LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Zimmerman Trial Shows Trayvon Martin May Not Be Only Black Fatality

George Zimmerman is guilty.

George Zimmerman is guilty of profiling Trayvon Martin while acting as a neighborhood watchman.

George Zimmerman is guilty of saying Trayvon Martin “looks black”, when asked about Martin’s ethnicity.

George Zimmerman is guilty of following Trayvon Martin, leading to a confrontation.

George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting an unarmed Trayvon Martin to death…..

And none of these things are crimes in the State of Florida, unless prosecutors can refute Zimmerman’s self-defense assertion. That appears unlikely after the trial’s first five days.

The prosecution put on: a star witness who struggles with the truth; an eyewitness who said Martin did an MMA-style “ground-and-pound” on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman screamed for help; and a witness who photographed Zimmerman’s injuries, and heard Zimmerman claim self-defense. At some point, the prosecution might wish to start eliminating reasonable doubt, instead of creating absolute doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of anything apart from weight gain.

However, the real story of the trial is the black reaction to it, for that may signal the decline of blacks as an American political demographic. Simply put, blacks are losing political and social respect – not because of what comes upon them, but for what emerges from them, which is clearly demonstrated by the Trayvon Martin ordeal.

Blacks, who owe their political standing to overcoming race-based injustice, are showing themselves racist. From the outset, blacks called the shooting a white-on-black crime, and, apparently, many still do, though Zimmerman’s parents are Jewish (father) and Cuban (mother).

(According to Jewish tradition dating to the 2nd century, and US Census bureau policy, maternity determines a child’s race. George Zimmerman is Cuban, not white. The same tradition and policy makes Barack Obama just another white man in the White House.)

The New Black Panther Party wanted whites killed in response to Martin’s death and placed a bounty on Zimmerman. The Martin family said they did not “condone those people”…which differs from the condemnation that should have (but did not) come from them and all people of good faith.

Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman’s address, telling followers, “feel free to reach out and touch him”. Lee later apologized and paid the couple he put at risk. Again, blacks were silent.

Had the Ku Klux Klan advocated killing blacks or placed a bounty on anyone, or had a minor white celebrity threatened an elderly black couple, black outrage, and that of most other Americans, would have come swiftly…because such things are wrong.

The black non-reaction to these things, including ignoring and excusing racist comments from Trayvon Martin the night he died, shows that blacks, who once rose in opposition to slurs and injustices cast upon them, now sit in acceptance of their own casting slurs and committing injustices…and the nation notices this.

Trayvon Martin died during an election year, which likely prompted the incumbent president to seek connection with blacks during the re-elect campaign:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt_g5JPdP8Y[/youtube]

Now, blacks supporting Obama at 96% in 2008 is understandable. But, since then, world economists recognize America’s decline under Obama, and the American middle class, for which Obama claims to fight, lead the downward spiral. Yet hardest hit are America’s blacks. High unemployment, diminished net worth, a worsening racial climate, etc. make being black in America tougher under Obama.

However, instead of punishing Obama in 2012, blacks gave him 93% of their votes. Obama also got a pass for showing greater concern for issues affecting hispanic and homosexual communities than for those impacting blacks. Indeed, blacks scarcely criticize Obama, and quickly label anyone who does.

So, blacks look like an abused woman who, despite her split lip and blackened eyes, defends the guy who beats her as “good”. Thoughtful people will conclude there is no reasoning with the woman, leaving her to the insanity. They are reaching a similar conclusion about black political and social reasoning.

Non-blacks see Detroit and other cities under long-term Democrat Party rule, so financially corrupt as to have emergency managers or be in receivership. They see Chicago, where Democrat rule contributes to “open season” on blacks, despite the nation’s toughest gun laws. They see Los Angeles, where long-term Democrat control brought that city near bankruptcy with schools that graduate only 2/3 of students. They see a welfare state, begun in 1965, that has lowered black marriage rates, sent illegitimacy rates soaring, and helped blacks, though under 13% of the US population, account for 30% of US abortions.

Despite this and more, they see the self-destructive thoughtlessness of blacks continuing to vote for liberals and their policies. When they seek to engage blacks on this, they are labeled racists or sell-outs, which ends meaningful dialogue.

Blacks once boasted the “moral leader” of the nation. But now: they support a president who fails them, is disrespected abroad and is a scandal factory at home; they elect blacks to Congress who are impotent; they elect a disproportionate number of corrupt black officeholders. And blacks, who once excoriated all racists everywhere, now excuse blacks offering racist testimony in court.

If the nation sees blacks as unable or unwilling to look after black interests, then why should they seek to work with blacks on national interests?

When blacks fought injustices by being on the side of right, countless others, of all races, creeds, and colors joined them. Not because they were race issues, but because they were issues of right and wrong. For example, trafficking in men is not racist; it is wrong. Jim Crow segregation is not racist; it is wrong. Arbitrarily denying the vote is not racist; it is wrong. When blacks led such fights, pursuing what is right, they prevailed and gained political and social respect.

However, now, no black leadership pursues what is right, but rather what is “black”. It focuses on what is wanted, on laying guilt, on what others have that can be taken. Fortunately, that is not the view of all, or even most, blacks.

However, unless and until the desire for right returns as the premier aim of black political and social discussion, those who sang “We Shall Overcome” will be overcome by the perception that they are too self-centered and bigoted to be taken seriously in national debates. Political and social respect for America’s blacks is dying; all one need do is watch the Zimmerman trial, and how blacks react to it, to understand why it ebbs away.

Are You Willing to Act?

It was Passover in Jerusalem, a festive time for Jews, and one of great preparation for remembering God’s liberating Israel from bondage. There was plenty of activity and good spirits in the city, and there was likely no more festive and active place than the Temple of the Living God. However, not everyone was happy:

    John 2:14-17 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: (15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; (16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Righteousness has a reputation for being gentle, caring, and a danger to no one. However, seemingly unprovoked, the most righteous man fashioned a Roman implement of corporal punishment and went off on the people in God’s Temple…as they prepared for Passover. This does not square with the perception many have of Jesus; there is a broad perception of Jesus as someone who would not hurt a fly. After all, it is written of Him:

    Isaiah 42:1-3 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (2) He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. (3) A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Yet, there He is, whip in hand, turning over tables, scattering money, and running folks out. Was Jesus being righteous? Could this actually be righteousness? Of course, the answer to both questions is “Yes.” In fact, it was a willingness to act forcefully on behalf of righteousness. Of course, Jesus is a special case, as human beings go; He did things in the name of righteousness that would be inappropriate for others to even consider…

Oh really?

    Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3) That is definitely a Christ-like quality, as the Lord Himself said, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

So, Moses was meek, even before Christ had come. And the meek are hardly harsh or forceful, right? There is that Christ-in-the-Temple incident, but Jesus of Nazareth was God manifest in flesh, a little indignation is forgivable; others should never represent God in that way, right?

    Exodus 32:19-20, 26 – 28 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. (20) And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it…Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. (27) And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (28) And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

That sounds like pretty harsh and forceful action, in pursuit of righteousness, from the meekest man on earth, does it not? Now, I can hear the objection, “Well, that was BEFORE Numbers 12; Moses did not have his act together yet. After he walked with the Lord awhile longer, THAT’S when he became so meek.” Well, only if Numbers, Chapter 12 occurs AFTER Numbers, Chapter 20:

    Numbers 20:7-12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (8) Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. (9) And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. (10) And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? (11) And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. (12) And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Moses displayed the same “anger management” problem in the wilderness that Jesus of Nazareth showed in the Temple. Or was it simply a willingness to act for righteousness, even when the action was harsh?

There are numerous examples in scripture of righteousness that many would consider harsh, cruel, or injurious; they are righteous nonetheless, because righteousness is not determined by how it impacts people’s thinking, but by whether it adheres to God’s standards. Therefore, the prophet wrote, But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6) and, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

So, the question, the only question, for the saint of God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, even when such actions bring harm? Moses did so, as did Christ. Recall what happened in the time of Ezra:

    Ezra 10:1-4, 9-14 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. (2) And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. (3) Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. (4) Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it…” (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. (11) Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” (12) Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. (13) But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. (14) Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us.”

Could righteousness require family break-ups and sanction divorce, something God hates (Malachi 2:16)? While many see God hating divorce yet compelling His people to divorce wives and abandon children as contradictory, I do not. God had, long before, forbid such unions for Israel (Exodus 34:10-17, Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Ezra, along with the Israelites, was willing to act for righteousness, despite the pain it would cause. Most people, including those in the church, would think the right way to address the matter would be to leave things alone. After all, the people had acknowledged their guilt, and were truly sorry. They would prefer that to the way of God chosen by Ezra and Israel. To those having that view, that God’s way somehow was not the best approach, God has a reply:

    Ezekiel 18:25-27 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? (26) When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. (27) Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

The trouble is, many of us would like for God to amend His decrees to make our unrighteous choices at least acceptable, because we see no problem with our decisions. This is especially true if making things right with God is painful for us or those for whom we care. We object: “How insensitive of God to ignore our pain and demand we do hurtful things to be righteous. A loving God should never bring pain upon His children in pursuit of what is right. That’s too narrow a view and has no compassion. With God, nothing is impossible; there is always another way!”

Well, not exactly:

    Mark 14:35-36 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. (36) And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

If the Son of God was unable to alter what God required for Him to do in pursuit of righteousness, though it meant excruciating pain and temporary alienation for Him, should anyone believe that God will change the requirements of righteousness for them?

Correcting our unrighteousness requires no action on God’s part; He has already done all to pave the way to heaven. However, there remain some things for us to do:

    1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
    Isaiah 1:16-17 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    2 Corinthians 6:17-18 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (18) And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
    John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

God’s righteousness will require that people do things they would rather not do, as Simon Peter learned from the resurrected Christ, John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. When all is said and done, there are only two responses:

    Acts 21:10-14 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. (11) And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Or,

    2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

Again, the question, the only question, for the person who belongs to God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, whatever that may require. For those who seek compassion for the flesh, they should remember that saving the soul will always be more compassionate than sparing the flesh any pain.

Why Immigration Reform?

Let us begin with what is widely known though not widely reported: many things are more important to the American people than immigration reform, including:

    • Creating Jobs,
    • Growing the Economy,
    • Improving Government Efficiency,
    • Improving Education,
    • Fixing Social Security & Medicare,
    • Cutting Healthcare Costs,
    • Cutting the Deficit,
    • Improving Healthcare Access,
    • Reducing Poverty and Inequality, and
    • Reforming the Tax Code

Those first two have been Americans’ top concerns since the election…of 2008. So, the American people are left to watch a government, that won’t address their priorities, put great effort into something that is not their priority. Between this, gun control legislation about which the nation does not care, and the daily fixation on the almost daily increase of Obama administration scandals, the 2014 midterm elections may simultaneously: A) not come soon enough for Americans to voice their disdain, and B) not matter a hill of beans for, if historic re-election rates hold, then those who drove the nation into this ditch will yet have their hands on the wheel in January 2015.

However, the important question may not be, “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate?”, but “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate to do THIS?”

In 1986, there were about 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the US; then the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did the following:

    • Required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
    • Made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
    • Legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
    • Legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt.

Consequently, 3.2 million illegal immigrants were no longer held accountable for violating the sovereignty of US international borders…and the borders were not secured…and the immigration restrictions and penalties were not enforced (on illegal immigrants or their US employers)…and there are now 11.1 million illegal immigrants in these United States.

Now, in 2013, there is Senate Bill S744, which:

    Requires employers to verify their employees’ immigration status with E-Verify.
    Holds employers harmless for knowingly hiring illegal workers.
    Legalizes agricultural illegal immigrant workers.
    Legalizes illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and puts them on a 5-year path to citizenship.

So, this movie has played before, with two primary differences: 1) in 2013, employers of illegal immigrants get a better deal than they had in 1986, and 2) the Democrat Party is pushing this to the exclusion of more pressing matters. Now, if the 1986 Immigration Reform Law increased illegal immigration by nearly 250%, then what might a 2013 version, which looks pretty darn similar, do?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates the number of illegals will climb more than 300%, to 46 million by 2033, in less time than it took the 1986 law to increase them nearly 250%. The CBO also indicated that S744 encourages illegal immigration.

Given those facts, it is no surprise that the public is not overly fond of the bill, especially if securing the border is not a primary outcome of the legislation. It is also no surprise that Democrats are eager to pass this as soon as possible, since the following are true:

1. Illegal immigrants vote in US elections,
2. Illegal immigrants vote Democrat, and,
3. Should comprehensive immigration fail to pass, Democrats are confident it will be a winning issue for them in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

So, the Democrat Party fights for illegal immigrants to receive: food stamps; housing; medical care; education, including lower college tuition than US citizens attending the same school; etc., and all at the taxpayers’ expense.

Such is the Democrat Party’s modus operandi when it seeks the electoral loyalty of any demographic: blow up the nearest treasury and let “compassion” rain…funded with other people’s money. The strategy is successful, especially when racial animosities can be exploited. Blacks remain fiercely loyal to the Democrat Party, even though entitlement “compassion” has devastated black families and communities for nearly half a century. In fact, blacks are so loyal that they seem blind to hispanics supplanting them as the Democrat Party’s main ethnic squeeze. Remember, Obama snubbed the NAACP, sending VP Joe Biden instead, while packing his administration with hispanics.

Disrespectful (to blacks)? Perhaps. Deferential (to hispanics)? Definitely. Coincidence? I think not.

Immigration reform is not about addressing a top priority, like fixing the US economy and encouraging robust trade with countries from where immigrants come, creating jobs there and here…which WOULD address the top priorities of the American people. It is not about building the US workforce; that would require lower taxation and a smaller regulatory burden on businesses. If low-skilled and low-wage workers (which are the majority of illegal immigrants) made for a stronger economy, then the South should have won the Civil War. This cannot be about compassion, since there is no compassion with borrowed, or other people’s, money, in the form of entitlements. Finally, this is not about a cost-effective way to address the problems of illegal immigration, since the federal government already determined, more than 2 years ago that deporting all illegal immigrants costs less than allowing them to stay.

This is about the political left being so close to nearly unchecked power, at least in the next session of Congress, they can almost taste it; they had that power from 2009 to 2011, and the country has yet to recover. They are eager for another two-year stretch to finish the job “Hope and Change” started. Since blacks have outlived their political usefulness, the left looks to saddle up the hispanic community and ride a new race in pursuit of their agenda…

Adding another 35 million people to the country by 2033 who should not be here, registering them to vote (which they should not be able to do), and ensuring the majority vote for Democrats…THAT is the WHY of Immigration Reform.

Protestin’ or Profilin’?

Political protest in America has a long history, being the essence of the nation’s founding; 18th-century English colonists dissociated themselves politically from the British Crown and fought the most powerful military of the day to win their liberty. And political protest has remained an important form of national expression.

American political protest is somewhat unique; where protests in other countries often threaten the government’s existence, American protests generally do not put forward a serious alternative to the Constitution. Whether the Whiskey Rebellion, the Abolition Movement, the Civil War, the Labor Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Civil Rights, Viet Nam antiwar, the Tea Party, etc., American political protests, even violent ones, normally seek to adjust the government’s attitude, not seek to bring it down, the Civil War being an exception.

Beginning with the nation’s founding, American political protest has generally involved risk. The Declaration of Independence concludes with this sentence:

    “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

At the signing, Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” indicating the risk the Founders accepted. Risk has accompanied American political protesters ever since:

    Those in the Whiskey Rebellion risked a military confrontation with President Washington,
    • The early American Labor Movement risked extinction, with President Grover Cleveland calling in federal troops against striking railroad workers,
    • Most abolitionists abandoned moral suasion after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and chose riskier pursuits, including John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry,
    • Civil Rights participants, regardless of color, risked social stigma, financial reversal, incarceration, physical attack, and murder,
    • Viet Nam War protesters often put themselves at physical risk, including the 4 student protesters who were killed at Kent State in Ohio in 1970.

Even nonviolent Tea Party protesters were at risk. Their 2010 political success brought scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service, which can incarcerate and financially ruin citizens, with consequences often coming before proof that a citizen did anything wrong.

Nevertheless, since the Civil Rights Movement, a high-water mark for modern American political protest risk, protesters seem to have less skin in the game.

For example, the Occupy Movement was disruptive, but suffered little backlash from those they targeted. They protested Wall Street about its “obscene” profits; in “retaliation”, Wall Street hired them. The Occupiers challenged and irritated the governments in some of America’s major cities. In retaliation, governments turned a blind eye to acts like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luq4NTSK50M[/youtube]

Though the Occupy Movement included by rape, assault, murder, tuberculosis, arson, etc., the protests went unchecked for quite some time…until the public outcry, unlike the protesters, could no longer be ignored. When all was done, the Occupiers risked little, changed less, and became unpopular in America and elsewhere.

However, more popular protests seem to have the same amount of risk and change.

In South Carolina, Roy Costner IV ripped up his Pickens County School District-approved valedictorian’s speech in favor of a recital of the Lord’s prayer. The crowd erupted in response to protest of the school district’s new policy to prohibit prayer at graduation ceremonies.

Did Costner risk anything?

School district spokesman John Eby said, “The bottom line is: We’re not going to punish students for expressing their religious faiths.” Clemson University, where Costner plans to be this fall, did not rescind its acceptance of the incoming freshman. And the outpouring of positive sentiment was quite strong. No harm, no foul.

And what did it change? The Pickens County School District did not rescind the no-prayer policy; would not that have been the point of the protest? However, perhaps change, in response to Costner’s protest, happened half a continent away.

When Valedictorian Remington Reimer began to ad lib his graduation address, Joshua (TX) High School let him speak; they simply cut power to the microphone. They did not sanction his words, they controlled who heard them, perhaps a more frightening prospect. And Mr. Reimer is now off to the Naval Academy. Regarding risk, again, no harm, no foul.

And high schoolers are not the only low-risk protesters.

The North Carolina NAACP chapter has organized “Moral Monday” protests against the state’s General Assembly, which now has a Republican majority, for the past 7 weeks, resulting in nearly 500 arrests at the state capitol. But what is this likely to change? The Governor and the majority of the Legislature, both Republican, won elections. So is the NAACP and its supporters protesting the government, or the majority of their neighbors who vote? We saw how such protests wrought governmental change in Wisconsin. Why should the result differ in a state that is even more “red.” Again, no change and no risk…did anybody do anything to anyone who tried to unseat Scott Walker?

And what is at risk for “Moral Monday” protesters, after the NAACP also buses the protesters to the capitol and provides them snacks? An hour in a detention center, before the NAACP pays their bail and provides legal representation?

Once all is said and done, real protest looks more like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrHwmiUMH0[/youtube]

or this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ[/youtube]

Only when people would rather be harmed, than ruled in a particular way, does political protest have honest power. Even nonviolent leaders like Ghandi and King understood that successful protest meant blood; they simply chose the side which would shed none. Today, people are more likely to be seen AT a protest, engaged in meaningless acts of no consequence to them, than involved IN a protest, where taking a stand is neither fun nor free. King David once said, “I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. (2 Samuel 24:24)

If your defiance against what is wrong is an enjoyable endeavor that brings neither harm to you nor requires anything of value from you, then that is not protestin’; that is profilin’.

The “Editors” Are At It Again

Periodically, the modern equivalent of the moneychangers Christ drove from the Temple set up shop in the marketplace of ideas, pushing some odd notion and finding isolated scriptures to support their point.

This past week, a trio of Iowa-based religious scholars published an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Turns out, their agenda item is to weigh in on the subject of marriage equality. While it may not expressly be the editorialists’ aim, the aim of many citing the editorial is clear: to use scripture to argue against the idea that homosexual marriage has any biblical opposition.

The citers’ argument is a bit roundabout, challenging the idea that the Bible teaches marriage is always a one man, one woman proposition. After successfully disputing that idea (and, I believe, they were successful), they, in effect argue that, since God does not limit marriage to one man and one woman, how can one conclude that He limits marriage to two people of opposite genders?

Sigh…

To support this assertion, they point out that the Bible does not condemn polygamy. Indeed it does not; rather, it teaches that those who would have leadership positions in the Church of Christ should have a monogamous marriage:

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Even those who would be recognized as widows were to have had a monogamous marriage, 1 Timothy 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

To be exact, the Bible does not say a man cannot have more than one wife, provided he is not seeking to serve in a leadership role. The writers also, and correctly, cite the polygamy of Abraham and David, whom God favored and blessed. They could have included Israel, Elkanah (the father of Samuel), Solomon (whose wives numbered in the hundreds), and others. The point of course is that polygamy is more of a social than a moral issue. That is a difficult assertion with which to disagree.

The editorial writers went on to state, among other things, that Jesus encouraged self-castration, using this verse:
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Personally, I don’t quite see how stating what some have chosen to do, followed by saying, in effect, “If that’s you, then go for it; if not, then leave it alone”, qualifies as encouragement.

They also revive the worn, torn argument that the Bible teaches against interracial marriage:

Ezra 10:2-11 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. (3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (4) Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. (5) Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. (6) Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away. (7) And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; (8) And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. (11) Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

However, if that is the case, then why did God have no problem with the marriage of Joseph (to an Egyptian), or of Moses (to an Ethiopian)? Then there is Song of Solomon, the Bible book devoted to Solomon’s love for his black wife who was not a Hebrew. The idea that God had a problem with “race-mixing” is, therefore, illogical on its face. Recall, Paul’s words to those at Mar’s Hill:

Acts 17:24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

If all men came from one man, indeed from one blood, then what “races” are there? Can there really be more than one race in the view of Him Who created all men from one man? The simple truth is that God’s prohibition against inter-marriage was not a matter of trying to keep races pure, but of trying to keep faith from being tainted:

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So, playing the race card, when discussing marriage and the Bible, is more than a little intellectually dishonest.

The editorialists concede that it is not accurate to state that the Bible allows for homosexual marriage, and further conclude that the Bible is not hard over on marriage being a “one-on-one” proposition. Again, those two ideas are difficult to dispute. However, they end by warning against the use of “ancient texts” to regulate modern ethics and morals, when those texts “endorse” practices that most Christians would condemn today.

Of course, this is a nod to the idea that ethics and morals are man-created and, therefore, subject to human revision once the original documentation becomes old or out of fashion. And this opens the doors for those who would promote consensual sodomy as something with which the Bible has no problem or does not speak against. One of the editorialists is quoted as saying, “[Anyone who argues that] the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage … haven’t take[n] the time to read all of it.”

Indeed.

How these learned men missed Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, or:

Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

The simple test of scriptural truth remains: if you take a position, concluding what the Bible represents on any issue, and that position fails to harmonize with all of scripture, then that position is not what the Bible teaches.

I personally believe heaven chuckles whenever the term “marriage equality” rises higher than the cloud layer, especially when used to validate the practice of homosexuality. However, that is because heaven is governed by the one who says, “I am the Lord. I change not…” Unfortunately, under the sun, there is a disturbing lack of resoluteness, which those who oppose God consistently seek to exploit – and every challenge resonates, to some degree, with some soul who is lukewarm toward God’s word.

This challenge is no different. The argument is, and remains, flawed, hilariously so, yet it will sway some from a steadfast position to a more “enlightened” point of view…which is why it will be used again. Can only hope the Lord returns before too many yield to arguments designed for itching ears.

Which Battle Are You Watching?

Every day, the faux battle continues – party vs. party, conservative vs. liberal, etc. – frustrating the country and its citizens. Issue after issue becomes kindling for the sordid fire whose smoke is the stuff of political and legislative gridlock; they are talked at, not about. Those who should lead instead examine polls and rally their “bases”, and those who seek meaningful change are mocked or scorned. Blame is plentiful, progress is scarce and, more importantly, truth is nearly absent.

Interestingly, it seems the political class, with few exceptions, prefers this. Those furthest left or right tug at each other, accomplishing nothing, while “moderates” posture for loose votes, with all honing their pitch as either the “champions of their view” or the “voices of reason.” While the political class, well, politics, they ignore the concerns of voters and citizens.

For example, the economy and jobs are the number 1 issues with the American electorate today. This was also the case in 2008 , 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, since the last general election, the political class have devoted most of their time to bickering over gun control and immigration reform, two issues about which Americans are largely indifferent.

The last major effort by the 536 Keystone Cops in D.C. (435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, and 1 President) to impact the economy and jobs was the 2009 “Stimulus” Bill. Criticism and praise aside, the Labor Force Participation Rate, or the proportion of the “working age” population that is willing and able to work and is either employed or actively seeking employment, is down nearly 2.5 percentage points since January 2009, to a 34-year low, and continues to decline. The current administration promised to add jobs. However, since January 2009, 9.5 million Americans left the workforce instead. Compare that to the 1.2 million jobs created during the current administration. Not only does the political class pay little attention to the citizens’ concerns, when they do take action, it makes matters worse.

Yet, the media provides regular reports of the improving economy and job market, bantering back and forth about the political implications. It would seem much of the press is more interested in political intrigue than in the political accountability of elected officials.

Meanwhile, 15% of Americans are in poverty, and that is likely a low-ball number. Food stamp enrollment has increased more than 70% since 2008, to a record near 48 million people. Thirty-three municipalities have filed for bankruptcy since 2010, including 7 cities. The national debt, which the government decries, even as deficit spending continues, has grown to 105% of annual GDP; under the previous administration, it only once went above 40%.

Instead of addressing these matters, the political class tells the nation that a decrease in the government’s ever-increasing spending plans is somehow a budget cut, lies about the events in which four Americans, including an US Ambassador, were killed on American soil in Libya, and throws itself into a frenzy of self-investigation.

American voters, by a 7 to 2 margin, view the economy and unemployment as bigger issues than the multiple Obama scandals. Apparently, all that dust in the air has not blurred their of what matters to them.

Yet, public discourse often demonstrates a kindergarten level of sophistication: blaming racism for the government’s ills, blaming the last administration for what’s wrong (even though the exculpatory information, about taxes, job creation, or the Great Recession is undeniable). And while people defend this president and bash his predecessor, or vice versa, they do nothing about a government that seeks more power while ignoring the people’s problems and priorities.

…and that is the real battle…

The American people are battling the federal government for control: of their lives and liberties; of identifying, defining, and addressing problems; of whether the American Experiment can continue, in any form, as the Founders delivered it to them. And the American people are losing.

As government power grabs increase (the administration recently issued Executive Orders which essentially nationalize state elections, plus a host of other things), Americans are witness to the most significant flaw in government today: the inability, or unwillingness, of one branch of government to check and balance another when it works against the people’s will.

Obamacare remains unpopular among voters, yet the Supreme Court essentially re-wrote to find it constitutional, and Congress has failed repeal it. For its part, the national press, instead of chiding the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government for failing to uphold the people’s will, mocks the attempts in Congress to do what their constituents want, even as those in government acknowledge Obamacare will be a “train wreck”. When the federal government misses multiple opportunities to do the people’s will, opting instead to increase its own power…”Houston, we have a problem…”

And that problem will snowball, as the federal government prepares to unleash the IRS to implement the health care law. When $20,000 per year becomes the least expensive health insurance option for a family of 5, making $120,000 per year (and that ain’t as much as you think with 3 kids), and failure to comply means quality time with the tax collector, what recourse will the American people have, after two branches of government have failed to protect them, and the third believes nothing is wrong…and controls the IRS?

Speaking of (no) recourse, let’s not forget the 23 Gun Control Executive Orders issued earlier this year, which include having doctors ask patients about guns in their homes, and encouraging a national health care database to authorize gun purchases. So if anyone plans armed resistance against the government, then they should buy their guns early and lie to their doctor about it.

And all the while, the government assures us that it has no tyrannical characteristics:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIOF5R-7rx8[/youtube]

However, the founders who gave us a Constitution, had different thoughts. James Madison said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Does anyone else look at this government and not either feel abused, or fairly certain they might easily be abused?

And Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Does anyone else look at this government today with no fear of what it might do to them?

When you boil it all down…does anyone really not understand that the political battles that dominate the headlines are a head fake to distract from the real battle between the government and its people? And does anyone actually believe the people are winning?

What to Do with a Multitude of Sins?

Part of the problem in coming to a proper response may lie in how some prefer to regard Romans 3:23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. I find people often tend to see their sins as one, or just a few, transgressions and that, on the whole, they are pretty good people. And some things that Jesus said can reinforce this odd notion among the self-righteous:

Luke 7:39-47 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (40) And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. (41) There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. (42) And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (43) Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. (44) And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. (45) Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. (46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. (47) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Those who do not see themselves as having the lifestyle as a prostitute might believe that they are not very sin-burdened sins and, therefore, in a different class from those who are criminals, the immoral or general ne’er-do-wells. They may only owe the fifty pence as opposed to the five hundred. I daresay most of us fall adopt that line of reasoning.

However, that simply means that most of us have forgotten God’s view of His own people (Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.), God’s view of people in general (Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one), and the insight Paul gave into how each man might view himself (Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?)

There are not a few people with a lot of sins, while most have a smaller sin problem, and others deal with not much sin at all. Everyone has a supertanker’s worth of sin, with more added daily, as John wrote, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

This does not diminish the Jesus’ Name baptism’s power to remit all sins, nor the power of Christ’s blood to cleanse sins that occur after a man is saved. However, people are sin factories – at any time, every man is awash in a multitude of sins…unless Paul was just out of his mind when he wrote Romans 7…and the cleansing of sin is a continual process. The word and blood of Jesus would not continue to cleanse if no new sin stains did appear.

So, it is not so much that the saint has fewer sins than the unbeliever as it is that the former has subscribed to a divine cleaning service. Of course, the man who embraces God’s Gospel will demonstrate marked changes in behavior and abandon any consistent practice of past misdeeds. However, the saint who believes he has beaten sin is mocked not only by 1 John 1, but also by the apostle Paul, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

I cover all this in preparation to present the following verses as being more applicable to those inside the church as to those without:

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; (20) Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

The writers of these verses were not addressing the circumstances of those who had not heard the gospel, had not repented from sin, had not received the Jesus’ Name baptism, or had yet to receive the Holy Ghost; they were writing to the saints of God regarding the saints of God. Why does this matter?

Well, for one thing, it should increase humility among the faithful. If more saints are willing to say, “I have a sin issue and it will continue until I see God face-to-face,” then few of them should be on the wrong side of Isaiah 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

For another, those who recognize what it took for God to redeem them, and what is required to keep them, are more amenable to Jude’s admonition, And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 1:22-23), when interacting with the lost or fellow saints.

However, what may matter most is that they get an understanding of how to deal with the sins of the saints, whether theirs, or someone else’s.

Neither James nor Peter wrote of removing the multitude of sins in the verses cited above. The word “hide” in James 5:20, and the word “cover” in 1 Peter 4:18, are the same Greek word, καλύπτω, kaluptō (kal-oop’-to); to cover up (literally or figuratively): – cover, hide.

That is a far cry from what John wrote of in 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The word “cleanse” is καθαρίζω, katharizō (kath-ar-id’-zo); to cleanse (literally or figuratively): – (make) clean (-se), purge, purify. It is also different from what Luke described in Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. “Remission” is ἄφεσις, aphesis (af’-es-is); freedom; (figuratively) pardon: – deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.

So, John speaks of purging sins, and Luke wrote of sins being pardoned. However, both James and Peter wrote of hiding sins. There are other points as well: Luke wrote of what is done regarding the sins of the unregenerate, while John, James, and Peter refer to the church’s sins. Also, while John and Luke addressed what only God can do, James and Peter addressed what saints should do.

This should not be confusing, because scripture is clear . However, there is a fair amount of muddled teaching out there. To break this down into more direct language:

    • No one but God can remit, purge, or cleanse sin,
    • The church, in showing compassion to the lost, exposes the sins of the unregenerate, and
    • The church, by loving one another, keeps its own sins from view

To many, those last two points will seem hypocritical. How can one treat sins differently, just because one person says they love God, while another is not part of the church? After all, sin is sin, and no person is better than another, right?

The answer is sin is not treated differently; if a man’s sins are to be removed, then no matter who that person may be, they must be taken to God. However, different people are handled differently getting them to take their sins to the throne. The preaching of the Gospel exposes sin; for the unregenerate, it can lay bare his misdeeds before all, and give him a perspective he did not previously consider. Recall that, on the day of Pentecost, those whose hearts were pricked had not thought themselves in sin regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Suddenly, their sin was being loudly publicized in Jerusalem. It brought them to repentance…at least some of them.

Those who belong to God are handled another way – not because they are better than the unregenerate – but because they are in greater peril:
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The unregenerate always has a chance; the misguided saint may not. You plead with the enlightened to regain their senses; it is useless to preach to them as though Jesus is a new concept. Exposing them to open ridicule may be the surest way to push them to dig in their heels against God.

Nevertheless, hiding or covering sin does not mean ignoring sin. There is the work of restoration, referred to by James and explained more fully by Paul:

Galatians 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (2) Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (3) For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. (4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. (5) For every man shall bear his own burden.

That is hardly looking the other way; it’s simply not making a news item of something that is a family matter, between God and his (wayward) child.
Consequently, it is difficult to explain the popular practice within the church of saints “carpet bombing” one another regarding sins, real or imagined, and broadcasting the faults they see in one another far and wide. However, scripture makes it clear that is not the working of love as described in 1 Corinthians 13.

And, again, neither is ignoring sin the working of love. As Matthew recorded:

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

When dealing with the multitude of sins, remember that you are dealing, primarily, with those who know God. What is paramount is to get them back to God and to separate them from their sins. Only God can perform the separation, but it is up to His other children to encourage the errant one to bring what must be purged to God, and not to make sin a public affair while that most private transaction occurs.

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Thursday, March 28, 2024