Forget Conservatives’ Alleged Phobias, Hillary — Rather, You Need to Reclaim a Healthy Fear of God

Featured

Hillary Clinton and her Democratic followers like to claim that those who disagree with them as suffering from phobias.  For those who want to be careful about allowing people from Islamic terrorist strongholds to immigrate at will, the charge of “Islamophobia” is levied.  If a Christian does not accept revisionist morality called “marriage equality” and accept that two men or two women can marry, he is suddenly a “homophobic.”  Besides being a stupid term, because it actually means an unreasonable fear of humans, it falsely wishes to say that such a person is fearful of homosexuals.

“Fear mongering” is also thrown at Donald Trump because he has the audacity to accurately explain the current dreadful condition of our nation.

With all of this talk of fear from the Left, it’s sad that the perpetrators of these false claims have lost their fear of God along the way.  In case any of them reads this, here is a summary on their actions which should cause them to pause and reconsider their possibilities on their judgment day.

Thou  shall  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor:  In simple terms, this Commandment refers to lying.  The Left should feel at home with this otherwise they wouldn’t join Hillary in continuing to label their adversaries as having psychological disorders (re: “phobias”).

So does the President they elected.  He said that there was “not a smidgen of corruption” with regard to the IRS unwarranted investigations of conservatives and that with Obamacare, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”  We know how these comments were exposed to be deliberately false.

Hillary has had a field day with her false statements to the FBI in her email case which endangered national security.  Although FBI Director James Comey admitted in a Congressional inquiry that several of her key statements were lies, she keeps claiming publically that the FBI did not find any of her statements to be false.  But this should be expected from someone who ignored ambassador Stevens’ request for more security then made up the story that the murderous Benghazi attack was incited by a video in order to prevent Obama from losing more votes in the 2012 election.

Thou  shall  not  Steal:  “The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Service (IRS) in 2015.”1  That speaks for itself.

Hillary also wants the wealthy to pay their “fair share.”  She plans to target those making more than $250,000 annually.  In 2014, those making that amount represented 2.7% of all tax filings and they paid 51.6% of taxes paid.2  Also, “The top 1% of households — defined as bringing in more than $730,000 a year — would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average, according to an analysis of  Clinton’s original tax plan from the Policy Center.”3

We can call these socialist plans a “redistribution of wealth,” but that’s only to disguise what it is:  stealing.  It may be surprising to many, but socialism is itself contrary to Christian beliefs.4

Thou shall not kill:  As of the start of this year, we have killed 58-1/2 million babies via abortion in the U.S. since the Supreme Court determined this was a “privacy” issue instead of murder in 1973.Regardless of the rationalizations calling it “women’s reproductive health” or “choice,” it has been understood to be murder since the earliest days of Christianity.For Hillary Clinton to support late term abortions is even more appalling.

Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery:  Getting the current drama out of the way first, Donald Trump’s deplorable disrespect for women in his words and alleged actions is certainly deplorable.  It’s irrelevant that some could be considered “locker room talk.”  However, it is surprising to hear Hillary speak so indignantly of him when she covered up and vilified those women with whom her husband was adulterous over the years including his time as President.7,8

Hillary Clinton is among a growing number of  proponents who believe in “marriage equality.”  This euphemism is for same-sex “marriage.”  While those afflicted with homosexual tendencies must be treated with love and respect, this charity does not extend itself to enabling disordered behavior.  Ancient traditions are not necessarily irrelevant and such is the situation with marriage.  This institution goes back to the earliest days of Judeo-Christian tradition and cannot be changed by humans as we did not create it.  Any attempt to include disordered behavior is seriously wrong.9,10

IN CONCLUSION, a healthy fear of God would do more to fix our nation than falsely accusing Donald Trump of being a fear-monger.

 

1 – In addition, “The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants.”  From “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” by Sean Davis, http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/, 9/16/2016.

2 – “From “High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be “fair’?” by Drew Desilver, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/, 4/13/2016.

3 – “Here’s how much Hillary Clinton’s tax plan would hit the rich,” by Jeanne Sahadi, http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/, 8/11/2016.

4 – Part of Section 15 of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum, published May 15, 1891, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

5 – “58,586,256 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973,” by Steven Ertelt, http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/, 1/14/2016.

6 – “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:  You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish…”
Part of paragraph 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing November 2013.
Note:  the “You shall not kill…” comes from the Didache, Tertullian and other Christian writings.

7 – “Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accusers,” by Shawn Boburg, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html, 9/28/2016.

8 – “Bill’s sex-assault victim lashes out over Hillary’s terrorizing,” by Jerome R. Corsi, http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/, 5/13/2016.

