Behold the triumph of left-wing, anti-Israel ideology over common sense or even decency in this news from the liberal organization J Street via the Washington Free Beacon:

The liberal Middle East advocacy group J Street accused Israel of “fanning growing flames of anti-Semitism” by waging a military campaign to stop Hamas terrorists from firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

J Street, which has said little about the conflict in recent weeks, released a statement Friday afternoon after Hamas resumed attacks on Israel moments after a temporary 72-hour ceasefire had expired.

J Street decided that now is the time to “put forward some hard truths” about Israel as it fights to defend its citizens from terrorism.

“Failure to solve this conflict is eating away at support for Israel around the world, damaging the country’s legitimacy and, in some cases, fanning growing flames of anti-Semitism,” J Street leader Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a posting on the group’s website.

So let me get this straight. Israel is “fanning growing flames of anti-Semitism” by defending itself against the daily attacks coming from the Gaza Strip, launched by an organization dedicated to the eradication of Israel as a state and Jews as a people from the Levant. Israel is fanning those flames.

The moral and political obtuseness of blaming Israel for the acts of anti-Semites (which is to say people who will use any excuse to vent their hate) defies belief. It’s like saying African-Americans “fanned the flames of white racism” because they took advantage of the Emancipation Proclamation rather than supinely remaining slaves.

The government of Communist China has evidently decided that if it can’t stop Christianity from growing by leaps and bounds, it would be better to deform it. According to the South China Morning Post:

China will construct a “Chinese Christian theology” suitable for the country, state media reported on Thursday, as both the number of believers and tensions with the authorities are on the rise.

“Over the past decades, the Protestant churches in China have developed very quickly with the implementation of the country’s religious policy,” the paper quoted Wang Zuoan, director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, as saying.

“The construction of Chinese Christian theology should adapt to China’s national condition and integrate with Chinese culture.”

Peter Weber of The Week adds:

Wang didn’t elaborate on this new “Chinese Christian theology,” but the Three-Self Patriotic Movement’s Gu Mengfei explained that the year-old Chinese push to promote correct Christian theology encourages pastors and laypeople alike to extract moral teachings in line with Biblical times and with other religious faiths. “This will encourage more believers to make contributions to the country’s harmonious social progress, cultural prosperity, and economic development,” Gu added.

Rumor has it that Beijing is going to consult with Katherine Jefforts-Schori and Gradye Parsons, well-known experts in subverting Protestant churches to the cultural and political Zeitgeist, in order to formulate this new “Chinese Christian theology.”

global-warming-hoaxNational Public Radio has discovered that there are evangelicals joining the global warming climate instabilityclimate change movement. New York’s WNYC profiled one of them this week:

Brandan Robertson is the Founder of The Revangelical Movement and a representative of the growing number of those in the religious right who also see environmentalism as a religious and civic priority.

“Many conservative Christians pegged the issues around climate change as something that only liberals did or something that was actually opposed to the Christian message,” says Robertson. “This was mainly because conservative Evangelicals and Catholics tended to have a human-centered view that saw the Earth as an object that humans have been given to dominate and exploit for our own benefit. When it was all used up, Jesus would return, destroy the world, and take Christians to heaven. That is, of course, an oversimplification.”

No, it’s a falsehood and a straw man, but thank you for playing. I have literally never heard of any Christian who believes what Robertson just said “many” “conservative Evangelicals and Catholics” believe. None. And I’ve certainly never heard any make a public argument that even remotely resembles what he attributes to them.

You see, Brandon, there’s this idea called “stewardship” that pre-dates the emerging church and the revangelical movement and Brian McLaren and Sojourners and whatever other late 20th-early 21st century fads you want to glom on to. (I know that’s hard to believe, what with Christianity being this brand-new thing that Millenials are creating out of whole cloth and all, but it’s true.) And it isn’t just about tithing, Brandon. Believe it or not, it actually spoke to the responsibility that human beings have to care for their environment, because the environment we live in was created by God and is a gift of God. I’m sure it blows your mind to think that any generation before yours could have come up with such a cutting-edge, world-defying, nature-embracing notion, but hey, Copernicus didn’t discover heliocentrism until the Clinton administration, right?

Robertson says that a new wave of conservative Christians and religious organizations have begun taking leadership roles, adding that the views of climate change denialists are inadequate, destructive, and even “unbiblical” in some senses.

Well, if there was such a thing as a “climate change denier,” they would be “unbiblical” in the sense of being completely irrational. Brandon, no one–not even the Koch brothers–deny that climate changes. It changes with some frequency, geologically speaking. It changes for a variety of reasons that are all connected with the extraordinary complexity of a Sun-Earth-biosphere system that we are only beginning to understand (human limitedness being another biblical idea). Virtually no one denies that human beings contribute to that change, since we are important players in the biosphere part of the equation. What is disputed is how much of a role–determinative, primary, significant, secondary, tertiary, insignificant, infinitesimal–human beings play. Once again, you’re playing fast and loose with the truth.

Nowadays, Robertson says that environmental conservation is more in line with the Christian faith, adding that statistics show that the new generation of younger Evangelicals are changing politically.

“For instance, on June 2nd when the EPA released a proposal to reduce carbon pollution, many conservative Christians saw that as a no-brainer,” he says. “Yes, [President Obama’s] proposal had a price tag of $150 billion, but the price tag that will cost if we don’t get to work on these issues is far higher. As we look at Jesus and examine our Bibles, we’re becoming increasingly less concerned with personal wealth and economic growth, and more concerned with caring for our whole planet. It seems to us like the more Christ-like thing to do.”

“No-brainer.” I wonder if Brandon has any clue what that expression means. The EPA wants to issue an enormously costly, politically controversial, economically damaging, and scientifically dubious set of regulations, and he’s ready to swallow it whole without any thought at all, simply because it comes wrapped up with a pretty green bow. That’s not Christian faith at work. That’s another kind of religion, and one of the most empty-headed, credulous religions imaginable. It is a religion that assumes (as Brandon never would about what Christians believe) that all the questions have been answered, that there is no more evidence to discover or examine, that all contrary evidence has been debunked, and that anyone who now disagrees is “unbiblical” and even unChristian, greedy and rapacious rather than caring and compassionate.

Well guess what, Brandon? Science doesn’t work that way. And neither does Christianity.

Justin Welby 3 (2)Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, like so many others in the West, is seemingly incapable of discerning a genuine difference between terrorism and self-defense.  Anglican Ink has his statement in full, but here’s the meat of it:

For all sides to persist with their current strategy, be it threatening security by the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian areas or aerial bombing which increasingly fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, is self-defeating. The bombing of civilian areas, and their use to shelter rocket launches, are both breaches of age old customs for the conduct of war. Further political impasse, acts of terror, economic blockades or sanctions and clashes over land and settlements, all increase the alienation of those affected. Populations condemned to hopelessness or living under fear will be violent. Such actions create more conflict, more deaths and will in the end lead to an even greater disaster than the one being faced today. The road to reconciliation is hard, but ultimately the only route to security. It is the responsibility of all leaders to protect the innocent, not only in the conduct of war but in setting the circumstances for a just and sustainable peace.

What is it about so many highly placed Western leaders (Christian and political) that they are unable to make meaningful moral distinctions?

To say that Israel may not under any circumstances bomb civilian areas–even after warning the residents and urging them to evacuate–when Hamas uses those areas for command and control, staging, rocket firing and storage, and sheltering soldiers is in essence to tell Israel it may not defend itself. According to the Church of England press release, Welby “fully accepts that Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state and to self-defence within humanitarian law when faced with an external threat.” But that statement is meaningless when you essentially rule out the possibility of striking back at aggressors who happen to use methods that are contrary to the Geneva Conventions. It’s as if in World War II the Allies had refused to invade Germany because millions of civilians lived there, and so left the Nazi regime intact and capable of re-arming.

In fact, that’s just what Welby and other Western leaders are advocating. They would have Israel immediately stop, before achieving its objectives, giving Hamas the opportunity to re-arm before undertaking the next round of Jew-killing. They would do that to prevent casualties among the population that, you’ll recall, democratically elected a regime advocating genocide, and that continues to support the aims, if not the methods, of that regime.

I’m not advocating killing Gazan civilians because they support Hamas. What I’m suggesting is that the people of Gaza have no problem with what Hamas is doing–they knew when they elected the thugs what they were and how they operated–and so if the result is that, despite Israel’s best efforts, some are killed or wounded in the course of the battle, it is something that they have brought on themselves. Certainly Israel is showing more concern, and offering more assistance, to Gaza’s civilians than Hamas would ever show to Israel’s.

In that regard, please note that Welby’s statement (and for that matter, much of the reporting by the mainstream press) ignores the matter of the tunnels. One gets the feeling that Western leaders and journalists consider the tunnels to be a sideshow, an excuse for Israel to invade. They are not. They are, in fact, the heart of the issue. The daily rocket strikes are dangerous and meant to kill civilians, and as such are a war crime that the world doesn’t care about. They are not very effective, however, in part because of Israel’s anti-missile system called Iron Dome.

The tunnels are another matter.

Hamas has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid meant for the building of the Gazan economy and infrastructure to build hardened tunnels, not just under Gaza, but into Israel. (Child labor was used to do so, resulting in more than 150 deaths to which the world is oblivious.) The plan was to use them to ferry hundreds of Hamas fighters into towns and cities in Israel for the purpose of killing, if possible, thousands of civilians. It would be Mumbai writ large. There 164 people died, and hundreds were injured, when ten Islamic terrorists attacked civilian targets in the Indian city. Multiply that by ten or twenty at least, and you get an idea of what Hamas was planning. It was to be the Israeli 9/11, inflicted on a population less than 3% the size of the United States.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza is meant to stop that. Justin Welby and others in the hand-wringing community want Israel to halt its efforts to prevent a bloodbath that would make London’s 7/7 attacks look like a stroll in the park. He and they should be ashamed of themselves.

There are many in the Christian world who have rushed to condemn Israel as it defends itself from savages who want to free the Levant of the stain that is Jewish presence. Those condemnations (this one, for instance) are wrong-headed and often misinformed, but they pale in comparison to the enthusiastic embrace of Islamic terrorism by some. Among the latter: Giles Fraser of the Church of England, who wrote in the Guardian:

For decades now the United Nations has been unable to agree a definition of terrorism. Even our own supreme court recently concluded that there is no internationally agreed definition. The stumbling block has been that western governments want states and state agents to be exempt from any definition. And a number of Islamic counties want some national liberation movements exempt.

That’s false, of course. Most if not all Western governments are agreed that Iran and Syria are state sponsors of terrorism. To the extent that they shy away from putting that label on some countries (such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar), it is not because they don’t know what state terrorism is, or because they object to the idea, but because of political considerations, whether good or bad.

I am eating aubergines and flatbread with Dr Samah Jabr in a cool Palestinian cafe in Stoke Newington. A psychiatrist and psychotherapist who works out of East Jerusalem, Dr Jabr is quietly spoken, modest, and perhaps just a little bit shocked by my lapses into overly colourful language. She is an educated, middle-class Palestinian (in no way a rabble-rouser) but she insists that the word terrorist has become a powerful – though often un-thought-through – political pejorative employed to discredit legitimate resistance to the violence of occupation.

What some would call terrorism, she would call a moral duty. She gives me her paper on the subject. “Why is the word ‘terrorist’ so readily applied to individuals or groups who use homemade bombs, but not to states using nuclear and other internationally proscribed weapons to ensure submission to the oppressor?” she asks. She insists that violent resistance must be used in defence and as a last resort. And that it is important to distinguish between civilian and military targets. “The American media call our search for freedom ‘terrorism’,” she complains, “despite the fact that the right to self-determination by armed struggle is permissible under the UN charter’s article 51, concerning self-defence.”

“The right to self-determination” is a fine phrase, one that is joyfully extended by people like Fraser to pretty much every self-identified racial and ethnic group in the world…except Jews. They alone of all the world’s people groups must be required to wander the world, homeless and at the mercy of whoever owns whatever plot of real estate they have been temporarily allowed to settle in. Fraser should know all about the changeable nature of that mercy, given his own country’s history.

Anyway, to the point of Jabr’s diatribe: terrorism is not defined by its use by oppressor or oppressed, nor is it defined by the sophistication of lack thereof of the weapons used. Terrorism is defined by its use against civilian populations. It is used by those who don’t have the means to stand up to military power, so they instead target those who cannot defend themselves. It is the classic weapon of the fanatic, the bully, the coward, and incipient totalitarian, whose use of terror as a weapon illustrates well the kind of rule under which others would live if the terrorist triumphs. Indeed, the reports out of Gaza that indicate that millions of tons of concrete that were given for humanitarian purposes have been diverted from a needy Palestinian civilian population to build tunnels that can be used to facilitate the further slaughter of Israeli civilians. Hamas is an equal opportunity terrorist organization in that regard–as long as it is around, everyone, Jew and Arab, will suffer.

The “right to self-determination” that Jabr trumpets has its limits. It ends where it demands that, for the sake of one’s sick fantasies, another people must die. Hamas has declared in no uncertain terms that if it has its way, what is now Israel will cease to exist and all Jews will be expelled or die. Israel has no more obligation to lay down its arms in the face of such evil than any other nation.

But these aren’t just the ravings of a deranged shrink. Fraser agrees:

I took part in the Moral Maze recently on Radio 4 and was howled at for suggesting that there could be a moral right of resistance to oppression. And the suggestion was made that, as a priest, I ought to take no such line. The weird thing about this is that Christianity has thought a great deal about the idea of just resistance. The Reformation, for instance, saw a flurry of moral justifications for resistance to the state, when that state is seeking to impose on its subjects its own particular understanding of religious faith. In 1574, for example, Theodore Beza published his The Right of Magistrates in which he affirmed the right of resistance – and violent resistance in the final instance – to state tyranny. This sort of thing was hardly a one-off.

Apparently Fraser got lost in the moral maze. He seems unable to understand the difference between resistance to tyranny in the form of military or police forces (in other words, the uniformed representatives of a government) and the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Elector of Saxony taking the field against the Holy Roman Empire, Islamic fundamentalists blowing up teenagers in pizza parlors. You say potato, I say patattah. In the words of an unaccountably famous woman, what real difference does it make?

It is nonsense to think that being a state grants some sort of blanket immunity from the charge of terrorism – and certainly not from the moral opprobrium we attach to that term. We talk of asymmetric warfare. This is asymmetric morality: one that, in terms of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, loads the dice in favour of the occupation. This is just not right.

I’ll tell you what’s not right. What’s not right is that the Church of England numbers among its ordained clergy a man so morally obtuse that he can’t tell the difference between national self-defense imperfectly carried out and plain, purposeful, pre-meditated murder.

Several years ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote a book with the title Liberal Fascism, and it of course enraged people on the left end of the political spectrum. How dare you call us fascists, they bellowed! Maybe this, from Andrew Walker and Owen Strachan at NRO, will help explain:

Last night, New York Times reporter Josh Barro tweeted out a disturbing message: “Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”

This is rather shocking. Barro is no angry blogger writing manifestos in his basement. He is a respected reporter from a prestigious newspaper that prides itself on equanimity in the face of heated debate. Yet he seems, by any reasonable measure, to be fomenting a campaign to rout out all dissenters from the sexual revolution. Erick Erickson wrote a brief response to Barro’s tweet, to which Barro replied that he thinks that “we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation. Not saying we should off people.”

Make no mistake: when Barro refers to “anti-LGBT attitudes,” he’s not talking about Westboro Baptist. He’s talking about tens of millions of traditional, orthodox Christians and Jews, people whose views were virtually universal in the United States and indeed the entire West as little as thirty years ago. Even today, those views are hardly the views of a tiny minority.

Even leaving aside the potential for large-scale social conflict from efforts to “ruthlessly stamp out” traditional beliefs, the dictatorial impulse expressed in Barro’s tweet–and the likelihood that it’s shared by many others of supposedly “liberal” mindset–is not sutelescreen-report-thought-crimerprising, but chilling in its bluntness. In his (their) view, beliefs about homosexual behavior that are firmly grounded in Christianity and Judaism are no more rational, have no more validity, and should be given no more respect than the racism of the KKK. Of course, he doesn’t advocate murdering the holders of such views, for which I suppose we should be grateful, but I doubt that all of his fellow sexual revolutionaries will be so accommodating.

It is this dictatorial impulse that lies behind the state efforts to penalize bakers and photographers for refusing to take part in gay weddings, the destruction of Mozilla’s Brendan Eich’s career, the labeling of anyone who is against gay marriage as “homophobic,” and the forced mainstreaming of homosexuality in public schools. It is totalitarian, utterly intolerant of dissent, and determined to destroy anything, including orthodox religion, that gets in its way.

I guess we should thank illiberals like Jeff Barro when they let the mask slip, since every time it happens more people hear about what the Barros of the world really think should be done about those who dare to disagree.

We all know that tax money is used to fund lots of stupid stuff. Research grants to look into the sexual behavior of cocaine-addicted Japanese quail, National Science Foundation funds going to develop a video game based on a high school prom, Forest Service funds used to replace windows in the closed visitor’s center at Mount St. Helens–we all know this happens, and that it’s wasteful and dumb, and we laugh because can’t imagine why anyone, even a federal bureaucrat, would think these good uses for limited resources.

Then there’s the federal spending that goes to underwrite evil. High if not at the top of that list is the $500 million that go every year to Planned Parenthood.

The latest in the interminable parade of repulsive indecency flowing out of Margaret Sanger’s temple to the death cult is the news that the organization has been talking up the pleasures of sado-masochism with teenagers. The invaluable Lila Rose and Live Action has released three videos of Planned Parenthood personnel talking to undercover reporters posing as teens about the wonders of handcuffs, punishment, and asphyxiation (warning: NOT SAFE FOR WORK):

 

 

 

Please note that these are not three portions of one visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic. These are three different interviews done at three different facilities. As Arlo Guthrie said, when you get three people doing it, you might think it’s an organization. A big, revolting organization that makes most of its own money off the baby-killing business, and for the rest takes your money and mine in order to corrupt the minds of children.

Big Government has more about the source of these funds:

Nearly half of the abortion industry giant’s budget is derived from taxpayers. At least a portion of the additional $75 million per year Obamacare appropriates for “sex counseling” through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) will also go to Planned Parenthood.

According to PREP’s website, the program is “the first federal funding stream for programs that teach about abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).”

“PREP-funded programs,” the website continues, “must also cover at least three adult preparation subjects, such as healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, educational and career success, and healthy life skills.”

In addition, the program’s website states, “PREP offers a brand new opportunity – federal funding for science-based sex education that includes information on abstinence and contraception. Until this year, the only dedicated federal funding for sex education was for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.”

PREP, however, apparently doesn’t think highly of sex education programs that promote abstinence until marriage.

“These programs censor vital information from young people, who have the right to complete, accurate information that will allow them to make informed decisions about their sexual health,” PREP says.

Bondage, sadism, masochism, promotion of pornography, choking games. This is what passes for “science-based” in the Molech cult. This is what your tax dollars are spreading.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 70 other followers