RSS

Tag Archives: Religion

My Musings: Economic Matters, American Slavery & Black Wealth, Manufacturing Fear

Greetings friends,

As promised post before last, here are my latest musings from social media, using the new format of sharing a few quick postings rather than one longer piece so that I can spend more time writing fiction. Enjoy!

Talitha, why don’t you discuss economic matters more?

stacks_of_moneySometimes people ask me why I don’t speak out more on matters of the economy. I do, but those aren’t the social media posts that are popular. Most, if not all of our social woes in America, are inextricably bound to the fiscal ones anyway. I talk about fiscal matters to select audiences of people armed with the economic acumen to engage me. All else is a waste of my time. I can’t discuss the post-jobs economy, the ponzi scheme we affectionately call  Social “Security” quanitative easing, nor the mounting federal debt with people who retort with anecdotes, about their buying power, when the lack of wealth of certain groups in America is discussed. This usually comes from those whose cultural egos bruise easily, especially when our lack of wealth is pointed out by the likes of Donald Trump if I’m polite, any white person if I’m not. Many prefer that our fiscal, community, dirty laundry not be aired, and for some it’s a futile attempt to prove that race related poverty is mostly a myth. “I can keep up with the Jones’,” many insist. The keyword is “I”, which is irrelevant to the topic of what “we” can do, or have. Fortunately for me, I’m under no such delusion. An economic discussion is a moot one, when had with those who believe wealth can be measured by consumerism. This is America, where living beyond one’s means is the norm, and where many poor citizens spend frivolously, while many among the wealthy are frugal. We’ve got it all backwards folks, so one’s ability to consume has no place in an analysis of collective wealth. Some are asking me to discuss the blue sky, even though they’re stubbornly convinced that it’s green. Nope, I’m not doing that anymore, because it’s impossible to wake up people who are pretending to be asleep. Don’t fret though, such persons will never be alone. There’s always plenty of blissful room in Club Ignorance.

Slavery in America & Black Wealth:

Some Americans grossly underestimate the impact of centuries of chattel slavery in this shacklescountry on black folks, in terms of the lack of wealth as a whole. And before someone says “Africans sold other Africans into slavery,” or, “There were black/Native-American slave owners too,” “White people were chattel slaves too,” (utter nonsense, btw), or, “Look at immigrant group X and emulate them,”- note that these are all irrelevant, red herrings. Let your fingertips take you away from this discussion – this one’s for conscious grown-ups, not childish, talking point spouting, keyboard commandos. Everyone else, as my friend & mentor Steven Barnes (NY Times bestselling author of LION’S BLOOD & ZULU HEART) said to me a few years ago – “There’s no such thing as a wound that takes less time to heal than it took to inflict,”. Using those excuses, is like breaking the legs of one man in a race, then shooting the gun in the air for everyone to begin running. After the race & his obvious loss, the winners ask him, “Now why is it taking you so long to start running?”.

If you think that other groups, under identical conditions, would have fared better, you’re a part of the problem. If we believe that there’s no such thing as race, and it’s just a social construct, any other conclusions drawn point to a belief in the inferiority of black Americans, or Native Americans, who aren’t doing so well either. There’s no escaping that. For those who often ask me, “What can we do to help?”, you can start by acknowledging our humanity. When some did have wealth long ago – land (40 acres & a mule), economic prosperity (Black Wallstreet) or, were entrepreneurs (black owned businesses in the Jim Crow south) this was forcibly & violently taken from far too many. That’s not our fault, so you’ll have to excuse me if I’m weary of the whole “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” rhetoric hurled at black Americans. We did that, and were re-victimized many times over LEGALLY. It’s still happening on some level today via the judicial system. Do some of us gain economic prosperity despite this? Absolutely! but that’s not the point. Individual triumphs are anecdotal, nothing more or less. Collective ones, however, are an indication of economic stability, which is needed to have & maintain generational wealth. That should be the goal. That is our inherited disadvantage. 

 

And last:

Manufacturing Fear: Hillary Clinton as POTUS & ISIS

isisI’m going to preface this by saying that this is more or less food for thought that requires some level of objectivity. In a recent discussion, a friend brought up his committment to vote for Donald Trump, because he thinks having a female president will open the door for more terrorist attacks from radical, Islamic jihadists. His logic and that of others, is that a woman as POTUS will give the appearance of weakness exceedingly more, from members of a culture & religion, in which women are totally subjugated & have very little freedom.This is within the context of an extremist, radical, Islamic microcosm, to be differentiated from the greater, non-radicalized Islamic culture. Obviously, all Muslims are not radicalized, and I don’t mind going further to say that most aren’t. My intuition initially says yes, they could view America as vulnerable with a woman at the helm, but that’s not reason enough for us to not elect a woman in any election. In fact, that line of reasoning is preposterous. Moreover, America may be embarking on its first female president, but we aren’t the first such country – that logic is lacking in precedents to buttress it. Having a female president may be perceived as a weakness by ISIS, and perhaps even domestic terrorists, but this can be advantageous in our battle against terrorism. Perception often doesn’t match reality. Doesn’t it benefit us to be falsely perceived as weaker? I’m not a fan of Clinton for a myriad of reasons, but this isn’t one of them. It can’t be. It’s a provocative assertion, and not altogether flawed, but it seems to me its more of a fear tactic than a cohesive, valid argument. Maybe I’m just not paranoid.Your thoughts?