9 – “’K’maase Eretz Mitzrayim asher yeshavtem ba lo sa’asu – like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled do not do’ (Vayikra 18:3)”

“This verse prohibits the most immoral forms of behavior – idolatry, incest, adultery, bloodshed, male and female homosexual activity and bestiality[1]. The prohibition against male homosexual behavior is repeated in Vayikra 18:22. Prohibited homosexual activity includes any non-platonic physical contact; even yichud (seclusion) with someone of the same gender is forbidden for homosexually active individuals[2]…”

“Homosexual behavior is absolutely prohibited and constitutes an abomination[5]. Discreet, unconditionally halachically committed Jews who do not practice homosexuality but feel same sex attraction (ssa) should be sympathetically and wholeheartedly supported.  They can be wonderful Jews, fully deserving of our love, respect, and support. They should be encouraged to seek professional guidance.  Moreover, in an uninfected Torah society, appropriate sympathy for discreetshomrei Torah u’mitzvos who experience but do not act upon ssa is clearly distinguished from brazen public identification of their yetzer hara for forbidden behavior.  In a pure Torah society people would recognize that every individual neshama is given its own unique constellation of challenges and some of these challenges consist of feeling an impulse to forbidden behavior.  But every individual neshama also possesses the resilience and strength to triumph over its challenges[6]…”

Talmud Torah allows us to absorb the divine Weltanschauung. Inevitably, with respect to homosexuality, Talmud Torah will place us at odds with political correctness and the temper of the times. Nevertheless, we must be honest with ourselves, and with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, regardless of political correctness, considerations or consequences.

[1] The Sifra (Vayikra 138:5), cited by Rashi ad loc. refers to the atrocities of Eretz Mitzrayim as being the most corrupt of all nations. The Sifra (138:7) further provides the list of activities in which the Mitzriyim engaged. See also Rambam Hilchos Isurei Biah 21:8.

[2] Rambam Hilchos Isurei Biah 21:1,2; 22:1,2. See also Shulchan Aruch Even HoEzer 24

[5]Vayikra 18:22

[6] In the present forum we are not discussing the halachic category of shotim.

Taken from http://torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html#_ednref5

10 – “…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityA, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved… The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which id objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided… Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”

References can be found in Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Sections of paragraphs 2357-2359 come from of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing November 2013.

Same-Sex “Marriage,” Civil Rights for African-Americans, Abortion and Slavery

Featured

This title is a lead-in to discussing the “up is down and down is up” positions of U.S. liberals.  Given an opportunity to evaluate these, the Left would undoubtedly assert that three of the four are acceptable and desirable.

Yet in Judeo-Christian reality, the reverse is true. Three out of four are strongly unacceptable.

The first difficulty with the liberal position is the fallacy that “marriage equality” for the homosexual community is equivalent to racial civil rights.  Being African-American is not disordered behavior.  It is one of several genetic expressions of the human race — everyone of whom has inalienable rights.

The disordered condition of homosexuality1, whether innate or acquired2,3, requires the same compassion as due every other human situation.4  However, marriage is not an inalienable/ civil right and it cannot be viewed as equivalent to the racial civil rights cause.5  There is no justification that it be extended to everyone by civil jurisdictions who have no authority over the definition of this non-secular institution.6

At least most U.S. citizens agree that slavery is despicable.  For some reason, however, the evil of abortion is not as readily recognized as similarly heinous.  Perhaps it’s because the fallible Supreme Court erred seriously erred in deciding that the killing of the most vulnerable human beings was legal.  The era of convenience ushered in by the 1973 decision is so contrary to Judeo-Christian beliefs that it defies logic.7

Given the reversed vision of the Left, why should we trust them to issues like national security, honest elections, the federal debt, religious freedom and wages?

With their inclinations, they are likely to want unvetted immigration from terrorist hot spots, to declare that photo ID’s are more important for boarding a plane or buying alcohol than for voting, to think we can spend ourselves out of economic stagnation without slowing our economy further8, to prosecute those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and believe that a federal minimum wage is appropriate even though the cost of living in the least expensive state is 38% less than in the most.9

Wouldn’t this be an insane world if the current generation of liberals had their way?

 

1 – “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.  In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.  Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.”  Paragraph 2360 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

2 – “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds,” by Sarah Knapton, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html, 2/13/2014.

3 – “Homosexuality is learned behavior,” by Manin Brown, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-755425, 2/29/2012.

 4 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”  Paragraph 2358 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

5 – “But to examine this question further – while a civil right is meant to guarantee equality in particular points of law, that is only one half of the picture.  There is an old saying that goes back to Plato – equality for equals, inequality for unequals. In other words, when a right is applied equally to everyone in a given class, it is because it presupposes there are no essential distinctions within that class that would preclude the right from being equally applied.  To take an example the same-sex crowd always brings up, this is why the old Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage were struck down as civil rights violations.  It was recognized that men were men, and women were women; race is not intrinsic to sexuality, therefore there is no compelling distinction between the races that would preclude them from freely entering into the married state.  Essentially, the overturning of the old prohibitions on interracial marriage supports traditional marriage because the law recognized that any man can marry any woman.  Therefore the racist Jim Crow marriage laws were true instances of civil inequality because they were proposing distinctions in the application of rights which were in fact irrelevant; any man is capable of entering into marriage with any woman, and the right for any man to enter into the married state with any woman could not be infringed…”

“… Any person can enter into the married state, but not under any circumstances they may choose. The question is not one of civil rights but of the definition of marriage, which is what homosexual activists contest. Since gender difference and sexual intercourse is intrinsic to understanding the institution of marriage, it is no discrimination of civil rights to say that the married state cannot be conferred on those whose relationships do not involve sexual intercourse.”  From “Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Right,” http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/445-homosexual-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right.html

6 – “’The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.’A  The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.  Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.  These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,B some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures.  ‘The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.’”

