The plan for the mainline churches.

So imagine a world with digital passports. Say you want to visit your sick mother in Florida so you go to book a flight and upon scanning your digital QR code, oops! You can’t fly to Florida. Your digital vaccine card is out of date. So you go check your current vaccinations and everything looks good except the latest Covid-19 Genetic-therapy-disguised-as-a-vaccine isn’t checked. Now you did have a religious exemption approved with a letter written by your local pastor. Turns out, your pastor doesn’t have the authority to approve religious exemptions. That has to come from your mainline church organization, which in this particular happens to be the Southern Baptist Convention. Never mind the fact that your local church pulled out of that denomination years ago, the charter of the church says Southern Baptist, therefore your church must have official approval for the state to recognize it.

Now, lets be clear, the people in the government hate all religions so they don’t care what denomination you belong to. No. They only care that you belong to one of the ‘controlled’ denominations. If you are RCC, then we go to our ‘official’ RCC organization that doesn’t provide exemptions. If you are Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., you will have to have an ‘official’ exemption from them. Furthermore, if you don’t approve of and celebrate the current slew of sexual perversions, you will be labelled as a hateful bigot. You will be accused of violence when you have committed no violence. You will then be tarred, feathered, and executed.

The path to this is being paved even now. The SBC has been infiltrated by men who want to surrender to the progressive agenda. It’s not because they care, no they cannot care because they are depraved narcissists. They want to share in the power of the one ring, like Saruman with Sauron the deceiver. The more they pervert the Bible’s teachings, the closer they come to their true sovereign. They will not stand against the tide of a tyrannical government and they will betray you and yours to a life of servitude while they lap the crumbs from their master’s table. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

Bad Reasoning re:Calvin pt.2

#Calvinism’s claim that God judges men for something they are born absolutely incapable of ever controlling or changing is so intuitively false I don’t need to refute it, I just need to make sure everyone understands that’s what they believe so others who aren’t already… https://t.co/NNoiW0ufy8 pic.twitter.com/6Rda69s2j2

— Soteriology101 🩸 (@Soteriology101) February 16, 2023

So once again we are treated to a terrible argument by Brigadier General Leighton Flowers. He writes:

#Calvinism’s claim that God judges men for something they are born absolutely incapable of ever controlling or changing is so intuitively false I don’t need to refute it, I just need to make sure everyone understands that’s what they believe so others who aren’t already entrenched in that belief know to reject it.

Before I untangle this monstrosity, let me first say that this is an example of begging the question. This is because it assumes what it is supposed to prove, namely that men are capable of controlling and changing their desires. Let’s start off with his first set of propositions:

p1 – Calvinists claim (“God judges men for something they are born absolutely…”) is true

p2 – (“God judges men for something…) is false

c1 – Calvinists claim is false

This is the substance of his argument. How does he know it is false? Well, it is supposed to be ‘intuitive.’ Notice he doesn’t say it is biblically false, he says it is ‘intuitively’ false. This usually means that he isn’t going to attempt to defend his assertion at all. Being the naturally inconsistent thinker he is, Colonel Flowers still provides two prooftexts that he thinks support his ‘intuitive’ assertion that he doesn’t need to defend.

Before we deal with his prooftexts, let’s look at the argument that the Calvinists are accused of supporting. Let’s break it up into pieces so we can get the full weight of his argument:

God judges men for something = True

Men cannot control that something = False

This is his argument. He has to agree that God judges men for something, but he wants to believe that men have total control over that something. It is implied by the use of the word ‘intuitive’ that we must agree with him. Why does he think this? Probably because he has either A) Never read Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, or B) read it and didn’t understand it. Now, Jonathan Edwards’ work is not the Bible, even though he was a very biblical thinker and writer. Therefore, I also assert that Biblically speaking, the Bible explicitly states that all men are dead in sin. It says that none will come, none will accept, and none are good enough to ‘choose’ God.

Now let us see if his prooftexts explicitly overturn my assertions or not.

John 12:47-49 If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.

Sorry, but let’s look at the propositions again:

p1 It is (always) possible to hear Jesus’ words and not keep them = true

p2 If a person (hears but doesn’t keep them) then Jesus will not judge them = true

p3 Jesus did not come to judge the world = True

p4 Jesus came to save the world = True

Now, we cannot assert that any of these propositions are false because they are biblical propositions. So I have to accept these as true, which I do. Sir Flowers thinks he must have me in an intuitive headlock. Yet, he leaves all of the intellectual heavy lifting to me because he cannot explain how all of the scriptures relating to man’s inability can be reconciled with this, so he punts the ball and pretends to be the smart one. So, starting with p1, let’s see what can be explicitly and implicitly inferred.

First of all we have to ask is this a universal proposition? That is, does it apply to everyone everywhere or does the context limit it to only the people who literally are in Jesus’ day listening to his words. That is one reasonable interpretation especially since not everyone in the world would actually hear Jesus’ literal words. Although it is tempting to limit the context this way, Major General Flowers doesn’t appear to interpret it this way. I mean, we don’t know for sure because he just posted the scripture and we are supposed to ‘intuitively’ know exactly what he means.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is a universal proposition and that hearing Jesus’ words and not keeping them can be substituted with committing sin. We would then say that p1 is: It is always possible for men to sin. Now from that proposition can we infer the opposite? If it is always possible for men to sin, is it necessarily implied that it is always possible for men not to sin? If it is always possible to sin and always possible to not sin, then what about at the same instant? Can I not sin whilst I am sinning? No. This is an absurdity and therefore we cannot infer the opposite of p1. This means we are limited to only being able to infer that it is universally possible to hear Jesus’ words and not keep them. Free Will is not established on p1. I will not waste a bunch of time breaking down p2 and p3 because they don’t imply anything about man’s nature but focus more on Jesus’ nature.

What about p4? Jesus came to save the world indeed. Now again we have to ask is this a universal. Does it apply to everyone everywhere? Master Sargent Flowers needs it to apply to everyone so he can push the idea that Jesus dies on the cross to save everyone. Now the standard Calvinist objection applies here. If Jesus died to save everyone who has ever lived on this planet, then he has failed to accomplish that salvation for every single soul that is in hell. Flowers demands that we accept Jesus’ failure to save those people due to their own will being much stronger than Jesus’s call to salvation. In other words, men who die in sin do so because their will cannot be overpowered by Jesus’ desire to save them. They must have the ability to choose to reject God, according to 4th Commander Flowers. Remember that back in P1, we must assume that men can also choose to accept God at the same time they can reject him. This is in order to preserve the Free Will that Flowers so desperately intuits is true.

The second prooftext is more egregiously misguided because Flowers rips the verse from its context. Even if we accept the context as universal, Corporal Flowers’ intended interpretation suffers the same logical flaw. Ezekiel 18:19-21

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.

I highlighted the section of verse that Overlord Flowers posted. Let’s look at the propositions:

p1 One who sins is the one who will die = True. No doubt one who sins will die. Physically and spiritually. Does this prove that men can come to God on their own of their own free will? I don’t see how that is necessarily implied.

p2 The child does not share the guilt of their parent = true. This deals with personal responsibility. I am not going to go to hell because my father or my mother sinned, I am going to go to hell because I sinned.

p3 The parent does not share the guilt of their child = true. Again, personal responsibility.

p4 Righteousness is credited to those who are righteous = true. Here I think maybe Flowers means to read this as it must be possible for people to be righteous on their own. It only says that if one is righteous, they will be credited with righteousness. It doesn’t say that it is possible for men to be righteous on their own (except for Jesus Christ).

p4 Wickedness is credited to those who are wicked = true. This is again dealing with personal responsibility. Each person is led astray by their own lusts. They are responsible for their own wickedness. The idea in this whole passage is does the son share the guilt of the father. It is not meant to answer any universal principles about individual freedom to choose. The inclusion of this verse to make such a point shows El Capitan Flowers’ inability to rightly divide scripture and interpret what he reads. This is not surprising, given his obvious and blatant mischaracterizations of Calvin.

In conclusion, the supposed reliance on intuitiveness plus prooftexts should not fool anyone. Lieutenant General Flowers has an axe to grind, and he doesn’t let things like logical consistency and serious effort, get in the way of a good riff. Total Depravity or Total inability is an important Biblical concept that teaches that men are dead in sins and trespasses. That all men are bound for hell but in his goodness, God has saved some. Why this guy and not that guy? Ask God when you see him and maybe he’ll explain, how all the threads fit together. Until then, just trust Him.

Bad Reasoning re:Calvinism

If the elected people on #Calvinism have no risk of going to Hell & reprobates have no hope of avoiding it, then what’s the purpose of bringing it up? It cannot serve in any meaningful way as a deterrent for rebellion nor a motivator for faith—only a fear of a fated destiny.

— Soteriology101 🩸 (@Soteriology101) February 8, 2023

Twitter Link

I came across the above tweet in my twitter feed this morning and I found myself wanting to respond to this tangled mess. Here is a prime example of false premises being twisted into a logical argument in order to impugn something.

Let’s begin by unraveling all of the propositions in this hot take. I will simply try to take the implied meaning and re-write it into propositional form. You will have to be the judge on if I interpret correctly. Here goes:

“If the elected people on #Calvinism” = p1 There are people on #Calvinism, p2 These people are elect

“have no risk of going to hell” = p3 elect people have no risk of hell

“& reprobates have no hope of avoiding it” = p4 there are people who are not elect, p5 they are all reprobate, p6 reprobate people must go to hell.

Now we hit the rhetorical question, “what’s the purpose of bringing it up” which is meant to conclude that: c1 the reason to speak of hell is for salvation, c2 the bible speaks of hell, therefore major conclusion C1 the Calvinist doesn’t believe the bible.

So what to make of this argument? On the surface it appears sound. Lets start out with p1 and p2. These seem to be true premises. and it doesn’t hurt for us to assume it is true that there are elect people on #Calvinism. There may not be, but it doesn’t affect the argument if there are none. I also will accept p4, p5, and p6.

Here I would like to point out, as an aside, that the author cannot make the claim in p3 that ‘elect people have no risk of hell.’ He assumes that the elect know that they are elect. In other words, when I read the scripture, I look at the passages on hell and just assume they don’t apply to me because I am elect. Conversely, he assumes the reprobate know that they are reprobate. This is a perennial problem with these types of arguments because they are taking a 10,000 foot view of doctrinal teaching and then using examples from within the forest and lost in the trees. Yes God knows who is at ‘risk’ of Hell and who isn’t, but the individual reader doesn’t! This alone shows poor judgment in this argument. Yet, there is an even more potent objection to the tweet author’s line of query. Consider the following from the second half of his argument:

“It [eternal damnation] cannot serve in any meaningful way as a deterrent for rebellion” – C2 The threat of eternal damnation can never deter sin.

“nor a motivator of faith” – C3 The threat of damnation can never motivate faith

“Only fear of a fated destiny” – C4 The threat of damnation only causes fear of a fated destiny

Here are some of the hidden premises: HP1 God only intended the threat of eternal damnation to be a deterrent for rebellion, HP2 God only intended the threat of eternal damnation to motivate faith.

Now we have hit the meat of the problem. Let’s ask the following questions:

Are HP1 and HP2 the same thing? No, but I think in this case the author means the same thing with both hidden premises. I think contextually, he is limiting this to salvation. Does our fear of hell cause us to be saved? No, but our author believes it can. He thinks that there is a causal chain that leads from fear of hell to salvation that may look like this: I am afraid to die and go to hell, Jesus will save me from hell, therefore my fear of hell has caused my faith in Jesus, which in turn saves me. In this way the author can say that it was faith that actually saved, not fear. Now, can any be saved apart from fear of Hell? The author would likely say that they sure could.

So we have a new problem. Why does God use fear to cause faith for some but not all? Why is Hell included, is it merely a part of the net that must be cast that catches some fish but not others? Perhaps the teaching of hell has nothing to do with salvation at all! What if the promise of eternal damnation is not supposed to ‘scare people into faith’ but, rather, is meant to provide restraining grace to a civilization that is soaked in God’s word? What if, in places where the word is preached to everyone, God’s word has the effect of deterring sin in general even if it doesn’t scare someone into being saved? If this is true, then the reason for hell being in scripture might have nothing to do with salvation at all!

So I answer with my Final Conclusion (FC) that: FC the teaching on hell is not only for salvation purposes.

Now the tweet author might protest that I cannot show prooftexts that say that the teaching of hell is not meant only for salvation, but can he provide prooftexts that say the teaching of hell is for salvific purposes only? No. He doesn’t know that for sure.

If HP1 which states that God only intended the threat of eternal damnation to be a deterrent for rebellion (and motivate faith) is true, then FC cannot also be true in the tweet author’s suppositions. If FC is true, then the question is answered satisfactorily.

On a final note, I think it may be helpful to look at the source of salvation as never arising from a specific passage of scripture, or a particular moment of man’s awareness. In other words, when I think of my own conversion, I remember realizing the truth that I was a sinner and that I was doomed for hell. How did I come to realize those truths when previously I had denied them over and over? What made the light bulb go on for me at that moment? Was it my ever-burgeoning intellect which finally grasped the plain truth of scripture? NO. A resounding no. The author of the tweet above thinks there is something inside the human intellect which can grasp any truth of scripture. He is wrong. The teaching of Hell is not effective in saving people without the Holy Spirit first turning on their light bulb. Without that, it’s just another wacky thing those Christians say.

A return to posting.

I apologize for not posting any this week. Work has started back up in earnest and this article required a lot of attention. Anyway, the wait is over and the podcast is online now at the following link: https://anchor.fm/chairistotle/episodes/Next-article-in-the-CBE-chain—Warning—long-run-time-e1g8djl

The CBE article is available at: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/role-women-church-society-and-home

Musings from the Chair – Thursday ed.

Good morning! In the news today we will discuss the recent bombing of a Ukrainian theatre that doubled as a shelter, the release of Jussie Smollett, and Donald Trump’s seeming dismissal of Mike Pence as a future running mate.

In the second segment, we will cover the next article in line of our CBE responses. This one titled, Feminism in the Writings of Jacques Ellul. I don’t know who Jacques is, and likely neither do you so today we will find out.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/feminism-writings-jacques-ellul

Our final segment will return to the house built on sand known as Christianity Today and see if there is an article to respond to that is appropriate.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/march-web-only/prayer-ukraine-russia-putin-imprecatory-psalms.html

The podcast link is here: http://anchor.fm/chairistotle

Monday morning in the chair

Good morning!

As I type this, I am reminded to be grateful that I have the ability to relax enough to be able to write. Right now I am in a lull period at work so I have the time to expand my reading and writing for a time. Thanks be to God for this day of freedom.

Today’s podcast is broken up into three sections, the first dealing with news and events, the second with an old CBE article, and the third mentioning a response that I received from a ‘drive-by’ listener who is a fan of Aimee Byrd’s.

Todays blog at: https://anchor.fm/carl626/episodes/Monday-in-the-Chair-e1fmj1u

Emotions and God

In the Bible, we encounter passages dealing with God being angry, bringing wrath, loving, caring, etc. Some Atheists have complained that God, after all, is merely an angry tyrant. They imagine God on his throne, in the throes of some galactic temper-tantrum, tossing about bolts of judgement and murdering entire races of people. The flip side is the version of God who is so sickly sweet and loving, that he cannot fathom harming a fly. After all, God is love. So, does this mean that God possesses emotions akin to human emotions?

              This is not an easy question to answer because there are many things God reveals about himself which tend to be at odds with human emotions. The first and foremost problem, as I see it, is the doctrine of immutability. Immutability simply means unchanging. God is always the same. Now for us, the idea of immutability is a foreign category. That just means there is nothing unchangeable in creation. We change from second to second as time and motion encompass us, forcing us to move and react to thousands of different stimuli. However, God does not change. He is unlike us in a way that makes him seem almost alien.

              Why is immutability a problem with emotions? I believe one problem is in the ambiguous definition of emotion. I think that the word emotion itself is poorly defined. This is because it is difficult to define exactly what constitutes anger and love by human standards. So let us consider what it means for a human to have emotions. What is an emotion and from whence does it arise? Consider the last time you were angry. Do you remember the feeling of anger? Where did that feeling come from and where did it go afterward when you were calmed. I truly do not know, but I do know that we change. Emotion is, at the very least, ‘motion within.’ How can a God, who does not change, have an internal motion that changes? Immutability suggests that God does not have such a thing happen to him.

              Now the doctrine of immutability cannot be held ‘above scripture.’ What do I mean by that? I mean that, one can object that the doctrine of immutability is dependent upon scripture which means it should not be interpreted in a way that directly contradicts other scripture. In short, I cannot use the doctrine of immutability to overturn the doctrine of the Trinity. Both are taught in scripture and since both have the same authority, we cannot claim superiority of one to ‘overthrow’ the other. They must harmonize together somehow. In other words, if emotions change within God, then he is not unchangeable in every way. However, if God is unchangeable in every way, he cannot have emotions (as we have currently defined them). Either our definition of emotion is wrong, or our definition of immutability is wrong.

              Now, In order to define emotion biblically, I ask simply what is love Biblically? How does the Bible define love for people? Is it by feeling “Peter do you love me?” Or is it by action, “Feed my sheep.” I will argue that love is by action, not feeling. As the old DC Talk song proclaimed, “Luv is a verb.” Most people would cite 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, “Love is patient, love is kind…” From there they would argue that patience is a disposition of the individual’s feelings. They might argue that patience is an inner emotion. Certainly, kindness towards someone seems to require an internal disposition of warmth toward someone. I do not intend to list all the characteristics mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13, but I do intend to point out that someone who is extremely angry can still exhibit patience. Someone who internally hates your guts can still be kind to you. If patience can be contrary to the inner disposition in the way I have just described, then the inner disposition is not what is in view.

              Even so, let us dig further. Romans 13:10 provides us an unambiguous definition of love. It reads (ESV), “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” This is a concrete and unambiguous definition of what love is! Love is the fulfilling of the law. This suggests to me that when we define the terms love and hate as they relate to God, we should not import the human category of internal disposition or ‘feelings’ and try to attribute them to God’s internal disposition.  Rather, we should focus on God’s actions.

A few conclusions can be drawn through inference. First, when the Bible says that God hates evil, we should know that God will punish evil. Hatred is synonymous with action against. This also suggests that we, as humans, can act hatefully against people we care about. Consider homosexual unions where two people will swear by everything under the sun that they love each other, yet by disobedience to God’s law, are actually acting hatefully toward one another. Also consider how it could ever be possible to love your enemy if your disposition must match your actions. I love my children because I do not act out my feelings against them from time to time. When I restrain myself from making that snide remark to my wife, I am still loving. In other words, true love comes often when you do what is right (i.e., follow God’s commandments) for someone despite how you feel.

Finally, to return to God. Many biblical passages on love will seem much more consistent with the definition that scripture has provided. The question of immutability and emotion in God can be answered in a way that doesn’t harm the Gospel. Therefore, I suggest that we remember that God is not emotional like we are emotional. He never changes, he always loves what he loves and hates what he hates. He does not change his feelings based on your social status, race, or class. He is not a man, because he is much better.

It’s been a minute

So I have not posted in awhile. I have had a bunch to say, but I haven’t had the heart to say it. The over-hyped and highly propagandized coronavirus issue, along with the massive government overreach into our lives has overshadowed much of my thoughts and fears lately. However, I did run across a very interesting blurb on the Twitster

Believer,

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Prov 22:6)

is not a direct promise to you and your children.

God saves His own by grace alone, through faith alone, and for His glory alone; not on your works as a parent.

— Rob (@RRuiz1689) August 9, 2021

My initial reaction was that something is wrong with the conclusion given. That assertion can be interpreted two ways:

1. This is not a promise at all.
2. This is a promise, but not for you and your children.

The rest of the statements are

1. God saves his own by grace alone
2. God saves through faith alone
3. God saves for his glory alone
4. Our parental ‘works’ have no causal relation to the above 3 points.

Let me start with the very first 2 premises before dealing with the following ones. The verse should be interpreted simply as a proposition. In fact, it is very similar to several propositions in scripture. The one that comes to mind primarily is:

2 Chronicle 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

This is an “If/Then” statement. Like Proverbs 22:6, it states that ‘If you do X, then you will get Y.” In it’s simplest form, this is a proposition. Since it is a proposition, it must be either true or false. This means that, in order to argue, as the tweet above argues, then one must take either the position that it is always false or that it is sometimes false. If it isn’t a promise, then it must sometimes be false.

Now, this leads me to one of the primary issues I see with the tweet as written. It pre-supposes that there can be a time or situation where the antecedent can be true and the consequent can be false. So in other words, it is possible for someone to raise up their child in the way they should go, yet that child will depart from it when they are old. If this is the case, then the proposition cannot ever be construed as true, unless there is another condition met.

This exposes the author’s error in two ways. First, the author has assumed that it is possible to raise a child up in the way they should go without pointing that child directly to Christ. In other words, the author supposes that you can legalistically raise a child up in the way they should go and yet God will not save that child so that they continue on in the faith.

Secondly, it reveals a weak understanding of God’s sovereignty in election. If God saved me, and God gave me the wisdom to follow his word and raise my child up properly, then it is God’s sovereign will that my child will fulfill this promise. Consider the following example. If you were to be able to live up to the standards of the law, in all ways, you would be saved. The promise of salvation through works is attainable, just not for fallen men who cannot attain the standard of keeping God first in all things. The promise is not invalidated because we cannot achieve it.

In a similar fashion, the promise above is not invalidated because we cannot achieve it. I know, as a father, that I have failed and will fail again when raising my children. However, because God has convicted mine and my wife’s hearts and has regenerated us, we can raise our children up and point them to God through Christ. In this way, I can have confidence that God will keep them, not because I am faithful, but because He is. So yes, Proverbs 22:6 is a promise, and yes, it is a sure one.

Disenfranchisement

What a word! It is a political word for sure. It is usually bandied about by politicians looking to justify some new social justice program or find another way to dip their hands into the working man’s wallet. I challenged someone today to define the term because it was being used in such a generic way, that it was almost laughable. I have found that, when I enter these discussions, it is a good idea to examine the word for myself. Writing helps me think, therefore I intend to examine some of the implications of this word.

First of all, this seems to be dealing with rights and privileges. If I am disenfranchising someone of something, it stands to reason that the person in question has some right to that thing. If I said, for instance, John Q. Smith has been disenfranchised of his vote, then it seems reasonable to suggest that John has a right to vote. Now consider something that is a privilege, such as driving. If I said John is being disenfranchised of his driving privileges, then the word doesn’t really work. What if John is blind as a bat? This problem seems to imply that the word disenfranchised only applies to someone being deprived of a right.

If this is the case, which it certainly seems to be, then whenever someone uses the term disenfranchised to refer to a privilege, they are misusing the term. Driving, education, employment, and the like are privileges. Some people might argue that these are rights, but I think they are demonstrably wrong.

Some people might be surprised to learn that voting has not always been considered a right. From https://www.justice.gov/crt/introduction-federal-voting-rights-laws, “Before the Civil War the United States Constitution did not provide specific protections for voting. Qualifications for voting were matters which neither the Constitution nor federal laws governed.” However, just after the Civil War, voting rights were extended to all males (women’s suffrage movements were still largely unsuccessful). In 1870, the 15th amendment was ratified which made voting a right that could not be denied any american due to race, color, or religion.

The reason I am engaging with this term is because it is often suggested that poor people (black people) and immigrants are disenfranchised by voter identification laws. The premise is that poor blacks cannot afford identification and immigrants are too afraid of being deported. Notice how both these groups are often lumped together for moral weight. If you argue against illegals, you hate blacks. In other words, you are an inveterate racist if you take any kind of stand against non-citizens voting.

Let’s be clear, poor people of any race, religion or creed, also trend lower in voter registration due to many non-economic factors, which can include lack of interest, mistrust of government agencies, fatalism. I haven’t read any recent stats, but for awhile young adult voting was also low. Were they being oppressed too, or just not interested in politics yet?

This post isn’t meant to showcase any knockdown arguments for voter registration laws, merely to begin to frame the question of what rights some people have that others do not have. If everyone has a right to vote, then why would we care if Russia influenced our elections? They could just flood the country on election day and vote in their own candidates and return home to laugh about our stupidity.

Christianity Today – Blah

So, the magazine “Christianity Today” decided to weigh in on the impeachment hearings. Their expert panel on law decided that Donald J. Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors and therefore, should be impeached and removed from office. Let my be very clear here, I AM NOT A FAN OF DONALD J. TRUMP. I don’t think he is a moral man, but he is a clever salesman. So I do not intend to characterize President Trump as some sort of saint. Clearly, he is not. What I do want to do is explain how much legal and spiritual authority the magazine should be granted in this matter.

I would say exactly 0%

So, let’s go inside the offices of the editor at “Christianity Today” and tell a story of journalism with spiritual integrity. Here we catch the journalist and the editor looking for the next cover story:

Journalist: Hey boss, did ya catch the news on the box? They just impeached Trump!

Editor: Holy cow! We gotta do a story about this boys!

J: Whaddya want me to write about boss?

E: Well did you read any of the evidence, ya know, watch the trial.

J: Ummm well, no boss I mean, who has time for that these days? Tuesdays is Fortnite with the fellas.

E: Can we say something spiritual about it?

J: Sure boss, we all know he ain’t no Christian.

E: Well there ya go! He ain’t no Christian so that counts for something. Hey who do we know that’s spiritual?

J: Uhhhhh… Oh Oh I know! Billy Graham. I heard of him and he’s kind of spiritual. Maybe I write that he agrees that the house would never impeach someone who don’t need impeaching!

E: That’s a good story there. Billy Graham hates Trump for getting impeached. I love it! Get it going and I need a snappy title, something that will grab attention.

J: I got it boss, “Trump should be removed from office.”

E: Beautiful! I love it! Last thing tho. Don’t provide any factual accounting of the trial, that way it can just be an opinion hit piece.

J: Wouldn’t dream of it boss!

J: Well? What are you sitting in here for? Get to it!

E to J: Sorry boss, on it!

So there you go! An entirely factual accounting of the events leading up to the publishing of the CT article. Since I am protected under whistle-blower rules, nothing I have just said can be refuted.