Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The fate of western civilization really does rest on our shoulders

Published

on

The fate of western civilization really does rest on our shoulders

I’ve always felt that deep down, most Americans are conservatives at heart. They want lower taxes. They want less government intervention. They want freedoms to be defended. They want law and order to triumph. Most importantly, they want the exceptionalism that America has displayed for the last century or so to continue unabated. Unfortunately, these feelings are often so far below the surface that even the people themselves forget to call on those feelings when making choices in their lives.

Politically, we are a nation that embraces liberty. Religiously, we are a nation that embraces the Judeo-Christian faiths. But both pillars of western civilization are under attack in ways that leave many floundering for a way to fight. The reason for this is a predominant ideological premise that often has the power to upend rational thought. This ideology is one that embraces cultural norms above common sense. It is allowed to overpower the logic and therefore the personal behavior of those who would love for things to be better but who aren’t willing to put in the effort to make them better.

In short, our sensibilities are overpowered by the strong desire to not be demonized.

To understand this more clearly, let’s look at a few examples of how this is in play today.

Example 1: Discrimination at Ivy League schools

Do you remember all the outrage at the office you’ve heard over the past few months about how Harvard admissions officers rate Asian-American students as “unlikable” even if they’ve never met or interviewed them? No? Perhaps that’s because Asian-Americans aren’t considered to be oppressed minorities the way other minorities are considered by modern society.

Imagine if a school rejected black students based solely on the fact that they were black. Do you think you’d hear about it then? What if they did it to Hispanic students? Muslim students? Female students?

The sad reality is that any discrimination targeting whites or Asian-Americans is never viewed as equivalent to discrimination over other races or protected groups. More people would be outraged to learn that over half of the qualified applicants at Harvard were rejected solely because they were a minority… unless that minority was Asian-American. In that scenario, we’ve been programmed to disregard the discrimination.

This has been demonstrated to be happening at Harvard, but it’s conspicuous that all other Ivy League schools have similar admissions numbers.

Those who call it out do not get the same response they’d get if the action were taken against other races.

Example 2: Transgender advantages

If someone is born as a male and decides to transition to becoming a female, they do not suddenly lose the physical advantages males have. This isn’t part of some anti-feminist rant, nor is it a subdued attack on transgenderism. It’s biology.

Nevertheless, society has deemed it acceptable for former boys to compete with biological girls in sporting events. We saw this last week in Connecticut at the state championship track event in which two student athletes who placed #1 and #2 happened to be the two transgender athletes. They were born male. They have the physical advantages of being male even if they now claim to be females. It’s no wonder that they not only won the race but also set the record for fastest times in the state, ever.

The girl who would have been moving on to the next stage of the national championships had there not been two transgender athletes competing expressed a sentiment that should strike every American who hears the story.

“We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” she said. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

The advantages do not just happen in sports. They happen in other areas that may not seem important at all, but in the whole scheme of things they are. In some places, the rules for bathrooms are not equal. Men must use the men’s room. Women must use the women’s room. But transgenders may use whichever room makes them feel more comfortable at that particular moment. In fact, they can switch their restroom of preference at will. Again, this doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it represents a bigger problem. Should transgender people have “better” rights than biologically parallel genders?

I must believe in my heart that thoughtful Americans realize the silliness of letting those who were biologically born as males compete in female events. I must believe that Americans want equal rights, not better rights for certain people. But I’m also very aware that most Americans would never speak out about such things because doing so would subject them to being demonized by acquaintances at the least and possibly in public, depending on how loud they were with their protests.

They’ve been jammed.

Example 3: It’s okay if socialists are rich politicians or entertainers

There’s a growing number of people embracing the tenets of socialism in modern society today. Much of this is due to Bernie Sanders nearly winning the 2016 Democratic nomination. Even more can be attributed to the rise of popular politicians and celebrity activists who are calling on the rich to fund the nation with socialist programs designed to “help” the country such as Medicare-for-All or the Green New Deal.

They call out Amazon, Walmart, and Apple. They demonize those who have wealth. The exception, of course, is that the socialists themselves, many of whom are also rich, get a pass. People cheer when Bernie Sanders scolds people for having a yacht. The same people say nothing when it’s pointed out Sanders has three homes and is a millionaire. I guess the believe he’ll give it all away when his initiatives are made into law.

There’s a cognitive dissonance rampant among socialists who look to the rich and powerful in order to fight the rich and powerful. They have turned successful people into their enemies and unless they’re willing to wholeheartedly adopt a socialist mentality, as many in Hollywood claim to have done, they will continue to be demonized.

What this means

Does this mean we need to fight for new rules in sporting events, more equality in college admissions, and more Clint Eastwoods in Hollywood. No. These examples are simply demonstrations that the hyper-leftist progressives are having their way with so many aspects of our lives, it’s no wonder we can’t repeal Obamacare or give power back to the states. All too often, conservatives fight the ideological battles while allowing the little battles below us to be lost without even noticing them.

There was a time not too long ago when the battle between the right and left was a battle of ideas. That’s no longer the case. The left lost. Their ideas have not and cannot work. But that doesn’t mean they’re willing to give up on those ideas because doing so would make them lose power. The left would rather keep power and nurture bad ideas than lose power and allow good ideas to guide America. This is why socialism is gaining in popularity at a time when it should have been completely eradicated from rational thought.

Now is the time for conservative-minded Americans to fight smarter, fight harder, and never allow the indoctrination machines to get hold of us or anyone we know. It’s time to spread the messages and expand on the tenets of conservative principles. NOQ Report wants to help any way we can, but we need your help in order to do that.

Great civilizations rarely collapse purely through the influences of outside forces. The threats from within brought down the Roman Empire, splintering it to the brink of oblivion. America is faced with similar challenges today. The difference is that forces that took down Rome took decades to gain traction. The forces that could take down America are moving at the speed of years, even months.

America is the keystone of western civilization. If we fall, the whole world falls with us.

Conservatives and Christians are being confronted by a nation in which over half of the people are against us. We are part of this nation, but our influence is waning. It’s imperative that we stay the course before suffering the fate of Rome.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

Published

on

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

What does an ancient human skull found in a cave in Israel tell us about the past? It all depends on which perspective you take and whether you want to follow sound scientific practices or manipulated conclusions from circular reasoning.

Modern science can give us a tremendous view of the past. With nearly every discovery, we can see God’s work at play in molding the planets and the stars, the oceans and the lands, the people and the other wonderful creatures. Unfortunately, scientists often distort the findings to fit in with their secular worldview. A clear case of this comes to us from a study published four years ago in the scientific journal, Nature, titled Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans, that is still being erroneously taught today.

First, watch the way that it is being reported. Then, let’s discuss the conclusions.

This is an important discovery, one that clearly points to a Biblical worldview of the roots of man from the garden of Eden working its way from what is now Africa into what is now the Middle East. It jibes with the story of the great flood, stories from the life of Adam through Joshua, and a centralized end point of ancient man in the region along the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa up through modern day Turkey.

Of course, that’s not what the scientists doing the research concluded.

“The is the first evidence that shows that, indeed, there was a large wave of African migrants coming out of East Africa and inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region,” said Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University.

One of the biggest problems with modern science is that our society blindly accepts their conclusions. They know, right?

Proper scientific method that we all learn in high school tells us the conclusions of the research are completely unscientific. We know a few things that are truly observable:

  • Humans very likely started in Africa and Neanderthals were in the Middle East.
  • Humans and Neanderthals interbred to form the basis for Europeans. Today, everyone other than purely African people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA.
  • A human skull fragment was found in Israel.

Given this information, it is obtuse to draw the conclusion that this represents a large wave of African migrants inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region. One skull fragment does not tell us that there was a large migration. One skull fragment does not tell us that it was a migration at all. Modern science must establish hypotheses based upon observable facts, but it almost always extrapolates too much.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if it extrapolated based upon the Bible. We are told the general story of everything that happened from creation through the rise of the Greeks within the Old Testament. Every scientific and archaeological discovery in the region supports this general story, but a culture that utilizes far more distant time frames to explain the discoveries has generated the faulty conclusions that scientists present to us today.