Have a safe & productive weekend! Until next musing,

TK McEachin

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pro-Lifers: “Pray for Kermit Gosnell”

A group of pro-lifers began praying for abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell last week before his conviction and this is the right thing to do. Although he snipped the spines of babies who could have thrived outside of the womb with medical attention, in performing late-term & born alive abortions, and as depraved as that is he too, can be forgiven. Whether through abortion or waging an immoral war, the taking of life is wrong & can be forgiven through Christ Jesus. Gosnell is  72 years old and ironically, although he illegally took life, he himself waived his right to appeals to avoid having his life taken. Even he would rather live than die – how ironic is that? I pray that before he takes his last breath that he repents, truly sees what he does as wrong & seeks salvation & forgiveness. I hope he realizes that legal or not, first trimester or late term, abortion is just wrong on so many levels. One thing I have observed is many liberals expressing disgust for what he did (and they are right). But many of them, had he done this in a state that allows late term abortion, would have no problem with the very same acts. God help us:

“We commit to praying for the repentance and salvation of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, convicted of three counts of First Degree murder of babies born alive,” Kemper says.

“While so many people are crying for blood and for him to be executed,” Kemper wants to turn that anger into loving prayers for the eternal life of a man who showed a callous disregard for human life. “I want to start a revolution of praying for the soul of Kermit Gosnell instead of crying for his death. I want him to find the hope I found in Jesus.”

Please click HERE to read the entire article. Note that as of today (Tuesday 5-14-13) Kermit Gosnell has waived his right to appeals to avoid the death penalty & has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

crossesI normally don’t do this & know that I respect everyone’s right to choose their faith (or not). Briefly, I want to take a moment to invite all of you who subscribe to my blog or who will see it throughout social media to accept Jesus Christ if you have not done so already. Christ came an died on the cross and was resurrected for our sins. There is nothing to bad or horrific in the way of sin that God will not forgive. No sin is greater or worse than another. The choice is yours & please feel free to contact me via my blog, website or on social media if you have any questions about accepting Christ. God can forgive Kermit Gosnell and He can forgive you. This life only lasts for a time but eternity is…eternal. God Bless!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 14, 2013 in In The News, Religion, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers III: It Is Better To Be Thought A Fool…

Friends,

Today I wanted to share with you a wonderful blog written my friend Walter Myers III in response to an article recently published in liberal leaning news giant the Huffington Post entitled, “6 Things Christians Should Stop Saying”. I posted my own comments to the author on the site, but Walter gives excellent, much more detailed responses to each of the points in the article. It is always amazing to me when non-Christians tell Christians what they should or should not believe. If you think that Christians are never under attack (or their faith), then look no further than Steve McSwain of the Huffington Post. Walter’s responses are Christian apologetics at it’s finest, so I wanted to share his blog with you all:

Walter Myers III

Walter Myers III

I recently read a Huffington Post article titled 6 Things Christians Should Stop Saying, written by the self-described “Author, Speaker, Thought Leader, and Spiritual Teacher,” Steve McSwain. I must say that for someone with so many titles I am completely underwhelmed. How someone who is supposedly so learned can be so ignorant of Christianity is quite risible. I have always heard it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This man has eclipsed that by displaying his utter stupidity and unrighteous contempt for all to see in the printed word. Now we know that the Bible is not based on anything mystical, but it is true, documented history of a people who just happen to be celebrating Passover this week as they have for 3300 years, and a man who we know factually was crucified on the cross 2000 years ago just as we knew there was a Caesar of Augustus at that time. Now I understand how non-Christians may believe Jesus did not raise from the dead, and I have no problem with that because it is entirely possible he didn’t. But the testimony has been demonstrated to be trustworthy over the past two millennia, so it is at least reasonable to say that belief in Christ is warranted even if it cannot be exhaustively proved (and if you believe there are things that can be exhaustively proved, then I would challenge you to prove what you had for breakfast this morning  exhaustively, as the only thing you can know exhaustively is what you are thinking this very instant).

Now if I have accepted Christianity based on reliable testimony, what can I do but accept what the Bible says? Am I supposed to impose my owninterpretation on the Bible, or read it for what the author originally intended? If this McSwain, who calls himself a Christian, doesn’t believe what the Bible says or that it can be interpreted properly, then why does he believe that we can properly interpret his writing? Wouldn’t the same thing apply to this bombastic piece of so-called journalism? As a self-proclaimed Christian, he is misleading many people so I would hate that to be his legacy when he goes to meet St. Peter. I will take each point below and respond briefly, as I don’t want to spend too much time on this nut case, as follows:

  • Point #1: If he doesn’t believe the Bible is infallible, then there really is no point in being a Christian because if Christ cannot ensure his words are accurately transmitted through the generations then we could hardly believe he raised from the dead. If you can’t trust parts of it, then you can’t trust any of it. It just doesn’t make sense and the only course of action is to look for some other explanation of how we got here and what it means to be a human person. Regarding the successful transmission of the authors’ ideas, we have literally thousands of partial texts and hundreds of complete texts dating back to the 100s. With that many copies and variation of no more than 0.5% across them all makes the Bible an astounding historical document without peer.
  • Point #2: Why does he expect the Bible to be interpreted any differently from any other book? The Bible is a book of written history that is to be interpreted like any other book, and is a book with a number of genres such as poetry, apocalyptic, the gospels, wisdom, and the law. So you don’t interpret wisdom in the same way you interpret law, and you don’t interpret poetry the same as the gospels. The fact that this escapes this man is beyond me.
  • Point #3: It is just utter foolishness to indicate that Christ indicated anything other than he as being the only way to heaven. Christ is clear on this, and so were his disciples. There is no interpretive “issue” here, or alternative reading. If McSwain cannot accept that the Bible says the only way to salvation is through Christ, since it was he that died on the cross for our sins, then McSwain should just ditch Christianity since he doesn’t believe what it clearly says. There is no crime in doing this, and shoehorning his personal views into biblical interpretation is one of the worst things any Christian can do. I think there is a special hell for people who do that because it is wholly dishonest and disingenuous.

