Tag Archives: liberal
While protestors demanded the removal of Confederate statues across the country, many of the same people that find tremendous offensive in images of historical figures don’t seem to care much about the systemic racism from their own ranks. One glaring example of this is the almost unbelievable comment made by liberal news host Bill Maher.
In the wake of the election that saw Donald trump upset the Clinton political machine, stunned media outlets tried to make sense of it all. One of the most honest, and accurate statements about why Hillary Clinton lost the election came from a CNN anchor.
The liberal media took a beating during the 2016 election and in the days immediately following. How did they get it so wrong? How could they possibly have so underestimated Donald Trump and the outcome of the election? Fingers started pointing and tongues began wagging as accusations against each other began to fly. But in the midst of the confusion the pundits and talking heads were going through, one statement helps make it all make sense.
John King, host of the show “Inside Politics” on CNN made the following clarifying statement that should bring every liberal to reflection and encourage most Americans:
If you want a picture of what a few progressive Christians want in a church, look no further than the writing of Rachel Held Evans. The picture presented by Evans is a combination of hipster religion and liberal social policy, aimed, it seems, at attracting young people that are otherwise more interested in social media and selfies.
I get it. The effort to create a brand of church that is marketable to the young has become popular; not with everyone, but popular nonetheless. So we have coffee shops, light shows, a ministry tailored for every member of the church, and an entire brand designed to set us apart from every other church in town.
Maybe I’m getting old, but those things are far less appealing to me today than they were 10 years ago. And, it seems, Rachel Held Evans is not really impressed with it either. She wrote an article that appeared in the Washing Post expressing her displeasure with modern attempts to make church “cool.” We would most likely find a great deal of agreement in our rejection of what many church-trend-followers claim is a cool church.
I can stand in solid agreement with the idea that less is more, smaller is better, simpler is more effective, and deeper is needed. The last thing we need in our churches is louder music, more lights, branding, and old people trying to wear skinny jeans. We could use a little more reverence, in-depth study, confessing sins, and the kind of fellowship that leaves you longing for more.
So Evans and I can find mutual agreement in our rejection of “cool” church. Where we tend to disagree is what that looks like and means practically. For Evans, it seems to be a sort of utopia that I’m not sure can exist in a sin-filled world. In her article, Evans shares several ideas that she believes is needed in the church today. They are:
I cannot explain the absolute hypocrisy among the liberal media and politicians concerning Christians and wedding cakes any better than this video illustrates. A Christian bakery declines to serve a gay wedding and LGBT activist and media heads explode with every derogatory name and insinuation possible. But, if a Muslim baker refuses…not a peep. The quiet is deafening. Why?
Well, my very uneducated theory is simply that Muslims are a media darling and Christians aren’t. Besides, no one is afraid Christians will come blow them up. That may sound rude but it’s also the truth. While Christians around the world seek peace and try to serve others with acts of compassion, many Muslims are beheading or blowing up people that don’t agree with them. What other possible explanation could there be for ignoring and excusing a “religion” that declares homosexuals should die (and then kills them)?
Watch the video and be enlightened about the culture we face as people of faith. If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.
Throughout the draft process the talk about Michael Sam centered around the fact that he is gay, and that he is the first openly gay player seeking to be drafted. There was more talk about his gay-ness than there was about his actual football skill. In fact, I was dumbfounded at the fact that a few commentators were brave enough to say that Sam was not really skilled enough to make the NFL but would most likely be drafted simply because he was gay!
And yet people continue to be “disturbed” by Dungy’s comments or the fact that many people agree with him. One article reported:
There has been only one event recently (okay, within the last two weeks) absurd enough to make conservatives, liberals and homosexuals lash out in “disgust” and anger. For good reason each party has correctly summarized what has taken place and communicated the detriment it will have on society and liberty.
That even is the firing – I mean resignation of Brandon Eich as the CEO of Mozilla.
I’ve watched this fiasco unfold with interest because of the implications it poses for everyday Americans. Brandon Eich likely will not face financial ruin as a result of his resignation. I have a feeling he is doing pretty good financially. But the example set by the homosexual fascists that ensured his firing will be felt by those willing to speak up but not willing to lose their job. That’s of greater concern.
Newt Gingrich has dubbed this the “new fascism” and said:
It would be intellectually dishonest and absurdly useless to deny that there is an effort to normalize homosexuality. At every turn steps are being taken to present homosexuals and their families in a positive light as people that just want to “live freely” as everyone else does. Pictures of loving couples and families with adopted kids are splashed everywhere in an attempt to focus on the pretty, positive side of homosexuality.
I’ve always thought that feminism was an effort perpetrated by a few really angry, hurt women to get otherwise happy women to become angry and hurt. Of course I’m thankful that certain unjust inequities were righted; such as voting. But to me it seems the overall point of feminism has been not to achieve equality, but superiority over men. Since the movement began it has seemingly lost roots in mere equality and rights and instead sought to elevate the worth of women over that of men in a perceived battle of dominance.
Perhaps no other aspect of society has been more impacted by feminism than that of sexuality.