The evidence tells two different stories depending on the observer’s worldview. It’s unfortunate that most have pushed aside the obvious and verifiable conclusions in order to perpetuate the paradigm of secularism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Seriously, ‘eat mor chikin’ at Chick-fil-A

Published

on

Seriously eat mor chikin at Chick-fil-A

A month doesn’t pass without some organization protesting Chick-fil-A to exclude them from participating in some program or even open restaurants in certain locations. This month’s version of Chick-fil-A hate was the last straw for Senator Ted Cruz (and me) as San Antonio’s city council has voted to prevent the fast food chain from operating at the airport.

Let’s call this what it is. Any individual, organization, or company that supports a Biblical worldview or donates to Judeo-Christian causes are considered to be anti-LGBTQ. The only ones who are not labeled as such are those who go out of their way to embrace the LGBTQ community and who promote such things as gay marriage. Faith-based institutions that prioritize modern day’s version of “tolerance” over the Bible’s teachings are often considered to be A-OK to the leaders of the LGBTQ community (as compared to the actual members of the community, most of whom are not involved in pushing the leadership’s agenda beyond believing marriage is not only between a man and a woman).

Chick-fil-A has done nothing to attack the LGBTQ community. They’ve always been stalwart defenders of equal rights and do not deserve the type of treatment they get from people like the six who voted against them in San Antonio’s city council. Yes, they donate to Christian causes. Yes, they let their employees off on Sunday except in those rare circumstances when they’re presence on Sunday is a blessing. Yes, ownership expresses a Biblical worldview. But such things shouldn’t earn them a place on the blacklist.

Nevertheless, they are, and it’s time for patriotic Americans to commit to a sustained campaign in support of this company which has become a symbol as a primary victim of the left’s contempt and discrimination.

Starting tomorrow (can’t start today since it’s Sunday), it’s time to eat out at Chick-fil-A whenever it makes sense. But don’t just do it once. Make it a regular thing. Thinking of other fast food joints for lunch? Whenever possible, don’t. We need to let them and everyone else know that if the left is going to continue to denigrate and block Chick-fil-A, that we’re going to counter their maneuvers by supporting them with our business.

It can’t stop there. We also need to let those who act against Chick-fil-A know, such as those discriminating against religious freedom at the San Antonio city council, that it’s unacceptable. Notice that I’m referring specifically to those who act against Chick-fil-A and not average citizens who protest Chick-fil-A. Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment, so anything beyond respectful discourse should be avoided with the people who have a conscientious difference of opinion. But those who act against Chick-fil-A, especially if they’re part of the government, must be dealt with at the ballot box. A strongly worded letter wouldn’t hurt, either.

Chick-fil-A doesn’t need our help. They’re doing just fine. But that doesn’t mean we can’t expand our support for them anyway. The best way to show or deny support is with our business. Give it to them. Withhold it from those who oppose American freedom.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?

Published

on

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died

History doesn’t tell us exactly when Yeshua was born. Luke tells us that He was about 30 years old when He began His ministry and we know it lasted approximately three and a half years.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, – Luke 3:23 (KJV)

We know that King David died in 970 AD. The math might start sounding pretty cool at this point, but I’ll elaborate.

Scholars put Yeshua’s birth to likely fall in the 6-4 BC range. Experts place the range of His death (and resurrection) between 30-33 AD as a result of the data that they’ve worked out.

If He did die in 30 AD, that would mean that he died exactly 1000 years after his human ancestor King David.

Some will point out that the calendars were changed, going from 364 to 360 up to 365 at different points within this time range across the various regions, but using the accepted calendars, we can claim that it’s possible for it to be a 1000 year gap. Knowing the amazing order and precision with which our Father has established His creation, it wouldn’t shock me to find out some day that it was precisely 1000 years all the way down to the second.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report