To continue reading the remainder of his rebuttal, please click HERE!

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 1, 2013 in Featured Guest blogs, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

Amid the controversy of statements made by Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, about his support of traditional marriage, I want to share with you my proposal to solving this seemingly never ending issue on same sex marriage vs traditional marriage. For the record, I am a Christian Conservative who supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, therefore, although I respect proponents of same sex marriage, I oppose their platform on the matter, in favor of the tenets of my religious faith. Those who would oppose me because of their secular humanist philosophy or religious views even, certainly have the freedom to do so, however, if such opposition includes ad hominems such as bigot, homophobe, religious zealot or any other such labels, immediately, they demonstrate a lack of the very same tolerance which they demand from me, rendering their arguments exponentially futile to my ears.

Since this missive is not about the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, I will not discuss it, however, you can read Dan Cathy’s statement here if you are unfamiliar with it. Currently, only six states have legalized same sex marriages – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont & most recently, New York. Although these states recognize same sex marriage, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) means that the federal government does not have to recognize these unions performed in those states. Also, Washington, DC, Maryland, Rhode Island and two Native American tribal jurisdictions recognize these unions from those six states but does not perform them. According to Wikipedia:

Same-sex marriage has been established through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state’s prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.

Throughout the 2000s decade, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage grew considerably, and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Before the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, the last event to re-ignite the debate on same sex marriage was indeed President Barack Obama’s open support of same sex marriage which some celebrated & others stood against. President Obama is no different from any other citizen in that he can personally choose to support or oppose any view he wants but since he is a self-professed Christian, this decision disappointed me greatly. As a Christian, I believe in the biblical scriptures on which I base my opposition to same sex marriage. The Bible is explicitly clear on homosexuality in both the Old & New testaments, therefore a marriage based on a homosexual union is utterly invalid to those whose religious faith inherently prohibits it:

Leviticus 18:22:

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Romans 1:26:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.”

Christianity is not alone in it’s condemnation of homosexuality:

“We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” (Qur’an 7:80-82)

 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:15-16)

In Theravada Buddhism, it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual behavior as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. 

Of course there are non-religious persons who support homosexuality and believe that it is as normal as heterosexuality and two persons who love one another should be able to join together in marriage legally. The arguments for same sex marriage are vast but predictable (in my opinion) and there are some religious persons (self-professed Christians included) who present arguments in favor of same sex marriage as well. I won’t present them here but the point is that regardless to the arguments from both sides, a solution to this dilemma will require compromise from both groups. Here are some major points in my proposal to resolve the issue:

  • Rather than re-defining marriage as well as civil unions for every citizen as an arrangement based on gender and sexual preference, let’s re-define them based on the institution ordaining the marriage or presiding over the civil union (religious institutions vs. the government). In other words, a marriage becomes a union ordained by a religious institution and a civil union becomes a union presided over by the government. This removes the entire issue of sexual preference by redefining it based on who performs the union. One complaint from those in the LGBT community is that “civil unions” have a negative connotation and are inherently inferior by name. Since a civil union would now be defined by merely being a union sanctioned by the government, regardless of the gender of both parties, non-religious heterosexual couples would also be “merged”under governmental civil unions.
  •  With marriages & civil unions re-defined in this manner, certain terminology would also change. A religious institution will “marry” couples & the state (government) will “merge” a couple. Partners in a civil union will be called “life partners” and in marriages they will be called “spouses” . Religious institutions may or may not specify this with “husband”and “wife”. Civil unions will designate a “life partner A or B” (or I & II) on documentation.
  • Leaders of individual religious institutions or entire denominations as a whole will not be required to maintain licenses, the couples they marry will not either. Each religious institution may issue it’s own marriage licenses or permission to marry (or not)based on their own decision making processes. Each denomination or individual institution must submit their marriage requirements or procedures to the state government for the purpose of record keeping and in case of divorce proceedings.
  •  The State (government) can continue to issue licenses as is for same sex and heterosexual couples alike who choose state sanctioned “mergers”.
  •  It is the couples’ decision alone on which arrangement to seek. It is the religious institution’s decision to accept or deny a marriage based on their religious dogma or their interpretation of it.
  •  Divorces would have a two step process for marriages (for filing), first, the religious institution would issue an certificate or decree (written consent) to divorce and take on the responsibility for any emotional distress and counseling. This certificate or decree would be presented to the state for the sole purpose of dividing assets, calculating child support or alimony payments to either spouse. The religious institution will deal with the spiritual and emotional, the state (courts) will only decide material & monetary divisions. The religious institutions may give a recommendation with the divorce decree/certificate/written consent for custody of any minor children, but this too, will remain the role of the courts. Civil Unions would only have a one step “dissolution” process, filing directly with the state and settling all monetary/material distributions with the courts just as marriages will.
  • Religious institutions must adhere to the law in each state with regards to the legal age of consent. In other words, a religious institution cannot marry a 40 or 18 year old man and an 11 or 14 year old girl in Georgia (for example), whose age of consent is 16. Religious institutions must also adhere to the law in each state not allowing blood family members to marry one another. This is because there is a proven biological risk for birth defects and other medical problems when close family members procreate. Such relationships includes siblings, cousins, parent-child…etc. Marriages of this type performed by a religious institution knowingly, can be annulled by the state and the religious institution would pay a penalty.

Now I have shared only a portion of my marriage proposal here and will share more as I fine tune it but with this proposal, marriage is defined by religious faith which is in accordance with today’s marriage practices, because for the overwhelming majority of marriages in the United States, the date of actual marriage (and anniversary celebrations) is based on the date of the ceremony and not the date when marriage licenses are issued by the state. Now as I briefly alluded to above, there are religious persons who support same sex marriage and believe that the Bible does not expressly forbid it, because although the New Testament mentions it (Romans 1:26)  their main argument is that Jesus himself does not forbid it in his words. This is a spiritually dangerous technicality in my view, but everyone has the right to believe what they want. For the religious institutions in support of same sex marriage, as you may have deduced, they will in fact, have the freedom to marry couples of the same sex in their individual institutions or denominations.

Before my fellow Christians in opposition of same sex marriage start cursing me or my proposal, this is not problematic, because although we know and believe that homosexuality is expressly forbidden based on the scriptures, we cannot dictate to a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious gathering that they must share our interpretation of scriptures or sexual morality. Sinners are allowed to sin. If an entire church body decides to approve a same sex marriage, in short, that’s their business and we don’t have to attend such a church. I refuse to. That’s my personal decision. To find this problematic spiritually, you’d also have to take issue with any denomination that has any practice which yours does not based on a difference in scriptural interpretation or a lack of one. We cannot pretend as though all denominations are the same theologically or otherwise.

Now to some that begs the question, “Why can’t the federal government just legalize same sex marriage everywhere? What’s the difference?” The answer is simple – because in doing so the government is legislating morality for all. When an umbrella is opened fully, whoever is under it will be in the shade regardless as to whether they want to be or not. In order to get back in the sun or rain, one must have the freedom to do so and this is impossible with only one umbrella or a federal mandate.For some, this is the same problem if a majority vote does not go in their favor. If the federal government (or for that matter individual states) makes a law to legalize same sex marriages everywhere and the government decides who gets licenses and requires them in order for a person to perform a marriage, what is to stop the government from refusing a license to someone who refuses to marry a same sex or heterosexual couple? Wouldn’t a same or opposite sex couple be able to sue a religious institution for discrimination? Of course they could because as it stands now, marriages in the church are subject to the authority of the state, because without a license, a minister cannot marry anyone.

If we sever this relationship, the decision of who to marry becomes the sole decision of the religious institution and they cannot be punished or rewarded in any way for it. If you are thinking that such a scenario will never happen, think again, it already has in this instance. There have also been instances where churches refused to marry same sex couples and homosexual pastors have refused to marry heterosexual couples, which is their prerogative. In my opinion, this is inherently in conflict with anti-discrimination laws because of the existing license requirement imposed on leaders of religious institutions by the state. If we take away license requirements, we cut the religious umbilical cord to the state.

To avoid all of this, the decision of who can marry should rest in the hands of each religious institution or entire denominations and we must eradicate licensure requirements in this regard. What I am advocating for are individual umbrellas for each religious institution and one for the state. A religious institution has the right to oppose and refuse gay marriage or allow it. My proposal renders the state non-partisan as it should be and restores autocracy to religious institutions as far as marriage is concerned. Others will ask, will a church or mosque be able to deny interracial or interfaith marriages? The answer is yes as they should be, because religion is a predecessor of government and religious institutions can define marriage how they want with a few limits. Contrary to what some think or recent events, institutions who refuse interracial couples are not popular nor widespread. Ones who refuse interfaith couples (for example a Christian marrying a Hindu) are doing so because of religious dogma and are within their rights to refuse such a union. For every religious entity which discriminates for these reasons, there are ones that don’t. In America, we have options, let’s utilize them.

Both spouses and life partners would also have equality in civil and legal matters which are not covered by legal documents such as wills, for example. If same sex or opposite sex couples do not want a merger under a civil union because of any perceived inequality or inferiority because of naming, they can seek a marriage from a religious institution which will marry them and these days there is no shortage of institutions willing to do either. I must reiterate that neither marriages or civil unions are defined in my proposal by the gender or sexual preference of the individuals which make up the couple by the state. It’s up to the religious institutions to restrict their definitions to same sex or opposite sex couples, or allow both. This also would mean that DOMA would not need to be repealed necessarily, but rather it would be amended to define marriage as a union of religious origin rather than gender, for two or more** persons. A religious institution, however, can define marriage by gender in it’s decision of who it will and will not marry. 

What one religious denomination decides to allow or refuse has no bearing on the religion as a whole. Denominations were created because of varying religious interpretations for the most part. If a religious institution presided over your ceremony you’re married, if the government did so you are merged. Your gender is irrelevant. From my perspective, this is the best way to compromise while keeping the state in it’s proper place with regards to marriage – limited but allowed some regulation, which is no different from private sector commerce. Think about it.

**Stay tuned, Walter Myers III will explore the topic of polygamy & marriage in Part II to this blog!

 
23 Comments

Posted by on August 1, 2012 in Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chick-Fil-A, the Bible & LGBT Bullying by Walter Myers III

Chick-Fil-A, the Bible & LGBT Bullying by Walter Myers III

As many already know, the LGBT movement has now set its sights on the Chick-fil-A company ever since President Dan Cathy made recent comments in a (quite beautiful) interview  with the Baptist Press about his company advocating for family values rooted in the Bible.  Specifically, what raised their ire was his company’s support of the traditional family led by a man and a woman, a position on which he said the company was “guilty as charged,” with no plans to change course despite opposition from various groups. Now we see a constant barrage from the liberal media, gay advocacy groups, and even public figures charging that Chick-fil-A and Christian organizations that it donates are “anti-gay.” Well, I don’t see being pro-traditional marriage as necessarily being anti-gay, but it is clearly opposed to gay marriage. And this is a critical distinction that the gay advocacy groups refuse to make or allow because it doesn’t fit into their narrative. While Cathy may be against gay marriage, Chick-fil-A welcomes customers of all types without reservation, and has not exhibited any discriminatory hiring practices, treating both gay employees and customers with the same “honor, dignity, and respect” as everyone else. So Chick-fil-A is hardly being “intolerant,” or lacking in “diversity” or “inclusiveness” — words now used as verbal cudgels.

In reading various articles about this issue, what surprised me was just how much moralizing was going on by those who abhor morals specifically when advanced by Christians. One article  in BusinessWeek correctly stated that while it is not surprising that a company that holds to biblical values would disapprove of gay marriage, the problem is that Cathy “crossed the line” by openly condemning the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience. Yet I don’t recall them saying that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, or Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, crossed a line by their donations to a campaign  to defend the same-sex marriage law in the state of Washington. So should Christians now boycott Amazon and Microsoft for their CEO’s actions, as LGBT advocacy groups are encouraging gay marriage supporters to do against Chick-fil-A? Cathy has a specific moral position that is opposed by Ballmer and Bezos, but Cathy is the one who is supposed to give up his moral code in favor of the moral code of Ballmer, Bezos, and gay advocacy groups? It appears to me they feel this is a requirement, and thus Cathy does not have the right to have a view that is discordant with theirs. Now where is the tolerance in that?

As gay marriage advocates would have it, Christians are supposed to sit idly by and watch them actively advance a social agenda that is anti-biblical, as if Christians have no say so even as citizens of the United States. Gay advocacy groups, indeed, are making a moral argument as are Christians. Yet they seem to think their moral arguments are superior, and if Christians don’t agree with theirs then we are necessarily hateful and homophobic for opposing same-sex marriage. But what other position would they expect a Christian to have? The Bible is explicit about God’s view on homosexuality as a sin, so gay marriage isn’t even a consideration. If a person is a Bible-believing Christian, then that person will necessarily look on homosexual sin in the same way that they look on the sins of idolatry, premarital sex, and adultery. To see this, let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:8-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, norrevilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

To continue reading this great article click HERE!

Walter Myers III

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 29, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Exclusive: Black Christian Conservative Allegedly Thrown Out of Summer Program at Georgetown for Refusing LGBTQ Tolerance Indoctrination

Exclusive: Black Christian Conservative Allegedly Thrown Out of Summer Program at Georgetown for Refusing LGBTQ Tolerance Indoctrination

One of the most wonderful news stories that I was so happy to hear over the last two years was that of Urban Prep Academy in Chicago. It is the only 100% African-American male charter high school in Chicago and the entire country. It also has had a 100% college acceptance rate for it’s senior class for the last three years. There has been no shortage of coverage, accolades and pride for these young men in the media and the community, in fact, here are some of the headlines:

“Another Perfect College Acceptance Year At Urban Prep” – Chicago Tribune

“Urban Prep Academy announces 100% four-year college acceptance rate” – Examiner.com

“Urban Prep: 100% of Graduates College-Bound For Second Straight Year” – Huffington Post

Big Things Poppin’ at Urban Prep Academy: 100% of Their Men Heading to College – YourBlackWorld.net

Governor Pat Quinn (D) of Illinois shared this tweet expressing his excitement for Jarrett’s acceptance into his own Alma Mater on March 30th 2012 and rightfully so:


In an article just before the 2012 Urban Prep Academy graduation in the Milwaukee Courier, Jarrett Roby shared this:

I have lived on both the West Side and South Sides of Chicago. I chose Urban Prep because the news of the two previous graduating classes having 100 percent college acceptance rate was impressive,” says Jarrett.

He adds that before he came to Urban Prep, he had good self-esteem. “But Urban Prep challenged me to pursue excellence which has caused my self-esteem to increase. Urban Prep has inspired me to rise above and beyond all negative stereotypes and statistics that society has for young Black males.

Like JaBrice (Reese a classmate of Jarrett’s), Jarrett’s favorite subject at the academy is also African American History. “In my Honors African American History class, I am constantly learning surprising information about my race. The class provokes stimulating debates which in our teams cultivates and inspires outspoken individuals and independent thinkers.

The 18-year-old plans to attend Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He is considering a major in Biology so as to be a “competitive applicant” when he applies to medical school.

My short term goal is to become an emergency room physician or general surgeon. My long term career goal is a leadership position in the United States government.”

There are plenty more where that came from however, actually, I digress. Not very long ago (June 16th 2012) Jarrett Roby, who was also student body president, not only graduated with honors but was accepted to prestigious Georgetown University and received a full scholarship. He was also selected to participate in the Georgetown University Community Scholars program which according to their website is not only “The Soul of Georgetown” but also:

The Community Scholars Program provides Georgetown students with the unique opportunity to thrive. Scholars are carefully selected during the admissions process based on their academic achievement, impressive co-curricular accomplishments, and commitment to the transformative power of education. They typically represent diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and are often first generation college students.”

The Community Scholars program is sponsored by “The Center for Multicultural Equity & Access (CMEA). Their mission statement is here. My fellow conservative blogger and radio host Kira Davis of CDN network’s show “The Dark Side” and I simultaneously received some news tips and disturbing information this evening. She and I both were very shocked, angered and saddened to learn that this promising student, Jarrett Roby, future surgeon and physician was given the boot from this program because of his refusal to attend a workshop on “tolerance” of the LGBT community and “people who are different”. To be clear, Jarrett Roby was suspended from the summer enrichment program – Community Scholars, not Georgetown University in the Fall.  We received this disturbing news today from a source (who shall remain anonymous) whose eye/earwitness account was this regarding recent disturbing events at this summer program for selected Georgetown students who will matriculate the school this Fall:

I am here at Georgetown University through a program hosted by the Center for Multicultural Equity and Access called the Community Scholars Program. The program focuses on assisting underprivileged students attain a college education, and therefore they allow us to attend a five week intensive program that immerses us in two classes, and we get priority registration. The program is great overall and has great intentions, but today and over the past week they got out of hand.

It was brought to our attention that the program was requiring us to attend a workshop that essentially pushed for LGBTQ** Rights and “Tolerance” for people who are different than we are. I did not feel comfortable attending such a workshop, so I spoke to the Resident Director and the Assistant Program Coordinator. They both told me that I had to attend and that if I did not attend I would be subject to disciplinary action. A lot of people were not comfortable attending, but because they threatened us with disciplinary action, many just went along.

I finally spoke to the Program Director who then was the nail in the coffin in stating that if I did not attend I would be subject to disciplinary action. An individual who also felt the same as I did decided not to attend and he was expelled and suspended from the program. They even had the Georgetown Police (Department of Public Safety) escort him out. He refused to attend the workshop from the beginning, and we both felt uncomfortable but they refused to respect our ideas. I just went along with the flow, but I was uncomfortable. The other student was expelled from the program because of his religious and political beliefs.”

**LGBTQ=Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning people (people who are questioning their sexuality/gender)

Kira took the liberty of uploading this exclusive video which we received (from an source we will not name) exposes a small portion of this “tolerance” workshop. Here it is:

According to a second source (who shall also remain anonymous) that student was none other than Mr. Jarrett Roby, who according to his profile on a social media site is a “disciple of Christ”. According to that source it is he whom the CMEA had thrown out by the Georgetown police because of his religious beliefs! How ironic is that? He refused to attend a class on “tolerance”of the LGBTQ community rights and “those different than we are” and those who were attempting to coerce him to take the workshop showed him zero tolerance for his faith. It seems as though those persons are the ones needing the tolerance workshop. What is even more shocking is that this would occur on the campus of Georgetown University – the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the country.

So what is next – will an atheist be forced to take a workshop on theology or “religious tolerance”? Will a vegetarian be required to eat meat or take a class on butchering a pig? I have to also wonder if in this “tolerance workshop” members of the LGBTQ community were taught to tolerate those of us who exercise our first amendment right to practice the religion of our choice and adhere to it’s practices. You see, contrary to liberal media portrayal, it’s not that Christians (or members of any religion which prohibits homosexual lifestyles) are “intolerant” of the LGBTQ community, for we dislike the sin of homosexual lifestyles but most certainly not homosexuals themselves. In fact, in my blog Conservative Calmversation, I dealt with the issue of unequal sin condemnation among Christians here. I had the pleasure of communicating with Jarrett via social media and confirmed this story and he explained how this situation unfolded. Here is what he shared in his own words:

Me: “How are you Jarrett? My name is Talitha McEachin I’m a writer/blogger for several conservative political sites including CainTV , KiraDavis.net and other sites. I heard about your dismissal from the summer program at GU because of the “Gay tolerance”class and as a Christian & Conservative it makes me VERY upset that they would trample all over your beliefs & force you to take a class (well try to. I’m writing an article about it now). Can you tell me what happened? What made you decide to stand your ground rather than just taking the class in order to stay in the program.”


JR: “
Hello. Thank you for contacting me. I am doing well. I’m just greatly saddened about the situation. Officially, the program directors will say I was dismissed from the program because I left 3 of the Ra’s {Resident Advisers} feeling physically threatened. However I never mentioned anything remotely violent or did anything violent. Also I am confident that all of my peers would support the fact that I have never showed an ounce of violence and any such claims are flawed. The directors of the program who dismissed me said that their reasoning may not be fair, but they were not going to ask for a general consensus of me.

Considering this, I believe I was asked to leave the program because I took a conservative stand against a liberal ideology and liberal group of people who are in charge of the program. Every scholar apart of the program was signed up for an LGBTQ seminar for Monday (July 23). My friend, _____________, and I decided this was a seminar we would not attend. I am a devout Christian so I have no animosity in my heart toward any man whether he is gay or straight. I am required to love all people and I try my best to do so. I have no problems with homosexuals because it is the natural and God given right to be with whom they want to be with (Freewill). I do not support Gay rights, but as a supporter of the US constitution I do tolerate them.


Because I have an established view point on LGBTQ I did not think it was necessary for me to go to the seminar.
I approached a RA privately with my appeal on Sunday and it was automatically shut down and I was told I could expect to be written up if I did not go to the seminar. I held my peace and persisted with the idea of not going. Later that night other students got wind that ____ and I were not planning on going to the seminar. We were automatically attacked and deemed “closed-minded” and “ignorant”. In the mist of this rising confrontation I began to speak up to try and explain to other scholars how I was not trying to be intolerant. During this discussion the same three RAs that decided that they felt physically threaten tried to stop the conversation and send everyone to their rooms before the established curfew.

I once again spoke up in protest of the early curfew and with an appeal that everyone calms down and back off. As the intensity died down it was clear that the RAs had personal biases toward LGBTQ and were against anyone who spoke against it. I heard the RAs say negative things about me but I didn’t respond because once everything died down it was curfew and I did not want to turn a political debate into and emotional onslaught.

The next day I was called in by the program directors and told my actions during the informal debate had reassured the RAs feeling of being threatened. I was told that there had been a meeting with the RA’s and it was decided that I could not stay because 3 RAs were scared for the safety. I believe a true injustice was done to me. I am not looking for revenge, but I am trying to help stop injustice.”

Folks, this young (18 years old) Christian Conservative man has stood his ground for the biblical principles he holds dear and for that I applaud him. What he is saying is that by virtue of accepting Christ and adhering to the teachings of Christ, he is already tolerant of not only the LGBTQ community but all others “different than him”. The interesting thing is that on the website description of the workshop there is no information regarding this workshop as a part of the program, however, to be fair, Jarrett says he learned of this workshop when he arrived on campus for the program as it was in his itinerary: 

Me: Did you express your concern about attending to anyone early on?

JR: No, I did not express my concern about attending early on. I felt like the problem would best be solved near the date and I thought I’d easily be excused from this workshop if I expressed concern based on my religious faith.

Me: Did they tell you you’d be disciplined or possibly kicked out for not attending this workshop early on at the start of the program or was that included in your written itinerary?

JR: They told us that we could receive disciplinary action of we missed some on the itinerary. But I definitely thought I could make an appeal for the LGBTQ seminar because of personal views if I didn’t attend.

Me: Did they give you a reason why you needed this workshop or explain why it was required? After all, Georgetown is a Catholic university.

JR: No, not at all.

Me: Now that you have read the account of the other witness whom I cannot name, is their version of events accurate in your opinion?

JR: Yes that account is accurate. It’s just a broader version of events.

Me: How has this affected your excitement about attending GU in the Fall? Do you think the CS program represents Georgetown’s core values? After all it’s a religious based university.

JR:I Think Georgetown is a great school. I think the CS program is a good program just misguided and biased in some of their approaches. I’m still looking forward to attending GU in the fall and I trust that it will be a good experience.

I want to thank Jarrett Roby for sharing his story with me. I also applaud him for not only sticking to his guns but being so gracious and appreciative for his upcoming Georgetown education. Unfortunately his story (the general discrimination assuming all testimonies are accurate) is one that has become all too familiar. In our society’s efforts to secure rights and tolerance for the LGBTQ community (which I don’t disagree with, they should not be discriminated against), we have begun trampling over the rights of those who do not support such lifestyles based on their religion. He simply did not want to participate in a class that is an effort to inculcate and indoctrinate the homosexual lifestyle acceptance agenda which is contrary to his faith and neither would I. Can you imagine, that at a prominent Catholic University, a young black Christian Conservative is thrown out of a summer program for minority scholars because of his refusal to be subjected to teachings contrary to his religious faith? Shame on the CMEA and Georgetown University! Newsflash CMEA and Georgetown University: Jarrett, myself and millions of other Christians are already as tolerant as we need to be by extending the love of Christ to anyone regardless of their background, age, sexual orientation, race, gender, nationality and a host of other categories.

Jarrett is a perfect example of how to stand your ground amid liberal attempts to make homosexual lifestyles normative and mainstream. If this is any indication of how he will grow and mature as a college student, then perhaps he or others like him will be the first fiscally and socially responsible black president. How is it that Jarrett, an 18 year old college student and a Christian, can refuse to give in to the liberal homosexual agenda yet Barack Obama, 50 years old and another self-professed Christian, caves under the pressure of the LGBTQ community on same sex marriage. Jarrett needs to have a courage workshop and Barack Obama needs to be required to attend it. You don’t have to succumb to the homosexual lifestyle agenda in order to respect them as human beings and treat them fairly. The homosexual members of my family know that I love them but they also know that I mean business when I say that based on my faith I abhor their lifestyle choice. I don’t need to be taught to tolerate their lifestyle because my faith says that all that I have to do is love them. The very fact that this workshop, which is not academic in nature, is being required under the threat of disciplinary action, demonstrates in and of itself a lack of tolerance on the part of those over the program – the very principle they are trying to teach. I have no problem with a voluntary workshop of this nature but coercion never produces tolerance, only resentment and perhaps even intolerance.

What also is very striking is that as per Jarrett’s account and that of the witnesses, these three resident advisers felt “physically threatened” by this young scholar, so much so that they utilized the Georgetown Police to remove him from the premises. Since liberals are so great at detecting “coded language” here’s a translation we all can agree with <sarcasm alert>: He’s black, somewhat large in stature, black, a Christian, black, a Conservative…black…a teenager…black…so we need to call the police and have him thrown out…Did I mention that Jarrett Roby is black? These “tolerant” people who allegedly threw this teenager out with police escorts are the type of people who rail against alleged conservative intolerance but refused to even hear Jarrett out completely.

Kira Davis was scheduled to interview Jarrett Roby on her internet radio show “The Dark Side” on 7-24-12 however, he changed his mind & declined the appearance. She did however, replay a portion of a recorded telephone conversation and read/discussed the various eyewitness statements, here is the recording. Kira received the following emailed response from Stacy Kerr from the Georgetown Communications office earlier today regarding the Roby situation:

“All new students at Georgetown University participate in programming and orientations to prepare them to be successful in a university environment that is inclusive and respectful of diverse groups of people. During orientation all news students participate in Pluralism in Action, a session exploring issues related to diversity and tolerance.Some specific programs, like the Georgetown Community Scholars Summer Program, give us the benefit of time over the summer to address issues in more depth. In addition to diversity, some examples of this in-depth programming include sessions on financial literacy and healthy relationships.In the instance that students make administrators aware of religious or personal objections to any training or programs, the university works to provide alternative approaches to fulfill these requirements in concert with students’ beliefs”.

I also received this anonymous response from another eyewitness who does not agree with the eyewitness accounts above:

“This is really sad how blown out of proportion this is getting. The sources are faulty and biased. I’m a Community Scholar and I am witness to the situation that night. Jarrett was in fact, loud and aggressive. These articles on the situation overly-victimize Jarrett and throw dirt on people who do not deserve it. They explained to us that he was dismissed not because of that incident, but because of a series of other incidents that he has been involved in. He was on probation in regards to the higher authorities of the program. He was not removed because of his beliefs nor was he singled out because of his beliefs. His approach was extremely aggressive and inappropriate and it left many people hurt, in fear, and upset. Of course, his best friends will “attest” to what they claim happened and it is unfortunate how it is being portrayed. ________, the other “conservative” involved, hid behind the shadows of Jarrett as Jarrett went off on a rage that night. _______ said things like “I’m going to get my lawyer!” _______ is the recorder of the video shot during the LGBTQ workshop (WORKSHOP NOT TRAINING).

These articles are out of line and exemplifies how unreliable the media is. It is unfortunate how quickly Jarrett bit the hand that fed him. The very least he could do is own up to his mistakes, learn from them humbly, and go on with life. Exaggerating, falsifying information, and completely sugarcoating his way to sympathy is pathetic and childish. 100% of us could not and WILL not vouch for him because his antics were very offensive, uncalled for, and frightening (not because of what he believes, but how far he would go verbally to make them clear).This has nothing to do with race. There are two white kids out of 52 of us. We are all minorities, including the higher authorities of this program with whom made the decision that Jarrett had to leave. Campus police being called is normal protocol for someone who is being dismissed. They are ensuring the safety of everyone on campus by escorting him out of the front gates. By being dismissed, he no longer had a reason to remain on campus, therefore STOP VICTIMIZING HIM AND SUGARCOATING THE SITUATION. So sad how someone can bash their own school, especially in order to avoid learning from one’s mistakes. Humble YOURSELVES!”

Well, there you have it, and each person can decide for themselves which version of events they find the most plausible. Of course, even with my own provocative opinions, I was not there. I know that some liberals and members of the LBGTQ community may call me “homophobic” (a misnomer I fear nor hate anyone) and others might say that I am “playing the race card”. The latter group may be correct for once. My response is a simple one: You’re damn right I’m not only playing the race card but I’m calling out the liberal agenda with it as well.I hope you all are paying close attention because this story, Jarrett’s story, is one such case where the race card has been put to proper use for once.

 
21 Comments

Posted by on July 24, 2012 in Breaking News, In The News, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers III: Has the Black Church Become a Socialist Political Organization?

Walter Myers III: Has the Black Church Become a Socialist Political Organization?

My brilliant friend Walter Myers III knocks it out of the ball park with this one:

Last week, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, which is the oldest religious denomination in America, hosted Michelle Obama as a keynote speaker at their General Conference. They were impressed with her “commitment to family” and her “leadership” in fighting childhood obesity. Now the Obamas are a lovely family, but as people of influence, it is not just a matter of what they are, but just as importantly what they stand for. And the Obamas stand for anything but family values in terms of actual policies and positions. In fact, Michelle Obama, during Barack Obama’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, wrote a fundraising letter defending the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion. In this letter, she argued that the federal ban on partial-birth abortion was “flawed law” that was “clearly unconstitutional.” She closed the letter with a promise that if Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he would keep George Bush from appointing a Supreme Court justice that would vote against Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that stated a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion).

In 1997, while an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion.  In 2001, he was the only senator to speak against the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which would have protected babies who survived a late-term abortion. Essentially, if a nine-month old fetus, against all odds, survived an abortion, Barack Obama did not believe the child had a right to live, so it should be denied any medical assistance and left to die. He subsequently led opposition against this bill in 2002, and eventually killed the bill in 2003 at a committee meeting in which he presided as chairman. The bill referenced fully born infants, but nonetheless, Obama felt a “previable fetus” does not qualify as a human person. We already know that he is unsure if life begins at conception, but apparently he’s not sure even if a fetus is in its ninth month of development.  And clearly, his wife, Michelle Obama is in complete agreement with him. Well, so much for their “commitment to family.” How the AME church missed these facts is highly troubling, and indicates that like the Obamas, the Bible may not be their ultimate authority either.

To continue reading click here.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 8, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: