About Me

Name: Jason Cunningham
Location: Azusa, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Three of a Kind: Crackpots, Liberals and Atheists

The hullabaloo over President-elect Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation is a sure sign of several things: 1.) many Americans have an exceedingly warped idea of what constitutes inappropriate church-state interaction; 2.) liberals apparently don't realize that Obama's brand of "change" -- the emergence of "unity" and "postpartisanship" -- requires, umm ... gosh, it should be so obvious, I'm amazed I have to point it out ... reaching out to those with whom you disagree; and 3.) a strong dislike for all things God.
 
As to item 1.), see my previous entry titled "Liberal Myths: Church-State Separation." 'Nuff said.
 
Concerning 2.): All the campaign drivel from liberals about "getting past partisan politics," "reaching across the aisle" and "inclusion" appears to be just that -- drivel. I'm hardly an Obama fan, but I give him credit for at least having the guts to include someone with whom he has marked disagreements on prominent social issues. Obama's liberal constituents, however, seem to not realize that "inclusion" means, um, including.
 
Re: 3.): This should be blatantly obvious to every sentient being in the universe. "God?? In the inauguration??? You mean, actually mentioning a God other than Obama?? Are you nuts?" This, of course, has much to do with 1.), and, intriguingly, lines up well with atheist crackpot Michael Newdow's latest attempt to remove the Almighty from public discourse.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Everybody Kwanzaa!!!

Dig out your dashikis, everybody -- the faux-holiday Kwanzaa is now in full swing! Have you hugged your local violent black radical today?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Myths: Church-State Separation

I want to commend the Los Angeles Times for declaring that "opponents of Colorado's plan for a day of prayer take a too-rigid view of church-state separation" (12/22 editorial). Unfortunately, though, the Times fails to go far enough in its declaration, displaying its own "too-rigid view of church-state separation."
 
The Times editorial begins thus: "Like Thomas Jefferson, we believe that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution erects a 'wall of separation' between church and state. Government punches through that wall when it requires official prayers in public schools or bestows tax dollars on churches -- or when it tries to prevent believers from practicing their faith."
 
The Times couldn't be much more wrong; other than the last phrase in that statement, the Times gets a big fat F- in American history.
 
Though Mr. Jefferson did indeed -- in a letter, not in any founding document -- advocate for a "wall of separation" between church and state, today's notion of that principle is much different from its original form. In contrast to today's liberal interpretation, which argues that government and religion can't even make eye contact with each other, the religion clauses of the First Amendment were simply meant to ensure two things: 1.) that the government won't establish an official religion that people would be forced to follow, and 2.) government can't stop anyone from worshiping as they see fit. That's it; that's all. Thus: Does the displaying of a Nativity scene on city property constitute a First Amendment violation? No, because it neither forces anyone to follow a certain religion nor prevents anyone from following a certain religion. And does school prayer constitute a First Amendment violation? No, because it neither forces anyone to follow a certain religion nor prevents anyone from following a certain religion.
 
In case there's any doubt about this -- which I know there is -- some basic American history ought to make it clear: The federal government under President Thomas Jefferson authorized funds for the construction of a Catholic church as part of a mission to reach Native Americans with the Gospel, and also authorized funds to pay for a priest. How's that for church-state separation?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let me be Frank, Barney: I dislike your whine

So they lost, and they can't stop making excuses: it was the blacks' fault, it was religious conservatives' fault, it was Bush's fault (okay, I made that last one up, but I wouldn't put it past them, since they blame nearly everything on W).
 
And now they need to vent, so they've seized on President-elect Obama's selection of Rick Warren as inauguration prayer-giver. I'm sure most of you are at least somewhat familiar with Warren; he's a pastor, an "evangelical" one (like there should be any other kind), and like any sane pastor, he's opposed to same-sex marriage. Which means, in the minds of homosexuals, that he's a narrow-minded homophobic bigot (an opinion that, in my mind, means he's doing his job).
 
So all the homosexuals are crying about having a legitimate, honest-to-goodness, Bible-believing pastor (as opposed to a fake pastor such as, say, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson) participate in the next president's inauguration, and leading the charge is Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. It's worth noting first that Mr. Frank is best known for being the only openly homosexual member of Congress; in fact, it's safe to say that it's the only thing he's known for, since he's been about as productive in his line of work as Homer Simpson is in his.
 
Concerning Obama's selection of Pastor Warren, Mr. Frank said (on CNN's "Late Edition"): "Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do." Oh, right, but giving "approval and honor" to those who violate the laws of both God and nature is okay. I gotcha.
 
Listen, Mr. Frank: What I, as a rational being, find offensive is that most Americans find nothing at all wrong with a behavior the inherent wrongness of which should be clearly, ridiculously, painfully obvious; that they've bought into the homosexual movement's guilt-trip strategy hook, line and sinker (trumping even blacks' use of guilt, which went a long way in helping Obama get elected). If your dignity is "offended" at having someone speak the plain truth, oh well.
 
It's worth noting as well that the left-loving Los Angeles Times published an editorial on this just a few days ago. You might be surprised to learn, as I was at first, that the Times was okay with Warren's selection. Then again, you may be dismayed, as I was, to learn that the Times' "approval" of Warren had mostly to do with the fact that Warren is active in liberal pet areas such as defense of the environment (implying that evangelicals not involved in such things are complete wastes (instead of just being half-wastes like Warren). And to top it all off, the editorial's headline stated that "after all, it's just a prayer." Just a prayer? It was a prayer (and God's strength thereby) that enabled Samson to bring a temple down on the heads of the Philistines.
 
Excuse me while I say a prayer concerning the Los Angeles Times.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stupidity, Thy Name is Newsweek!

Dear Newsweek,
 
Wow! What an awesome job you've done explaining the truth about what the Bible really says concerning homosexuality. All these years, I've been against homosexuality, but you've helped me see the error of my ways -- and all it took was one heavily slanted editorial rant by a Biblically ignorant hedonist!
 
What a joke. You are now No. 1 on my list of "Sorriest Excuses for Propaganda Masquerading as Journalism." This was not a cover story; it was a cover editorial. Most of the piece consisted not of quotes or straightforward information, but of Ms. Miller's own opinion, as though it were an angry journal entry. And of the scant number of quotes, nearly all were from theological liberals.
 
This is all not to mention the nearly infinite number of factual errors in the piece. I could write a rebuttal on each one, but it would end up being a book, and you've already demonstrated that you're inept at deciphering those. Suffice it to say that a highly undevout individual with a liberal agenda isn't the one to be telling me (or anyone else) what the Bible "really" says about anything. To listen to Ms. Miller, anyone would think that David's "love" for Jonathan was a clear sign of homosexual perversion, while a clear commandment against such behavior is merely a "throwaway" verse. I think the only thing she got right was that Jesus was never married.
 
I don't expect a reply, as I know you're wicked busy being intellectually obese.
 
Sincerely,
Jason Cunningham
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Racism Rocks!

Barack Obama is a rock star, he's a celebrity. Not even racism could prevent his election to the White House.
 
On the contrary, racism helped him get to the White House.
 
In addition to the votes Obama surely received out of "white guilt," there's also the fact that 90% of black voters voted for him. Ninety percent. That's far too high a number to be "coincidental," and what it means is that most blacks voted for Obama primarily because of his (half) blackness ... and it also means that most black voters held McCain's whiteness against him.
 
And the race talk didn't stop with Obama's election: Now that his inauguration is nearing, I'm picking up lots of mentions of how America will soon be inaugurating it's "first black president." I have no problem with a black president (or with a female president), but I've quickly grown tired of the near-constant mention of Obama's race (albeit innacurate mention, since he's half-black and half-white). The way things are going, Obama could screw up royally during the next four years and still be remembered with much fondness simply because he was the first "black" president, dontcha know.
 
It seems to me that, as the most vocal preachers of tolerance (homosexuals) are among the most intolerant, most of those who say they're tired of racism are the ones who keep bringing it up and who keep engaging in it. They keep saying that they want racism defeated, that a person's race should never come up in regard to judging a person's character or job performance. I agree. Yet every time a black person has a run-in with the law, it's because (these people say) of racism. And every time a black person becomes the first black person to do something -- no matter how trivial ("So-and-so just became the first black to win bronze in Olympic badminton") -- it's front-page news.
 
I agree that Obama's election is historic and significant, and that it's great that America has come so far in overcoming racism. Beyond that, however, let's judge him based on his individual character and performance, let's do the same for everyone else, and let's not bring up race unless in any situation unless it's vital to the subject at hand.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All the Perks Without the Work

Leave it to the Los Angeles Times to print a piece saying that same-sex marriage doesn't go far enough, that the government needs to "catch up to human behavior" by "recognizing the legitimacy of a wide range of consensual, non-exploitative romantic partnerships."
 
The loony author of this piece is Robert Epstein, and his logic is ... well, intriguing, to say the least: He voted yes on Prop 8, which might lead you to think he opposes same-sex marriage; but no, he's in favor of same-sex marriage, but he thinks opponents of Prop 8 are "narrow-minded" in their thinking, that they need to shoot for a larger goal: namely, formal government recognition of and benefits for all types of romantic relationships involving consensual adults.
 
Using the example of cohabitation, Epstein writes that government recognition of such a relationship "would be a step toward stabilizing relationships as they actually occur in 21st century America." But wait a minute; what does government recognition of a certain type of relationship have to do with stabilizing said relationship? If two people are truly committed to each other, they're going to be in it for each other, not for whatever financial benefits they get out of the deal. Yet that seems to be what it boils down to for a lot of people: the money. That's why many elderly folks are now choosing cohabitation over marriage; tying the knot would cause one or both individuals to lose some of their retirement, pension and/or Social Security benefits. And what's to prevent any two (or more) people from simply living together to give the appearance of a romantic relationship just so they can get the bennies?
 
As is usual, and inevitable, whenever man tries to solve any problem he's created, Epstein's proposals would only cause more problems. How about this instead: How about we change the law in ways that encourage, for example, elderly people to get married? After all, true stability comes only with commitment -- something that cohabitors are generally afraid of. Perhaps Epstein thinks that by granting benefits to cohabitors, they'll be more "committed" to each other, but I doubt that would happen; as soon as one of the individuals involved lost his job (and the benefits that go with it), he's likely to be dumped like a lead balloon because there's no true commitment underlying the relationship.
 
And though Epstein never mentions it, I'm sure his "vision" for a better America (meaning more relationships that qualify for financial benefits) includes bisexual "marriages," all sorts of polygamous relationships ... perhaps even adulterous relationships. After all, if you're screwing someone else's spouse on the side, and are thus "committed" to them, don't you deserve some of the benefits they're getting?
 
As I've said before, logic dictates that if society is going to allow same-sex "marriage," it's compelled to also allow polygamy, bisexual "marriage," etc. What a fine country that would make us, huh?
 
Great newspaper, that Los Angeles Times. Great ideas.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexuality Just Plain Wrong

I wanted to draw attention to Frank Pastore's newest column here on Townhall, titled "Jack Black, Jesus and Prop 8." An intriguing title to be sure (it quickly drew me in); I'll let you discover the precise meaning behind it, but here I want to address an issue he raises, an issue about which there is much confusion and is often used against Christians.
 
I'm talking about the Old Testament prohibition against shellfish. I know: earth-shattering stuff, right? Not on it's own, it's not, but it's become a famous talking point for homosexual advocates, believe it or not.
 
Whenever anyone such as myself brings up the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual activity, homosexual advocates often rebut with something like this: "Well the Old Testament also bans the eating of shellfish, but you eat shellfish, right?" Well, first of all, no, I don't eat shellfish. I think they're disgusting. But that's besides the point. Yes, many Christians eat shellfish but oppose homosexuality. So they're big fat hypocrites, right?
 
No. And here's why: In the course of early human history, everyone had become alike in the sense that everyone did whatever they wanted to do, in rebellion against God and how He wanted us to live. So God, in order to teach mankind His ways, began a process of sanctification, which is a fancy way of saying "setting us apart" -- making us like Him, making us different from the world. But since we humans can be quite blockheaded, God decided to take things slowly and teach us one bit at a time. One of the key strategies He used was to teach us spiritual truth through object lessons, using everyday material things that the ancient Israelites had easy access to. One such thing was the animal kingdom, so God used animals to teach the Israelites the difference between holiness (spiritual cleanliness) and unholiness (spiritual uncleanliness). And here's where the shellfish come in.
 
Shellfish are bottomfeeders. They eat off the ocean floor, where lots of germy stuff settles. Thus they represented unholiness (spiritual uncleanliness). So God told them to avoid eating shellfish (and that they could eat fish, which aren't bottomfeeders), and thus gave them a tangible demonstration of how to live the spiritually clean life God wanted them to live. (As a side note: God used other animals this way, telling the Israelites, for example, to not eat scavenger birds, because they ate things that had been long dead and thus represented spiritual uncleanliness).
 
So it's not that God was declaring shellfish to be evil and forever avoided; it was simply an object lesson during the early portion of mankind's gradual process of spiritual growth. When Jesus was on Earth, He declared that it wasn't what went into the body that defiled a person, but what came out of a person's heart that caused defilement -- thus implying that every kind of food was acceptable for eating. This was confirmed after His Ascension when the Apostle Peter had a vision of a sheet containing several types of animals that Jews considered unclean, but God told him, "What God has cleansed you must not call common" (Acts 10:9-16). This was God's way of telling Peter that Gentiles were welcome in His kingdom, and, I think, another way of God saying, "It's not about the food."
 
And now we come to homosexuality, which, unlike shellfish, was not merely an object lesson. As I've said, Jesus confirmed that there was nothing inherently wrong with shellfish, and that God really was okay with us eating them, after all, that He'd only been using them to demonstrate a spiritual lesson. But God never changed His mind regarding human sexuality. From the very beginning of the Bible (Adam and Eve) to the very end of it (the picture of Jesus as the groom and the Church as His bride), God makes clear His one and only intention for human sexuality: that of one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment (which we call "marriage"). He never gave His approval to polygamy (not even in the case of Solomon), or to adultery (David got in big trouble for that), or to any other sexual relationship besides "one man / one woman" marriage. Not even to homosexuality. And yes, I know (as many homosexuals have lovingly told me) that Jesus never said anything specific against homosexuality. Then again, He never said anything specifically against child molesting, either, but I'm sure we all know what he thinks about that.
 
But Jesus did have some things to say about human sexuality, and what he said is telling. First, during one of his many conversations with his adversaries, he told them, "Have you not read (in the law) how from the beginning God created them male and female?" To me, this is Jesus's way of saying, "Duh, people. Isn't it obvious? Male and female go together; nothing else does." Second, Jesus was clear that fornication was unacceptable to God ... and fornication is defined as any sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage ... and the Bible clearly demonstrates that marriage is between one man and one woman ... so by speaking against fornication, Jesus is speaking against every type of sexual relationship outside "one man / one woman" marriage -- including bestiality, adultery, pedophilia, polygamy and, yes, homosexuality.
 
In short, the whole "shellfish compared to homosexuality" argument has no foundation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »