Come on, let me hear a great big Amen, my brothers and sisters!
The Triangle area made history of its own for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The Triangle viewing area had the highest ratings and number of viewers in the entire country for the inauguration ceremony. Of course most of us were snowed in that day, so it allowed us the opportunity to watch television more than most of the country. Make no mistake that regardless of your opinion of the man, the inauguration of Barack Obama as President was indeed an historic occasion.
I watched the ceremony, along with my wife and mother-in-law. My five year old, for some reason, could not have cared less and played with his toys, instead. Immediately following the inauguration ceremony, I published an observation with some commentary on the internet that I felt that the closing benediction by a black minister was patently racist in nature. In a day and time when the inauguration of a (half) black President was supposed to signal a healing in race relations, I found it in bad taste, bad judgment, and inappropriate for a man to pray in the name of my Lord and Savior and indict an entire race of people, namely Caucasians, with an insult. I could not believe the amount of comments I got from around the country and around the world. Literally thousands of people read my commentary on an obscure web site and skewered me over my observation and assertion. My commentary is nothing new and has been pretty much written here in the past. But because I had the audacity to take note that the comment was racism (as have many others, as I later found out from reading news reports after I had already made my commentary) and stand by my comments, I was ridiculed, written about, scoffed, and insulted.
The "reverend" Joseph Lowery is a prominent black minister from Alabama, was active in the civil rights movement (for which I give full support), and has spoken at such events as the funeral for Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, he has also been outspoken in support of supposed civil rights for sodomites and supports civil unions. Joseph Lowery delivered the benediction, and gave the following quote which even made Barack Obama visibly annoyed.
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen."
The underlying assertion is that whites do not embrace the things that are right and oppress the other ethnic groups so mentioned. Sure, the line is catchy and is a line from an old Blues song, or so I read. However, how can anyone seriously expect to be taken seriously as an advocate for racial harmony, reconciliation, or parity when making hateful remarks in front of millions of people in attendance and many more millions on television that only serve to "pick at the scab" of bigotry? I found the comment to be racist in nature and entirely inappropriate, and I called it as such.
Not only did I get comments from people who are rabid left wing Obama supporters, I also got comments from people claiming to be Native American, black, and Caucasian who also found the comment to be inflammatory and inappropriate for the same reason. I was amused when I was told that I was narrow minded and was a racist for pointing out racism. Hey, I point out racism by "whitey", too, and did so on the same internet page. I got comments from people who whether as a sick joke or just to stir the pot that were extremely racist, full of hate, or were ethnic jokes. I deleted a good many comments that I found either patently offensive, just plain wrong, or not germane to the topic at hand. Of course by deleting comments, I was then accused of censorship and not honoring First Amendment rights. Since the First Amendment only applies to government actions, not mine, I slough off such criticisms.
The bottom line is this, as I wrote on the internet. The comment was "just wrong and in itself racist. I despise racism, and I do not care from whence it comes." If people truly expect to be treated with total parity and accepted as equals in society, then they need to stop fanning the flames of racial hatred with such attitudes and remarks. Now, can you say Amen?
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Column for January 8, 2009
I was attacked by lesbians, but I survived
I can tell that I am going to have fun writing a column when I get attacked by a group of lesbians and homosexual men. People will make all sorts of excuses for their abhorrent behavior and turn the tide against someone who takes a stand for traditional family values.
I am active on the web site, Facebook. I have a lot of friends from church groups, political groups, family, and both local and long distance contacts on both Facebook and Myspace. I am more active on Facebook, however.
On Facebook, people often post links to news stories of interest. This one woman posted a link to a story about how some Congressional leaders are taking a stand against the radical homosexual agenda. As a Christian, a conservative, a parent, and a citizen, I have a major problem with the agenda of the radical homosexual movement. Don't get me wrong, I could not care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I just don't want it flaunted in public, taught as normalcy, and certainly do not want my children (yes, soon to be plural) indoctrinated into such a paradigm.
There were several people in this discussion who were lampooning conservatives for paying attention to such a thing as an advancing homosexual agenda when we have a "financial crisis", war, and whatever else they find to be important issues of the day. I find the repulsion of the homosexual advance just as if not more important, since it is a destroyer of family, of morals, and the very order of nature.
These people were clamoring that they have civil rights and that these rights are being denied to them by ignorant, Bible thumping fundamentalists such as myself. I was told that there exists a two way separation of church and state, though it is not in the Constitution, nor were the words of Thomas Jefferson taken in their context for the usage of that term.
There are several things I noted during the discourse. The homosexuals attempted to minimize their agenda to three things: military service, monogamy, and parenting rights. There was no mention of indoctrination of children, demanding the accepting of divergent sexual behavior as a civil right, and the recognition of a class of people who choose a particular behavior as a protected minority class.
The last one is a civil argument that few are willing to tackle or be intellectually honest concerning. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice. Regardless of the spurious claims, we are talking about behavior, not about something genetic such as skin color. If such behavior is indeed genetic, we can make excuses for criminal behavior, as well. Perhaps Charles Manson has a gene in his DNA that gave him a propensity for violence and murder. If it is genetic, then he can not help that behavior and we should release him from prison, since he is not responsible for his actions. Of course that rationality is absurd, but it is the end result of that thought process.
My assertions of homosexuality being a choice, that the homosexual agenda is much more far-reaching than the three points, and that homosexuality is a sodomite, divergent behavior were never denied. Instead, the sodomites chose to find personal fault with the messenger. This is a typical liberal tactic. Since they could not refute my logic, the discussion boiled down to a lesbian attempting to claim moral superiority over me because her lover is a female veteran of the Gulf War, whereas I was never in the military. Because she sleeps with a lesbian that was honorably discharged for the armed services, I guess that makes her above reproach. She gains credibility for her lifestyle by association with someone with military service, in her opinion. Ergo, in her estimation, I am not allowed to condemn sodomy as evil. The argument is so twisted it is not funny, but somehow the tactic, as illogical as it is, gets employed by homosexuals and liberals incessantly.
When I pointed out the hypocrisy of her supporting a candidate for President such as Barack Obama, who has zero military experience, to become Commander in Chief while impugning my stance for traditional family values, the finger was again pointed to me. I was told that I had no moral grounds to say that a female war veteran and sodomite is practicing evil.
It is this sort of perverse logic that is used to excuse sin as a civil right. Those, like myself, who stand up and say that it is inexcusable behavior and not to be given the status of a civil right, will be labeled as bigots and judgmental. If people want to label me as such, fine, just stand in line. We will continue to face such moral decay and cries for civil rights where they do not exist. Resist the cry. Stand for righteousness. There is an ultimate judge to whom we all must give account.
I can tell that I am going to have fun writing a column when I get attacked by a group of lesbians and homosexual men. People will make all sorts of excuses for their abhorrent behavior and turn the tide against someone who takes a stand for traditional family values.
I am active on the web site, Facebook. I have a lot of friends from church groups, political groups, family, and both local and long distance contacts on both Facebook and Myspace. I am more active on Facebook, however.
On Facebook, people often post links to news stories of interest. This one woman posted a link to a story about how some Congressional leaders are taking a stand against the radical homosexual agenda. As a Christian, a conservative, a parent, and a citizen, I have a major problem with the agenda of the radical homosexual movement. Don't get me wrong, I could not care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I just don't want it flaunted in public, taught as normalcy, and certainly do not want my children (yes, soon to be plural) indoctrinated into such a paradigm.
There were several people in this discussion who were lampooning conservatives for paying attention to such a thing as an advancing homosexual agenda when we have a "financial crisis", war, and whatever else they find to be important issues of the day. I find the repulsion of the homosexual advance just as if not more important, since it is a destroyer of family, of morals, and the very order of nature.
These people were clamoring that they have civil rights and that these rights are being denied to them by ignorant, Bible thumping fundamentalists such as myself. I was told that there exists a two way separation of church and state, though it is not in the Constitution, nor were the words of Thomas Jefferson taken in their context for the usage of that term.
There are several things I noted during the discourse. The homosexuals attempted to minimize their agenda to three things: military service, monogamy, and parenting rights. There was no mention of indoctrination of children, demanding the accepting of divergent sexual behavior as a civil right, and the recognition of a class of people who choose a particular behavior as a protected minority class.
The last one is a civil argument that few are willing to tackle or be intellectually honest concerning. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice. Regardless of the spurious claims, we are talking about behavior, not about something genetic such as skin color. If such behavior is indeed genetic, we can make excuses for criminal behavior, as well. Perhaps Charles Manson has a gene in his DNA that gave him a propensity for violence and murder. If it is genetic, then he can not help that behavior and we should release him from prison, since he is not responsible for his actions. Of course that rationality is absurd, but it is the end result of that thought process.
My assertions of homosexuality being a choice, that the homosexual agenda is much more far-reaching than the three points, and that homosexuality is a sodomite, divergent behavior were never denied. Instead, the sodomites chose to find personal fault with the messenger. This is a typical liberal tactic. Since they could not refute my logic, the discussion boiled down to a lesbian attempting to claim moral superiority over me because her lover is a female veteran of the Gulf War, whereas I was never in the military. Because she sleeps with a lesbian that was honorably discharged for the armed services, I guess that makes her above reproach. She gains credibility for her lifestyle by association with someone with military service, in her opinion. Ergo, in her estimation, I am not allowed to condemn sodomy as evil. The argument is so twisted it is not funny, but somehow the tactic, as illogical as it is, gets employed by homosexuals and liberals incessantly.
When I pointed out the hypocrisy of her supporting a candidate for President such as Barack Obama, who has zero military experience, to become Commander in Chief while impugning my stance for traditional family values, the finger was again pointed to me. I was told that I had no moral grounds to say that a female war veteran and sodomite is practicing evil.
It is this sort of perverse logic that is used to excuse sin as a civil right. Those, like myself, who stand up and say that it is inexcusable behavior and not to be given the status of a civil right, will be labeled as bigots and judgmental. If people want to label me as such, fine, just stand in line. We will continue to face such moral decay and cries for civil rights where they do not exist. Resist the cry. Stand for righteousness. There is an ultimate judge to whom we all must give account.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Column for April 10, 2008
Martin Luther King and Moses
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
