to ban his voice or even a movie about it? This is “1984”-level scary, and it’s getting worse by the hour.

On what possible grounds is the left arguing that Peterson’s views are dangerous? He doesn’t advocate violence; he isn’t a rabble-rouser or revolutionary. He simply states his opinion instead of genuflecting to the despotic left.

But they claim that if Peterson’s views are openly expressed, he might convince other people that he’s right, and that could lead to the proliferation of conservative thought. Peterson’s “conservative perspectives on feminism and gender,” according to an opinion piece in The New York Times, “are very popular among young men and often are a path to more extreme content and ideologies.” Think about this. Conservative speech is dangerous because it is a slippery slope to the adoption of conservative ideas? This must be satire. Do these clueless cranks know how ridiculous they sound?

Again, who is more extreme and dangerous: Jordan Peterson, who advocates the silencing of no one and expresses mainstream opinions, or leftists, who are actively trying to censor Peterson?

Please don’t make the reckless mistake of dismissing this crusade against Peterson as exceptional. This is the left’s pattern, and it is becoming more aggressive all the time.

The second and third incidents I came across are further proof that the left is increasingly Stalinist. In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Kamala Harris pushed for the suspension of President Trump’s Twitter, speciously alleging that he is trying to obstruct justice and intimidate and threaten witnesses. You see, the left always has some urgent rationale to smother conservative speech — whether it’s to prevent the incitement of violence or obstruction of justice. But it just wants to shut us up.

Those who would silence the other side are the very definition of dangerous. Don’t take Harris’ musings lightly, even if she is mostly posturing to gin up more support from the Trump-hating Democratic base. It is instructive that efforts to muzzle speech almost always come from the left, not the right, because the left is insecure about the popularity of its kooky ideas.

The third incident involved demagogue and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who said in a CNN forum on LGBT issues that churches and religious organizations should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. If I have to explain how outrageous this is, the country is in even greater danger than I imagined.

I found these examples in 15 minutes of reading this week. They are everywhere. America was founded on the idea of claiming and preserving our God-given liberties. The illiberal left, which believes our rights and freedoms come from government, is hell-bent on destroying our liberties and forcibly imposing its thoughts and ideas on all of us.

God save us.

*****

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “The Emmaus Code: Finding Jesus in the Old Testament.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at http://www.davidlimbaugh.com.

Reposted from Black Community News: https://blackcommunitynews.com/the-totalitarian-left-is-hell-bent-on-destroying-our-liberties/

 

Posted in Church and State, Law of Christ, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Coca-Cola Pro-Gay Ad Debuts With Strong Protests

Coca-Cola Drops Pro-Gay Ad Campaign in Hungary After Boycott Backlash

by Jules Gomes

ChurchMilitant.com

40,000 sign petition rejecting Coke’s LGBT agenda

BUDAPEST, Hungary (ChurchMilitant.com) – The world’s largest and oldest soft drink maker has withdrawn its advertising campaign promoting homosexuality in Hungary after conservative politicians and an online petition called for a nationwide boycott of its products.

Coca-Cola had posted provocative posters of gays and lesbians against a rainbow background and drinking coke with slogans such as “Zero Sugar, Zero Prejudice” and “No sugar, no superstition.” The ads were displayed in the capital Budapest on train stations and bus stops.

Over 40,000 protestors signed a CitizenGO petition asking the mayor of Budapest and other authorities “for their assistance in removing the posters as soon as possible and to prevent such advertisements from spreading in Hungary.”

“For our part, we start by boycotting Coca-Cola. And in our petition, we ask for help in removing the posters as soon as possible and in curbing a homosexual lobby aimed at children, families and society as a whole,” the petition launched by Eszter Schittl, campaign director of CitizenGO, Hungary, stated. CitizenGO also launched a phone campaign against Coca-Cola.

On Aug. 4, Boldog István, deputy speaker for Fidesz, party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, asked Hungarians to join him in boycotting Coca-Cola.

“I will not consume their products until they remove their provocative posters from Hungary,” István emphasized. On his website, the politician proudly proclaims, “I believe in a God, I believe in a homeland, I believe in a divine eternal truth, I believe in the resurrection of Hungary. Amen.”

Coca-Cola responded the following day, saying: “We believe both hetero- and homosexuals have the right to love the person they want, the way they want. With this we really want to convey a message: our belief that everyone has the right to affection and love; that the feeling of love is the same (#loveislove).”

The soft drink company launched the “Love is Love” campaign days ahead of the progressive Sziget music festival, held every August in northern Budapest.

Coca-Cola explained that the new campaign was linked to the “Love Revolution” initiative of the Sziget Festival, “with which Coca-Cola is delighted to associate, since equality and diversity is our fundamental shared value.”

Coke also shared images of the ads on its Hungarian Facebook page over the weekend.

On Monday, the company buckled under mounting pressure from a boycott of its products and agreed to withdraw the controversial ads from Budapest, CitizenGO said.

“The posters and our petition got huge national and international media attention,” Schittl told Church Militant, adding:

First, Coca-Cola communicated that they would not take off their posters. Then, five days later, on Aug. 7, Coca-Cola announced that they were changing the posters. We find it hard to believe, noting that they had announced to a liberal newspaper earlier that the posters with the homosexual couples would be up during the month of August. The new posters do not contain homosexual couples, though the rainbow theme remains.

Schittl explained that the withdrawal of the posters was only a “semi-victory” since the company had replaced them with others in which the slogan “Love is Love” was still prominently displayed. She urged continuing with a boycott of the brand since “they are not stopping the display of messages that promote homosexuality.”

Our country is boycotting and protesting Coca-Cola’s homosexual propaganda.Tweet

“Many parents are worried that their child may come across these posters in Budapest, which may or may not be confusing,” Schittl pointed out in her petition.

“Child under 18 cannot enter tobacco shops and their parents are warned if TV content is inappropriate to them. But walking around the city will make it impossible for them to protect their children from content promoting homosexuality,” she noted.

Meanwhile, on Aug. 13, the conservative party Mi Hazánk (Our Country) held a demonstration outside the company’s headquarters in Dunaharaszti.

“Our country is boycotting and protesting Coca-Cola’s homosexual propaganda by a series of actions,” Dóra Douró, vice president of the movement, said.

Earlier, Minden Szó, a website describing itself as a “politically incorrect blog,” wrote an open letter to Cdl. Peter Erdő, primate of Hungary, and other Catholic bishops urging them to speak out on the issue.

“Believing Hungarian Christians, Catholics, Calvinists and others are waiting for the historic churches to speak on Coca-Cola! This would not be an expectation on our part, but an elementary duty on your part!” it read, adding, “Unfortunately, the Reformed are also quiet. Only the Hit Gyülekezete (Congregation of the Faith) spoke. Historical churches, on the other hand, are silent, sitting deep and not speaking.”

Hit Gyülekezete, Hungary’s largest charismatic church, issued a press release asking the beverage company why they were corrupting the minds of children by exposing them to images of homosexuality and why they were “raping the conscience” of consumers who have a different opinion on this “divisive social issue.”

In May, László Kövér, speaker of the Hungarian Parliament, angered homosexual activists when he compared adoption by gay couples to pedophilia.

Viktor Orbán’s chief of staff, Gergely Gulyás, when asked to respond to Kövér’s statements, said:

I can only find a parallel in one aspect: In both cases [pedophilia and adoption by LGBT couples], the interests of the child remain in the background and the focus is on the interests of the adopters who are, by the way, incapable of having a child of their own. I think this is factually correct.

Hungary currently recognizes civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but Fidesz and Prime Minister Orbán oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The transport company BKV had refused to intervene in the controversy and issued a statement stating that third parties were responsible for the use of its advertising space on train and bus stations.

*****

Article from: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/coca-cola-drops-pro-gay-ad-campaign-in-hungary-after-boycott-backlash

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Religious Liberty and Free Government in America

Religious Liberty and Free Government

By Attorney General William P. Barr

October 2019

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame:

Thank you to the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture for graciously extending an invitation to address you today…

Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this Department of Justice.

We have set up a task force within the Department with different components that have equities in this area, including the Solicitor General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.

From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States. The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty…precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.

They crafted a magnificent charter of freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.

There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.

That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.

But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.

The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition. These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil. Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites…. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

So, the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things, we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more casualities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

What we call “values” today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking about the “final things.”

Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.

In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend.

Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society.  It can be called the system of “macro-morality.”  It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation.

The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political causes and collective action to address social problems.

This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.

Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these moral systems. I was attending Mass at a parish I did not usually go to in Washington, D.C.  At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were needed to feed them. This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.

A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.

Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.

More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit – they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice.

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate.

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty.

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds.

The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.

A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the sexes.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case.

Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave.

At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere.

Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character.  If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our country.

But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back toward sanity.

As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made this country great.

And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives.

We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world beyond ourselves.

This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church.

Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our children.

Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

*****

Article from: The United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Gov't/Theonomy, Theology/Philosophy, Unity, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Lefts Ongoing Culture War and Satanism

How The Left’s Culture War Positions Match Perfectly With Satan’s

By Casey Chalk 

In the anti-life, anti-family, anti-liberty agenda of secular leftists, we find the same strategy Satan employed in the garden.

A popular series of “Saturday Night Live” skits in the 1980s and 1990s featured Dana Carvey as “the church lady,” a Christian television channel host who would berate her guests for their immoral, un-Christian behavior. The funny climax of the skit would be when the church lady would offer a dramatic pause before accusing her guests of being in league with … Satan!

I’ve been thinking about that playful allegation lately in reference to contemporary politics. Whatever one thinks of the Bible — a true representation of God, a literary masterpiece, or a book of myths — secular progressivists’ politics are taken directly from the devil’s playbook. “The Power of Truth,” a recent book by German cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, shows how.

Müller’s chapter “Faith’s Political Witness: The Demands of Justice and Love,” is a reflection on the creation and fall narrative of Genesis chapters 1-3 and its application to contemporary politics. Müller interprets the opening of Genesis as illustrating the components most essential for a flourishing human society. In the narrative of the fall of man, argues Müller, we see an assault on “three core principles: the dignity of human life, of marriage, and of freely chosen relationship with God (or what we would today call ‘religious freedom’).”

Human Life Is ‘the First of the Fundamental Rights’

The pinnacle of God’s creative act is man, whom God creates in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). The meaning of this “image of God” language entails “our freedom, our intellect and will, our powers of moral deliberation, judgement, and choice.” This unprecedented degree of dignity among the created order is oriented toward relationship: relationship with the eternal divine and relationship with one another in community. Müller explains:

We are not atoms in a zero-sum struggle to survive, as Hobbesian individualism supposes. Nor are we mere means to social ends, as collectivist ideologies holds. Images of a triune personal God, we are personal and social beings, equal in dignity, who are fulfilled as persons in relationship with other persons.

Because we are not reducible to the result of random genetic mutations, but possess an irrepressible transcendent quality, men and women have a right to be. This right to be, the right to life, is “the first of the fundamental rights,” as Saint John Paul II taught.

Thus any assault upon this right — abortion, euthanasia, in-vitro fertilization — reflects a violent undermining of what makes a human person distinctly human. Müller explains: “A community must exist in its integrity before its good can be fostered. The right to life defines and preserves the community whose good we would promote.”

Marriage Is a Necessity

A second core principle of functioning societies is marriage and the family. Müller notes, “Like each person, marriage bears the divine image.” Genesis 1:27 reads, “In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Moreover, says Müller, “the first married couple is the seed of all social order: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it’” (Genesis 1:28).

Genesis teaches that there is a certain incompleteness in both sexes, one, at least on a natural level, that is answered through “the embrace of conjugal love and the children it brings forth,” which demands a “lifelong and exclusive commitment.” The family is “The First Society.”

In our society, the “vision of marriage as a truly common good — for family and the whole of life — has been eclipsed.” This takes many forms, including postponing or simply dispensing with marriage, as well as the societal acceptance of no-fault divorce. All have had predictably catastrophic results.

Refusing to marry and have children, whether for the sake of convenience or careerism, reinforces the atomization and loneliness of modern American culture, while providing society smaller future generations to generate wealth and support the elderly. Children exposed to divorce in turn are more likely to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies, to drop out of high school, to become teen mothers, and to spend time in prison.

Family instability fosters more educational failure, teenage delinquency, need for therapy, tendencies toward violence, and suicide attempts. As Müller concludes, “Crucial for the political as well as spiritual common good, marriage must be defended.”

Religious Liberty Began in Genesis

The final principle found in Genesis is religious liberty. Although God creates Adam and Eve for relationship with himself, he “leaves them free to reject or spurn his friendship,” observes Müller. Indeed, Adam and Eve do exactly this in reference to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which they eat, in clear violation of God’s edict. Citing “Dignitatis Humanae,” Müller notes:

Within the bounds of public order, no one is to be coerced into acting contrary to his beliefs in religious matters. And it identified the basis of this right in the dignity of the person and in the goods or ‘values’ of religion itself.

This right extends beyond autonomous individuals to the societies they form. Müller explains:

So it is not just individuals that must be immune from coercion, but also communities of faith; not just in private, but in public; not just in secret assent, but in open witness; not just in sacred assemblies and rites, but in ‘educational, cultural, charitable, and social organizations’ and services.

We can easily identify attempts to weaken, if not vitiate, this religious liberty. Politicians and medical institutions attempt to force medical practitioners to perform abortions in violation of their religious beliefs, and to offer insurance covering contraception or abortion-inducing drugs. Courts seek to force Catholic adoption and foster care agencies to place children with couples engaged in lifestyles and sexual behaviors at odds with the mission statements of those agencies.

State politicians aim to force Catholic priests to violate the seal of the confessional. Catholics understandably have little confidence this trend will soon subside.

Satan Still Attacks These Three Core Principles Today

What is so pernicious about the serpent in Genesis is that he attacks all three fundamental tenets of civil society. The serpent, Satan, deceitfully tells the man and woman they will not perish when they eat the forbidden fruit, precisely in order to bring about their demise.

He venomously works to place the man and woman in opposition to one another, targeting the woman first to foster relational division and enmity. And he falsely promises true freedom in disobedience to God, that Adam and Eve will “be like gods,” though in truth, their free will weakens as they become enslaved to their passions and Satan’s temptations.

Müller connects Satan more explicitly to the secular progressivist paradigm:

It is hardly surprising that as these foundations are undermined, the state looms larger; and conversely, that as the state expands into the proper sphere of the individual, the family, and the Church, they are weakened and their dignity is obscured.

The progressivist secular state — whatever its claims — is no neutral, disinterested party, but a proponent of a “latter-day form of paganism against which the Church has contended from its infancy — a mythology with its own idols and superstitions.” In the anti-life, anti-family, anti-liberty agenda of secular progressivists, we find the same strategy “Old Scratch” employed in the garden.

*****

Casey Chalk is a graduate student at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Theology at Christendom College.

Article from The Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/satan-attacks-same-principles-in-todays-politics-he-did-in-genesis/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=2d5fb2235c-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-2d5fb2235c-84065231

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No [Social-Justice Fascists], Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

10/04/2019

by Robert P. Murphy

Presumably bolstered by the fiery claims of Greta Thunberg and the general theme of Climate Week, people on Twitter have been declaring that capitalism threatens humanity. This angst rekindled interest in a Guardian article that ran a few months ago, in which author George Monbiot argued that the very nature of capitalism is “incompatible with the survival of life on Earth.” Not only do such claims ignore the obvious progress of humanity staring us in the face—and the environmental activists are supposed to be the empirical ones in this debate—but even if Monbiot’s worries about the climate were correct, capitalism would still be the best social system to deal with the crisis.

Monbiot’s Case Against Capitalism

The following excerpt summarizes Monbiot’s two-pronged argument for why capitalism threatens our entire species:

Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. Economic growth is the aggregate effect of the quest to accumulate capital and extract profit. Capitalism collapses without growth, yet perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.

…The absolute decoupling needed to avert environmental catastrophe (a reduction in material resource use) has never been achieved, and appears impossible while economic growth continues. Green growth is an illusion.

A system based on perpetual growth cannot function without peripheries and externalities. There must always be an extraction zone – from which materials are taken without full payment – and a disposal zone, where costs are dumped in the form of waste and pollution. As the scale of economic activity increases until capitalism affects everything, from the atmosphere to the deep ocean floor, the entire planet becomes a sacrifice zone: we all inhabit the periphery of the profit-making machine.

The second defining element is the bizarre assumption that a person is entitled to as great a share of the world’s natural wealth as their money can buy. This seizure of common goods causes three further dislocations. First, the scramble for exclusive control of non-reproducible assets, which implies either violence or legislative truncations of other people’s rights. Second, the immiseration of other people by an economy based on looting across both space and time. Third, the translation of economic power into political power, as control over essential resources leads to control over the social relations that surround them.

Monbiot’s critique of capitalism is entirely unfounded. In the first place, it defies all empirical grounding, which is ironic because it’s my side of this debate that’s allegedly composed of unscientific “deniers.” Especially as formerly communist countries move towards freer markets, the world has seen dramatic improvements in living standards, while the relevant availability of “depletable” resources has increased; even climate-related deaths have plummeted over time.

But it gets even worse for Monbiot’s thesis. Even if we imagine a scenario—contrary to reality—where humanity did run into a crisis because of natural resource crunch, the best way to deal with the situation would be reliance on private property and market prices. To blame capitalism for the potential problems of a finite world is like blaming thermometers for the flu.

Just the Facts: It’s Getting So Much Better All the Time

In this section I’ll illustrate some of the basic facts, documenting that human welfare has drastically improved during the same period that we have ostensibly seen the ravages of human-induced climate change.

First, consider a chart from Bjørn Lomberg (and reproduced by Marlo Lewis) that shows climate-related deaths from 1920-2017:

It’s hard to see evidence of impending disaster in the above chart.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil

The pattern is similar for world oil reserves and production, but I chose to use U.S. data because it is the most reliable. There’s also a similar pattern for natural gas and coal; as this 2011 IER report shows, North America alone has enough fossil fuels in the broader category of “recoverable resources” to satisfy current consumption rates for literally centuries. And they are growing. According to the Potential Gas Committee’s latest report, U.S. reserves of natural gas increased by the energy equivalent of 100 billion barrels of oil in just the last 2 years.

Now how can this be possible? How can the U.S., for example, have more “proved reserves” of oil now, than it did in (say) 1950? The answer is that it doesn’t make sense for humans to go out and find every last drop of oil (or lump of coal) housed in planet Earth. At any given time, it’s only sensible to have located the precise deposits of a healthy margin of such depletable resources, which is only a small fraction of the physical stockpile.

Yes, since there is a finite amount of crude oil, it must be the case that humanity will eventually have to switch to some other energy source. But humanity—especially in the modern age of relatively capitalistic institutions—has so far had no trouble maintaining consistent increases in total output, notwithstanding the “finite” resources on Earth (or the physical universe, for that matter).

Presumably Monbiot would say that past success is no guarantee of future performance, but as a different Guardian article explains, the UN reports that the world has seen “astonishing” improvements in human welfare just since 1990. Specifically, more than a billion people were lifted out of “extreme poverty,” with “the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day [falling] from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015.”

What would the data have to look like to vindicate capitalism from the charges of Monbiot?

Even in a Collapsing World, Capitalism Would Be Our Best Defense

As I illustrated in the previous section, Monbiot’s hysterical warnings are utterly divorced from reality. At most, he has to argue that the future will be radically different from the past. In other words, Monbiot must argue, “Capitalism is going to start killing us, starting…NOW.”

Yet even the more dire forecasts in the UN IPCC’s latest summary of the climate science and impact analyses come nowhere close to threatening humanity itself. It’s still the case, even in the worst-case scenarios examined, that per capita global GDP is much higher in (say) the year 2100 than now. In an excellent article for CEI, Marlo Lewis gives the details, along with other lines of evidence to show that climate change, though possibly a serious challenge, is hardly an “existential threat” as Monbiot and several Democratic presidential candidates are matter-of-factly claiming.

But it gets even worse. Even if it were the case that the natural environment were such that humanity really did have to settle for constant (or even declining) living standards, private property and market prices—i.e., capitalism—would still be vital for helping humans organize their activities in the best way.

For example, Harold Hotelling proved way back in 1931 what the equilibrium trajectory of spot oil prices would be, in a hypothetical scenario where we started with a fixed pool and knew what the rate of consumption would be for various possible spot prices. The elegant answer (given certain assumptions) is that the market price of oil would rise according to the interest rate, so that on the margin the owner of the pool would be indifferent between selling one more barrel today, versus holding it off the market to sell next year. (For example, if oil were selling for $100 today and the interest rate were 5%, then the spot price would have to rise to $105 next year. This is because the owner could always sell a barrel today for $100 and then invest in bonds to yield $105 next year.)

I’m guessing that Monbiot would be scandalized by such bean-counting, but this is exactly the kind of outcome we want capitalism to foster. Given that there is a finite quantity of a useful resource like oil, the optimal pattern of usage is that it is gradually drawn down over time, being devoted to ever more important uses as it becomes scarcer and scarcer. The higher spot price of the future ensures that distant generations “register their claim” on the use of the oil, while the positive interest rate in a sense reflects the “impatience” of humans. (If the interest rate were 0% and the population were always growing, we would have the absurd result that no oil would ever be used—it would keep getting passed down the generations, growing in market value but with it never being profitable to actually burn a single barrel.)

Conclusion

George Monbiot alleges that capitalism, left unchecked, will cause the literal extinction of humanity. His arguments ignore all of the evidence of capitalism’s benefits staring us in the face. Yet even on a theoretical level, private property and market prices help organize human activity so that we can deploy our scarce resources in the most efficient manner. Empirically, capitalism has allowed humanity to flourish with an ever-rising standard of living. But even in a catastrophic scenario where we hit a hard resource constraint, capitalism would still be an important tool in our defense, just as we would badly need math and science to help us cope with the emergency.

*****

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research

Robert P. Murphy is a Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute. He is the author of many books. His latest is Contra Krugman: Smashing the Errors of America’s Most Famous Keynesian. His other works include Chaos Theory, Lessons for the Young Economist, and Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action (Independent Institute, 2015) which is a modern distillation of the essentials of Mises’s thought for the layperson. Murphy is co-host, with Tom Woods, of the popular podcast Contra Krugman, which is a weekly refutation of Paul Krugman’s New York Times column. He is also host of The Bob Murphy Show.

Article from: https://mises.org/wire/no-capitalism-doesn’t-threaten-humanity

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Gov't/Theonomy, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

France, Germany, and Australia Rebuke Greta Thunberg

Leaders of France, Germany, Australia Rebuke Greta Thunberg

By Ivan Pentchoukov

September 2019

Leaders of France, Germany, and Australia criticized teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg after she accused them on the world stage of not taking enough action to avert what she calls a “mass extinction.”

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel distanced themselves from Thunberg over her speech to the United Nations and a legal complaint Thunberg filed that accuses France and Germany, among other nations, of a lack of action on climate change. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison faulted Thunberg for subjecting Australian children to “needless anxiety.”

“They’ve got enough things to be anxious about,” Morrison said of his own daughters. “We’ve got to let kids be kids. We can’t have them growing up as mushrooms, but we’ve got to get a bit of context into this.”

Thunberg, 16, has become the face of the global alarmist environmental movement. In her speech to the U.N., she accused world leaders of destroying her “dreams” and her “childhood” with “empty words.”

“People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” Thunberg said.

Thunberg and 15 other child climate activists filed a formal complaint with the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child that accuses Argentina, Germany, France, Brazil, and Turkey of violating children’s rights by taking insufficient action to address global warming. The children’s complaint didn’t include China and India, the world’s biggest polluters.

Macron, who had previously sided with Thunberg’s movement, criticized the youth for taking a radical and antagonistic position.

“All the movements among our youth, or the less young, are useful,” Macron told French broadcaster Europe 1. “But now they must concentrate on the people who are further away, those who are trying to block [sustainable initiatives]. These radical positions will naturally antagonize our societies.”

French Ecology Minister Brune Poirson also criticized Thunberg for creating divisions that may prove irreparable.

“I do not believe that we can mobilize the population with despair, with almost hatred, setting people against one another,” Poirson told Radio France. “It’s important, she mobilizes. But what are the solutions she puts on the table? I do not know.”

Merkel, who has said that Thunberg’s movement “drove” Germany to take environmental action, took a subtler approach to criticize the teenage climate activist.

“I would like to take the opportunity to strongly contradict her in one matter,” Merkel said, according to The Times of London. “She did not adequately address the way technology and innovation, especially in the energy sector but also in energy conservation, raise possibilities for reaching our goals.”

Leaders of France, Germany, and Australia criticized teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg after she accused them on the world stage of not taking enough action to avert what she calls a “mass extinction.”

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel distanced themselves from Thunberg over her speech to the United Nations and a legal complaint Thunberg filed that accuses France and Germany, among other nations, of a lack of action on climate change. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison faulted Thunberg for subjecting Australian children to “needless anxiety.”

“They’ve got enough things to be anxious about,” Morrison said of his own daughters. “We’ve got to let kids be kids. We can’t have them growing up as mushrooms, but we’ve got to get a bit of context into this.”

Thunberg, 16, has become the face of the global alarmist environmental movement. In her speech to the U.N., she accused world leaders of destroying her “dreams” and her “childhood” with “empty words.”

“People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” Thunberg said.

Thunberg and 15 other child climate activists filed a formal complaint with the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child that accuses Argentina, Germany, France, Brazil, and Turkey of violating children’s rights by taking insufficient action to address global warming. The children’s complaint didn’t include China and India, the world’s biggest polluters.

Macron, who had previously sided with Thunberg’s movement, criticized the youth for taking a radical and antagonistic position.

“All the movements among our youth, or the less young, are useful,” Macron told French broadcaster Europe 1. “But now they must concentrate on the people who are further away, those who are trying to block [sustainable initiatives]. These radical positions will naturally antagonize our societies.”

French Ecology Minister Brune Poirson also criticized Thunberg for creating divisions that may prove irreparable.

“I do not believe that we can mobilize the population with despair, with almost hatred, setting people against one another,” Poirson told Radio France. “It’s important, she mobilizes. But what are the solutions she puts on the table? I do not know.”

Merkel, who has said that Thunberg’s movement “drove” Germany to take environmental action, took a subtler approach to criticize the teenage climate activist.

“I would like to take the opportunity to strongly contradict her in one matter,” Merkel said, according to The Times of London. “She did not adequately address the way technology and innovation, especially in the energy sector but also in energy conservation, raise possibilities for reaching our goals.”

Macron, Merkel, and Morrison aren’t the first to criticize climate alarmists. The chief of the World Meteorological Organization, Petteri Taalas, told a Finnish magazine in early September that climate extremists and “doomsters” are attacking mainstream scientists in a bid to shift them toward a radical view of climate change.

“While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas told Talouselama magazine on Sept. 6.

Taalas said climate extremists are selectively picking out facts from the reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”

According to Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, “Europe’s political leaders are increasingly concerned about losing their climate agenda to eco-fanatics and extremists.”

Peiser wrote in an email to The Epoch Times: “Greta’s apocalyptic mass movement is turning millions of young French, German, and European children and teenagers against their own governments, their institutions, and their countries, turning them into a resentful, angry mob.

“Officials and politicians are beginning to speak out because they fear they may lose control over this increasingly dangerous tiger they thought they could ride forever.”

*****

Article from The Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/leaders-of-france-germany-and-australia-rebuke-greta-thunberg_3097308.html

When I heard Greta Thunberg’s blistering speech to the UN, my 1st thought was why is an immature 16-year old giving a speech to the United Nations as if she is an expert (are they that desperate?). My 2nd thought was that she sounded like what a young teenage Hitler would have sounded like. My 3rd thought was that grownup fascists (teachers and parents) had destroyed her mind and turned her into a brainwashed self-righteous crusader for a fictional narrative. In my opinion Climate Change as a part of UN Agenda 21 is a mechanism for promoting worldwide socialism and another attempt at granting the UN increased authoritative power over all nations. (Gospelbbq)

Some Other Public Comments —

john butcher — Sep 28, 2019

There are conflicting studies on her claims. Many of the studies she is manipulated by have been withdrawn. Maybe we should be cross examining popular beliefs and look into the 2.1 Trillion dollars of profits from this issue. Things always seem to be about $. We all agree, global warmer fans or not, that pollution is bad. Let’s focus on pollution, especially from China and India that manufactures goods for the west at the directive of western corporation that take advantage of slave labor and no EPA.

Keng Onn Wong  — Sep 28, 2019

At first I was skeptical of «global alarmist environmental movement,» next came her quote «People are dying … how dare you!» Ok, that sounds «alarmist.» All the hysteria, hyperbole, sigh… I’d suggest she (and her friends) read Gregory Wrightstone’s «Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know» and educate herself. Came across this in the interview on American Thought Leaders with Gregory Wrightstone himself. (Available on iTunes podcasts too :))

Edward D  — Sep 27, 2019

She ought to criticize her parents for brainwashing her with their own agenda, making her incapable of having her own dreams, destroying her childhood and filling her with empty words to parrot. She was raised to be a tool, an ignorant radical. It wouldn’t surprise me if her parents expected her to get a pass because she’s a teenager. All they’ve really done is made a lot of people not like her and halted a lot of goodwill surrounding global climate initiatives.

Dennis Hannnick  — Sep 26, 2019

»…destroying her “dreams” and her “childhood” with “empty words.” The only ones who did that, are the climate doomsters and hucksters who are making $$Billions off of the scam. This girl is a «useful idiot».

***

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Gov't/Theonomy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Town in Sweden Bans LGBT Flag

Swedish Town Bans LGBT Flag

RT News

A municipality in Sweden decided to quit flying LGBT pride flags on public buildings, after conservative parties took over the city council.

The town of Solvesborg in southeastern Sweden has voted to stop hoisting the rainbow-colored flag on the city hall every August during Stockholm Pride, the annual LGBT-themed festival held in the nation’s capital. From now on, only local and national flags are allowed on public buildings.

The idea of flying the Pride colors was introduced in 2013, when the city council was led by the center-left Social Democrats. But now the city is controlled by conservative Swedish Democrats (SD) and three other right-leaning parties, who decided to revise the local flag code.

“Tradition is important to us, and I know many of our older residents share this view,” Mayor Louise Erixon (SD) explained the move to discard the Pride flag.

Not everyone is happy with the new flag policy, though. Politician and LGBT-themed event organizer Sophia Ahlin scolded her colleagues in the Moderate Party who sided with SD against the Pride Flag. “Their decision goes completely against what the Moderates stand for in terms of equality of all people,” she argued.

Having legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, Sweden is considered to be a largely liberal and LGBTQ-friendly country. However, Solvesborg with its population of around 9,000 is often described in the media as an example of conservatism becoming more popular in Sweden’s countryside. The leader of the Swedish Democrats, Jimmie Akesson, grew up in the town, while mayor Erixon is his partner. He wrote in an Instagram post that no flags of political significance would be hoisted on city hall.

***

Article from: https://www.rt.com/news/468835-swedish-town-pride-flag/

More on Solvesborg Sweden

Solvesborg, a municipality in southeastern Sweden with a population of 9,000, decided to stop hoisting the LGBT flag on city hall during Stockholm Pride month. The annual LGBT-themed festival is held every August in the nation’s capital.

The idea of flying the rainbow-colored flag was introduced in 2013 by center-left Social Democrats. However, now that the conservative Swedish Democrats among other right-leaning parties are in control, the local flag code has been revised.

Mayor Louise Erixon (SD) explained tradition to be important and older residents do not share the same view as the reason behind discarding the Pride flag.

Sophia Ahlin, LGBT-themed event planner and politician, scolded her Moderate Party colleagues for siding with Swedish Democrats stating that the decision went completely against Moderate’s principles of equality for all people.

Sweden is largely considered liberal and a LGBTQ-friendly country after legalizing same-sex marriage in 2009. However, Solvesborg is often cited as an example of conservatism gaining popularity in the Swedish countryside as more and more people question the beliefs and morality of the LGBTQ crowd.

Jimmie Akesson, leader of the Swedish Democrats and mayor Erixon’s partner, wrote in an Instagram post that the city would not hoist any flags of political significance on city hall.

*****

Article from: https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/swedish-city-refuses-lgbt-flag/

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Law of Christ, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment