Category Archives: Christianity

The Colorado Cake Case: Why Such Cruelty To A Christian?

Christianity, Freedom of Religion, Gender, Homosexuality, Individual Rights, Paleolibertarianism, Private Property

Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is a deeply religious Christian. Why would a gay couple want to compel him to decorate a cake with words his faith rejects? What kind of craven cruelty would compel such coercion? Why, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, would you proceed with force against a private property owner? What’s wrong with you?

A crude reductio ad absurdum should help:

A retail store selling Nazi memorabilia opens its doors in my neighborhood. I enter in search of the yellow Star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich. The proprietor, decked out in Nazi insignia and regalia, says, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve Jews.” “Don’t be like that,” I say. “Where else can I find a pair of clip-on swastika earrings?” The Nazi sympathizer is polite but persistent: “Ma’am, I mean no disrespect, but back in the Old Country, Jews murdered my great grandfather’s cousin and used his blood in the leavening of the Passover matzah.” “Yeah,” I reply. “I’m familiar with that blood libel. I assure you my own mother’s matzo balls were free of the blood of brats, gentile or Jewish. No matter. I can see where you’re coming from. I’m sorry for your loss. Good luck.”

There! Did that hurt?

Did I rush off to rat out my Nazi neighbor to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Not on your life. A principled Jewish libertarian (with a sense of humor)—who believes in absolute freedom of association and the rights of private property—would doff his Kippah and walk out.

Live and let live.

Writes Joseph Wright, in the Denver Post:

A devout Muslim with a wonderful singing voice runs a small music business featuring his CDs. A Christian couple asks this Muslim to record a song for the wedding. The song includes the words: “Jesus, resurrected from the grave and God incarnate.” The Muslim man declines, saying his sincere religious beliefs prevent him from recording the song. Would the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) take action against him and inflict financial penalties for abiding by his convictions?

A non-religious couple asks a Jewish kosher deli with fantastic food to cater their wedding reception, but demand that ham be included on the menu. The deli refuses. Would the CCRC take action against this deli for its religious convictions?

One more question: Would legal action be taken only against Christians practicing their sincerely held beliefs or against people of all beliefs?

All strength, Jack Phillips.

UPDATED (12/2): Lay Off The Hebrew Bible, Bleeding Hearts: Here’s What Leviticus 34 Instructs Re Illegal Aliens

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Justice, Nationhood

There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 34, in particular, that would exempt illegal aliens from the law of the land (as Kate Steinle’s killer was exempted).

The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

And, contrary to Rev. Ryan M. Eller’s dissembling and misleading “interpretation” of the tract, on Tucker Carlson’s show, Leviticus 34 makes very clear that the reference is to individuals who are TEMPORARILY in your country.

What does “sojourn” mean, Rev. Eller? It means “A temporary stay; a brief period of residence.” The reverend glibly translated the word “sojourn” (presumably) to mean citizens living among you.

No!

The Hebrew Testament is not the New Testament. It’s all about distinguishing the Jews and their homeland from the rest of the world. Don’t apply the Christian “We Are The World” dogma to the Hebrew Testament. Our Bible is a tough document. It’s full of ground-breaking exploration of natural justice; and some not-so-merciful meting of justice. But it’s not meant to meld the Jewish People with the World.

Leviticus 34 reminds the Hebrews that they suffered in Egypt as slaves to the Egyptians. Therefore, the people of Israel are to be kind to the temporary visitor among you. (They’ll soon be gone.)

UPDATE (12/2):

And this is not Jewish:

UPDATED: Sexual Accusations: The “Final Solution” To A Swamp-Hating, Pesky Politician

Christianity, Constitution, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Judaism & Jews, Law, Republicans

BY DR. BOYD CATHEY

Almost the entirety—at last count nearly forty—of the GOP senators in Washington DC, supposedly representing their constituents and the broader interests of the nation, have signed on and publicly endorsed Mitt Romney’s enunciated “new morality,” regarding Judge Roy Moore, a standard which Mitt stated in a tweet back on Friday, November 10:

Mitt Romney  ?@MittRomney  Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.”

Let’s look at that standard more closely: what it means is that basically any unsubstantiated, unproven accusation, especially sexual, must be believed: (1) if the accusation is deemed [by whom?] to be “serious,” and—by far, most importantly, (2) if the political calculation in our present Leftist/Marxist-dominated culture demands that it be embraced.

The first element and the key is “serious accusation.” In the case of Judge Moore, nearly all the Republican senators (I don’t include Democrats here, as it goes without saying that their perspective is largely political) have cited the “fact” that the charges are “serious,” and thus, even though no real proof has been adduced, automatically we are supposed “to believe the women,” to quote Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In other words, the ancient Anglo-Saxon—and indeed Biblical—standard of “innocent until proven guilty” is summarily tossed out the window.

Let my offer an hypothesis that, given developments yesterday (November 15), could well apply. Let’s just suppose that, say, in a week it is determined that the so-called “proof” offered by extremist feminist attorney Gloria Allred—Judge Moore’s supposed signature in that 1977 yearbook which he purportedly signed Christmas 1977—let’s suppose that it is determined and proven to be as Moore’s attorneys insist, a forgery.  And perhaps additional details come out discrediting that suspicious pile of women who all of a sudden have appeared after forty years and numerous controversial Moore campaigns, to make charges. Will all those US senators, starting with Mitch McConnell and John McCain, come out and abjectly apologize for their character defamation and welcome the judge into their “club”?

The answer is a resounding “no,” and it is “no” precisely because the GOP senatorial club and the Neocon-dominated “conservative movement” and its “presstitutes” (AKA, prostituted journalists and pundits) never wanted Roy Moore to be senator in the first place. And they have done—and will do—their damnedest to stop him, using whatever methods available, including always the “final option,” sexual accusations.

We need only recall the scathing attacks of National Review Senior Editor, the pot-smoking, pot-bellied pseudo-historian, Jonah Goldberg, who stated the consistent view of the GOP Washington “swamp creatures.” Here is what he wrote long before any of these accusations surfaced: Judge Moore was, according to Goldberg, “nothing more than a bigoted, theocratic, and ignorant buffoon.”  The fact that Moore had dared to boldly declare that Biblical law was more important in his judicial philosophy than certain recent Supreme Court edicts, the fact that as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court he had refused to accept secularist Federal judicial decisions that he believed not only violated the original vision and inherent view of the Framers but also the very underpinning in the Christian faith of our constitutional system—his refusal to take down a plaque on public property commemorating the Ten Commandments as the basic foundation of our republic–these have earned him the undying enmity of the Establishment.

Just listen to vaunted Fox “legal expert” Greg Jarrett, who [November 15] pontificated that he had “lost all respect for Moore when he placed Biblical law above the Constitution”—that is, Moore had identified the very essential basis for the American republic in an understanding and application of Western Christianity, which, let us add, was indeed professed and expressed by the Founders and Framers, themselves!

Jarrett’s view is shared by the great majority of Inside-the-Beltway Republicans and Neoconservatives: Bushite Fox pundit Marc Thiessen also jumped in head first to offer the identical narrative—Thiessen, of course, is that same globalist who strongly endorsed Socialist Emmanuel Macron for President of France, while condemning Marine Le Pen as a “radical nationalist, far right populist, probably a racist.”  Notice the pattern?

Yesterday, Roy Moore’s legal team and several significant conservative online writers—those not yet bought-and-paid for by the Deep State, such as Gateway Pundit—came forward with substantial evidence that indicates that what we are watching is just another put-up job, another “high-tech lynching” involving a rather cavalier manipulation of the facts by the likes of the long time, disreputable feminist lawyer, Gloria Allred (and probably a few others behind the scenes). Allred has a history of massaging not just events but legal shenanigans that remind us of the antics of Al Sharpton (remember the Tawana Brawley case?) and the infamous Durham County, NC, District Attorney Mike Nifong in the “Duke Lacrosse Case” (for which Nifong was later disbarred and jailed).

An analysis of the handwriting/signature indicates broad discrepancies. Gateway Pundit and various analysts have noticed these and the apparent fact that there are enough dissimilarities to sharply question Allred’s and her client, Beverly Young Nelson’s claims. First, the lettering differs substantially at a number of major points. Additionally, at the time of the supposed incident, Moore was not “D.A.” as the signature indicates, yet that is what appears in the Yearbook

And why would a young girl, never before encountered, in a chance meeting, have Moore sign her 1977 Yearbook at Christmas time of that year? Yearbooks are issued near the end of a school calendar year—not around Christmas, seven months later. Might it have to do with Nelson’s original assertion about when the incident occurred and the need to “match it up” with and confirm that time frame?

Finally, Nelson (through Allred) has stated that the incident took place in the parking lot behind the “Olde Hickory House” restaurant in Gadsden. But the restaurant never was called that, and there was no parking lot behind the restaurant.

These revelations, alone call into question not only Nelson’s account, but, more darkly and possibly nefariously, the role of zealous feminist attorney, activist and ambulance chaser, Gloria Allred.

But, irrespective of real guilt or innocence, what this says about our political climate, generally, and about the character (or lack thereof) and mindset of the Republican establishment, in  particular, speaks volumes about the success and virtual dominance of the cultural Marxist mentality and intellectual template that now, in addition to being fully and openly embraced by Democrats, Hollywood, academia and our educational system, has been tacitly accepted by those who supposedly oppose the contagion. Like their denominated foes on the “farther Left,” they—the GOP establishment and Neocons, too, have integrated that Progressive mentality, that world view, into their thinking and their praxis. And with the case of the hated Judge Moore, it shows.

And, so, they have sanctified and given their blessing to Mitt the Twit’s new template and standard, and, if I may quote what I wrote on November 14, it goes like this (in two parts):

“Any time an outspoken traditional conservative Christian candidate for public office is accused of sexual misconduct by the Mainstream Media or its political minions, especially if he openly opposes the Republican establishment, Republicans must believe the accuser, no need to have any proof; the very fact that the accusation is made in such a context is enough to disqualify the candidate and result in the vociferous demand that he be forced to step down.”

And the corollary:

“Any time a Democrat or Leftist political leader is accused of sexual misconduct, especially by talk radio or so-called ‘right wing’ punditry, Democrats and the Mainstream Media must circle the wagons and defend him, downplay the charges, rationalize his behavior, or, if too extreme even by their lax standards, then regretfully part with him and suggest that he get ‘counseling’.”

This is where we are in the America of 2017. This is the moral standard now demanded of Republicans, and this, as it is in fact a total and cowardly surrender, means the eventual defeat and end of the congressional GOP as supposed defenders of the old republic and anything it stood or stands for. Yes, they—many of them—will continue in office, using the same moniker to identify themselves, but their “opposition” to the Progressivist Revolution will be simple shadow boxing, groveling at the trough of the Deep State, emasculated and impotent to prevent further decay and decline—and condemned before their constituents and before history as the enabling and brainwashed cowards that they are.

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

==================================================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

From Roy Moore’s Twitter Account: “Bring it, Mitch.”

UPDATED (11/7): America’s Embracing Cultural Marxism; Putin’s Reviving Russian Traditionalism

BAB's A List, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, John McCain, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Russia

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

The unrestrained Russophobia of a John McCain or a Bill Kristol or Max Boot is grounded in their essential belief in such concepts as international “human rights” and America’s role as the global “enforcer” of those rights, which impels them to condemn Russia’s “persecution” of homosexuals, its institution of mandatory Christian religious instruction in its public schools (which neoconservatives condemn as “religious intolerance”), and its refusal to accept the economic and political straightjacket of the EU or other “international organizations.”

Additionally, as many of the leading Neocon pundits and writers are of Russian Jewish descent and Russian nationalism and Orthodoxy imply for them various forms of historical anti-semitism and the pre-revolutionary era anti-Jewish pogroms, Putin’s Russia is seen as symbolizing a possible recrudescence of those evils (despite the strong support he has received from Russia’s native Jewish population).

So, thus, the conjunction and harmony of Max Boot’s and Romney’s view, with George Soros’s view that Russia is now globally, “enemy number one.” And thus, also, some of the reasons for that unseemly ideological “marriage”….

Back at the beginning of 2015 (December 29, 2014), I wrote a long, heavily documented article about Putin and Putin’s Russia, attempting to shed some light on his past and the various largely spurious accusations leveled against him. It was reprinted by over thirteen web sites, both in the United States and overseas, and translated into Italian, Russian and a couple of other languages. I won’t reproduce it today, although it may be accessed at: http://www.unz.com/article/examining-the-hatred-of-vladimir-putin-and-russia/ (I have revised and updated it since then and can send that newer version to anyone requesting it.) Rather, today I will offer some details of what the media, in its near entirety, does not report, or, if it does, it does with a pronounced and virulent anti-Putin bias.

Over the past few months Russia has been commemorating the 100th anniversary of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the results of which included the violent and horrible deaths of approximately 100 million human  beings (according to the authoritative Black Book of Communism). Vladimir Putin has repeatedly traveled to various sites of infamous Communist murder and criminality from that era, and has dedicated memorials—“walls of grief”—and newly-erected and rebuilt Christian churches to memorialize and honor those victims. Russian cinema has, likewise, joined this effort of memory and correcting the Marxist view of history, with numerous (and popular) films that portray a frankly, very open anti-Communist viewpoint.

You would think that the Western media and our Western political leaders would welcome this—that after the life-and-death struggle with Communism for over seven decades our leaders would celebrate this turn of events.

But, no, rather Putin’s praxis is seen as nothing more than “calculating,” the “insincere use” of those anniversaries to consolidate his “dictatorial” or “neo-Stalinist” rule, and, more grievously, his refusal to fully accept all those wonderful fruits of Western-style globalism and, yes, his unreasonable rejection of the triumph of that other variant of Marxism, the dominant Cultural Marxism which pervades the West.

Is this not, then, Leon Trotsky’s revenge? Stalin’s legions were incapable of bringing down the Christian West, and Soviet Communism of the doddering Kremlin commissars ended up on that “ash heap of history.” But Trotsky, whom Stalin had murdered in his Mexican exile in 1940, now, with his millions of ideological descendants and godchildren, appears well on his way to actual and ultimate triumph.

Today, then, I ask your indulgence at the length: I pass on four items that offer a somewhat impressionistic view of what has happened in and to Russia since August 1991, when Vladimir Putin—that ex-KGB bureaucrat—was largely responsible for thwarting and defeating the KGB coup against the incipient anti-Communist Russian republic. (Yes, that is just one fact most of our Neocon pundits like to omit.) First, London-based Professor Paul Robinson’s examination of how the establishment Western media continues to ignore Putin’s open and vigorous rejection of Soviet Communism and his exhibited desire to memorialize its victims.

Second, I pass on a short article that appeared in The Washington Post back in 2008, shortly after the death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in which he praised Putin’s efforts to revive Russia’s traditional Christian and moral heritage, and, equally, Putin’s praise of Solzhenitsyn’s valiant opposition to Godless Communism.

Third, from that epitome of Establishment Deep State “high” journalism, I reproduce a 2013 article from The Atlantic monthly, worryingly suggesting that Putin was becoming the head of a “worldwide traditionalist conservative crusade” against the progressivist and modern West. It literally sent shivers down their secularist spines. Yet, the article is fascinating for offering a view in not only the minds of the cultural Marxist Left, but, with a certain irony, found also in much of basic Neocon thinking.

Fourth, from the large collection of Putin’s speeches that I have archived, I pass on excerpts of his “State of the State” address to the Russian people, December 16, 2013—this is representative of the rhetoric and imagery, and the historical references that he employs in most of his addresses, and also exemplifies the type of conservative legislation his political party, United Russia, has enacted in the Russian Duma. (The UR party hold 340 of the 450 seats.)

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Related:

“Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia” By Boyd Cathey.

Wall of Grief” BY PROFESSOR PAUL ROBINSON.

Toward end, Solzhenitsyn embraced Putin’s Russia,” Boston.com.

Vladimir Putin, Conservative Icon,” By Brian Whitmore.

TRANSCRIPT: [Putin] Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

UPDATE (11/7):