A ,B– From the papal encyclical, “Gaudium at spes,” (“Joy and Hope”) section 48 paragraph 1 and section 47 paragraph 2 respectively, published 12/7/1965.

(Paragraph 1603 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.)

7 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…” Excerpts from Paragraphs 2270, 2271 and 2271, Ibid.

8https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/jeremiah-was-criticized-for-speaking-truth-of-bad-state-of-affairs-trump-knows-how-he-felt/

9https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/why-a-national-15-hour-minimum-wage-makes-no-sense/

Team Owners Should Be Penalized for Other Evils, Too

(For those of you reading from the WordPress index, do not be discouraged by this posting’s length, about 350 words are in the footnotes.)

The fraternity of sports team owners is a unique group. In the early days, most owners were wealthy sports enthusiasts who paid attention to profit only because it was necessary to stay in business. Their real passion was the sport itself. For every Charles Comiskey who was willing to treat his players so poorly that they were ripe for the temptations of gamblers, there were at least two or three Clark Griffiths who endured financial losses because baseball was their love.

Now, big money rules sports. The bottom line is Priority #1 and if a championship results as well, then that’s a nice bonus!

MAJOR LEAGUE FRANCHISES AREN’T ORDINARY BUSINESSES

Despite the shift in emphasis, owners still appreciate the uniqueness of their situation and operate it as such. For example, each major league has a barrier to entry not seen in other industries. It requires more than money to buy an existing franchise or to establish a new one. In each case, the present owners must approve the action, and usually by more than a simple majority.

Owners in a league are also subject to league rules similar to those in a homeowners association. While these regulations are not as petty as many of those affecting home
owners, the financial consequences of misconduct are far greater for the sports owner.

STERLING’S RACIST REMARKS, THE PUNISHMENT AND A MORAL PRECEDENT

Such occurred recently for Donald Sterling, owner of the NBA Los Angeles Clippers, when a private conversation was made public in April. (The motives of the individual revealing the conversation should be debated, but in another venue.) This married man told his mixed-race Mexican girlfriend:

“There’s nothing wrong with minorities. They’re fabulous…I don’t want you to hate. I want you to love them – privately.” The clincher was when he said later, “and not to bring them (her black friends) to any games.”1

Infidelity aside, the NBA had to respond when Sterling’s severely disrespectful views became known. The league understands its prominent and privileged place in sports. It requires that it present a higher standard in its public image. The uncharitable remarks by Sterling exhibited not only a shameful view of his fellow human beings, but a blatant disregard for the majority of his players whose efforts allow him to reap the benefits of free enterprise.

This article is not judging the league’s decision to fine Mr. Sterling $2.5 million (the maximum allowed by league rules) or to force him out of the fraternity of league owners. But take note, when it did, it established a moral precedent for itself and other leagues. Unfortunately, it is a precedent which will likely be respected selectively.

WE’RE STILL A LONG WAY FROM PROMOTING ALL THAT IS RIGHTEOUS

That Sterling’s statements were not deemed trivial is a step in the right direction. His sin against charity2, in what is now a public setting, required a serious penalty. His views were morally wrong and they also hinder the prospects of what he and his team’s fans want most—a winning team.

What is troubling, however, is that other gravely improper behavior by owners is not just overlooked, but is glorified by a public with a malformed conscience.
For many, the shame of racial discrimination has blinded them from the severity of great evils such as artificial population control and the push to legitimize the impossible—same-sex marriage.3,4,5 These are direct slams at God, who is the Author of Life, or at Natural Law for those who are unbelievers.

A team owner who espouses racial prejudice commits a wrong which is evident by the damage it does to the harmony needed in business and demanded by a civil society.

A team owner who supports abortion (and its relative, artificial birth control6) trivializes human life and is striving for a control over life which is not within his authority. When respect for human life is compromised, other dangerous rationalizations automatically follow. And they have.

The endorsement of same-sex “marriage” is a most presumptuous act.7 No human can change the definition of marriage because it is not an invention of the state.

These actions represent a rejection of Natural Law are not without automatic consequences, regardless of human attempts at intervention.

Dealing with the Donald Sterlings of this world is the first stage of getting our house in order. Now let’s repair the foundation before it’s too late.

1 – 4/26/2014 on http://www.youtube.com

2 – “’If I…have not charity,’ says the Apostle, ‘I am nothing.’ Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, ‘if I…have not charity, I gain nothing.’ Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: ‘So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity.’” Paragraph 1826 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994) which also quotes from 1 Corinthians 13.

3 – “’ By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is them that it finds its crowning glory…” Part of paragraph 1652, Ibid.

4 – “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.” Paragraph 1654, Ibid.

5 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…” Paragraph 2358, Ibid.

6 – “… In contrast, ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil…” Paragraph 2370, Ibid.

7 – “… It (homosexuality) has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (citing Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10 and 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Paragraph 2357, Ibid.