Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is war and we’re all bloody

Published

on

No. Don’t let it go.

The news media wants to move on beyond James Hodgkinson. They want us to write him off as a nutter, who let his political beliefs inform his pre-existing violent tendencies, fed by a gun culture that allowed him to own an SKS rifle which he used to hunt Republican lawmakers.

But we should not move on.

Hodgkinson had an assassination list including names of Republican members of Congress such as Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Desjarlais (R-Tenn.) and Morgan Griffith (R-Virginia). Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson noted that all six are members of the House Freedom Caucus.

Someone mailed threatening letters, complete with a white powder, to Karen Handel‘s neighborhood.

Self-identified conservative Lisa Loomer leaped onto the stage at a performance of “Julius Caesar” in New York–but with Donald Trump as a stand-in for the doomed emperor’s assassination. Yells of “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!” accompanied her stupid pet trick.

No. Let’s not move on.

The blood of Steve Scalise is on our hands, collectively. And the blood of Gabby Giffords, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. And no, I’m not talking about guns, which are inanimate objects that don’t commit crimes.

But Reagan and Giffords were shot by genuine nutters who long before veered off into incoherent mental illness. The war on the mentally ill procuring lethal weapons is one we need to continue fighting, along with the war on gang bangers procuring Tek-9s and young violent black teens torturing white disabled boys live on Facebook.

Add to that the war on race-baiters of all skin colors, from the alt-right and the BLM left. And the war on drugs (I’m talking about meth, oxycodone, and heroin here, not Bill Clinton’s weed).

We are at war.

Jonah Goldberg hates metaphorical wars, while defining “war” as something physical and violent.

The war on cancer was metaphorical. The war between the sexes is metaphorical. The term “civil war” is a literal one. And in an actual war, killing is not only acceptable, it’s mandatory. Look, I get that language is flexible and I’ve no doubt used the term “war” in diversely interpretable ways. But if we call today’s hyper-polarized and tribal political and cultural conflict a “civil war,” then we have no words left for an actual civil war. More to the point, this week’s shooting demonstrates the difference.

Fair enough. But the word “war” isn’t limited to one where the options are kill or be killed.

In fact, we can be in a war where one side kills and the other refuses to kill except in the most extreme self-defense. Are we not familiar with Israel? Israel could defeat all of its enemies. It could certainly do away with the Palestinian threat if it engaged in the kind of occupation practiced by, say, China, or Russia (or the old Soviet Union). But it doesn’t.

I think we walk into the forests of political and philosophical thought so deep that we argue over trees way too often. We are at war, but the war is not between the Blue and Red tribes, or the Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, or seculars and God-fearers.

Our war is between a civilized nation and a brutal one. It’s the rule of man’s discipline and compassion versus might makes right. In the crucible of World War II, before even the Battle of Britain, King George VI told “his peoples” what they were fighting for.

It is a principle which permits a state, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges, which sanctions the use of force or threat of force against the sovereignty and independence of other states.

Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right, and if this principle were established through the world, the freedom of our own country and of the whole British Commonwealth of nations would be in danger.

America faces this same enemy, except from within.

We cannot fight in a physical civil war to defeat this enemy, because in doing so, we’d be falling into the trap of declaring “might is right.” But there are other kinds of war, and other kinds of battle that far predate Goldberg’s lamentation “then we have no words left for an actual civil war.” Actually, we do have words for that: tragedy, cataclysm, catastrophe are a few that come to mind.

Jesus said in Matthew 11:12, that “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.” Yet Jesus did not call on His disciples to conduct violent war against them.

The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 10:

I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Civilization wins when we fight with stronger weapons than mere bullets and knives. We have a divine power, which has as its shield a philosophical, emotional, and logical argument that good triumphs over evil, that light defeats darkness, and that truth wins over lies.

The enemy isn’t “the other side.” The enemy is giving in to violence, lies, and personal attacks. We know who is serving the enemy by their words and actions.

Those who hunt Republican lawmakers are wrong, but those who leap onto stages to condemn them are also wrong. It’s simply a matter of degree. We condemn both. The president is wrong to lie and manipulate in the press and on Twitter. But those who hate him are also wrong to mock and lie about him.

God isn’t on the Republican side–or the Democrat side. Just as God wasn’t on the North’s or South’s side in the Civil War, God is on humanity’s side as He remains today. Civilization means treating others as you want to be treated. It doesn’t mean that the government has to be everything to everyone while we merrily scorn each other.

Liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, Republicans and Democrats can all agree that we shouldn’t pursue revenge, lies, and violence. We shouldn’t cancel Christmas parties because people who support President Trump might be there. We shouldn’t kick people off airliners because they support the president. We shouldn’t invent fake hate crimes to indict Trump supporters.

But we also shouldn’t defend the president when he engages in many of the same lies his detractors use. Wrong is wrong, and civilization cannot survive if we pursue such a course.

I’d say this is a good time for us to not move on. It’s a good time for the press to stop the news cycle and dwell on where we are a bit. We should look at James Hodgkinson and what produced him. Then we should humble ourselves and (yes!) pray.

This is war, and blood is on all our hands. It’s devilish to claim anyone here is clean.

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Church of England joins LGBT forces in the culture war and children are the casualties

Published

on

Church of England

Did you hear about the new set of directives released by the Church of England for schools and teachers concerning gender and gender identity?

In honor of anti-bullying week, the Church of England released an updated version of a 2014 instructional entitled “Valuing All God’s Children.” This new set of rules instructs against so-called homophobia, bi-phobia, and trans-phobia in nursery schools and primary schools.

According to church leadership, preschoolers, kindergarteners, and elementary students should be encouraged to discover their gender identity uninhibited as they “explore the possibilities of who they might be.” Specifically, children are to be taught not to “conform” to traditional male/female “stereotypes.”

Schools must “avoid labels and assumptions which deem children’s behavior irregular, abnormal or problematic just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes … Childhood has a sacred place for creative self-imagining.”

Practically speaking, the guidelines will encourage boys to wear tutus and princess tiaras while encouraging girls to wear tool belts and super hero cloaks in order to help them determine who they might be without “judgement and derision.”

While it’s tempting to dismiss this as England’s problem, the Strident Conservative has documented how the LGBT community and its declared war on Christianity and American culture has already launched similar assaults on children in America’s public schools.

Unfortunately, in America, the Rainbow Jihad has the full support of the government all the way up to the White House.

For example, Barack Obama hosted an event in April, 2016 at the White House aimed at “breaking down gender stereotypes in media and toys.” Much like the Church of England, Obama—with support from Katie Couric, the founder of the gender-neutral start-up Little Bits—promoted the idea that gender is irrelevant and that children should be free to be who they are “without limits.”

While Valerie Jarrett organized the event under the banner of promoting opportunities for girls, Obama’s track record on transgender issues made the affair very LGBT friendly.

And we shouldn’t get comfortable now that Obama is no longer president. Donald Trump—who embraced the LGBT movement at the Republican National Convention in his acceptance speech—announced back in June that his administration would prosecute schools that failed to embrace the LGBT lie concerning transgenderism.

The LGBT culture war is not just an American war. It’s a world war, and as usual, children are the casualties.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and it’s one thing they are consistent on

Published

on

The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and its one thing they are consistent on

On the surface, the left promotes a double standard regarding how business can offer services.  They support a right of the business that sides with Palestine over Israel, and the right of governments to do business with them.  On the other hand, they support laws that force business to have “birth control” in their health plan or make people provide a service to those they are uncomfortable with such as gay couples.  The libido is far more important than your convictions or conscience coupled with the left’s push for population control.

The Stream’s Rachel Alexander scratches the surface to show that what this is really about, is finishing off what famed leftist humanist John J. Dumphy called “the rotting corpse of Christianity.”  That alone makes the left consistent with their agenda and long-term goals.  Those words that Dumphy used were not out of sarcasm, they were out of hated and are a declaration of war against Christ and his body of believers.

The Left’s Hypocrisy on States Regulating Freedom of Expression of Businesses

https://stream.org/lefts-hypocrisy-on-states-regulating-freedom-of-expression-businesses/?utm_source=Newsfeed&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_term=Original+Content&utm_content=Left-11-16-2017Should businesses have a right to express their views and practice them accordingly? The left says yes — and no. They say, “It depends.” Liberals tend to say yes when the business takes a position they agree with. They say no if the business takes a viewpoint they disagree with.

In the first case, the left stands for free speech and the first amendment. In the second, the left happily uses state power to curtail the business’s freedom of expression.

There is a rise in targeting Christian businesses.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

NBC News – Having children is immoral

Published

on

Travis Rieder from NBC News recently published an article titled, “Science proves kids are bad for the Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.” Within the article, Rieder uses a derivative of moral fifteen times. As the great master swordsman Inigo Montoya, in The Princess Bride, eloquently stated, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Case in point, he states, “Humanity grew up in relatively small groups; Rules like “don’t harm others,” or “don’t steal and cheat” are easy to make sense of in a world of largely individual interactions.”

It is interesting that he uses the word “rules” and not morality to describe hurting, stealing or cheating. Why are these rules and not moral standards?

An illustration in explaining this might be helpful. I very much enjoy watching nature documentaries. My favorite ones are the ones produced by BBC Earth. I love the images and the videography and especially the British accent. I wish I had a lovely British accent. It’s so classy and makes you sound super smart, and the tone is captivating. But even with the countless number of documentaries I have seen with those intelligent sounding Brits, I have yet to hear the narrator condemn an animal for hurting, stealing, or cheating.

I have never heard the narrator say that the male bear that is trying to kill the female bear’s cubs so that he could then mate with her an immoral act. Why not? If we’re all just animals why can’t we do that? I mean, aren’t rules made to be broken. Why are you pushing your morals, I’m sorry rules on me. If rules are regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere, then by your own words hurting, stealing, and cheating are not immoral they are just rules to govern our activities in society.

Additionally, the fallacy of Rieder’s argument continues when he states that “Our moral psychology has not yet evolved to solve the problems of today.” Utilizing the logical conclusion of this statement, we would have to conclude that there are no such things as morals and morality. If morals are merely a byproduct of the collective social construct and not a set of unchangeable moral principles, then it is neither moral or immoral to destroy the planet. It’s entirely amoral; as it would be amoral to have as many children as you wanted. Morality is just rules based on what society at a particular time thinks is right or wrong.

Therefore, who are you, Travis Rieder, to tell us what is moral and immoral? If our collective psychology hasn’t yet evolved, then by logical conclusion, society has determined that having as many children as you want is moral and thus you are the immoral one telling us not to have children. It is you, that is going against the grain of society’s moral psychology.

Therefore, Mr. Rieder, you keep using the term morality, but I must say, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.